!aaassseee: :     333: :000888-­-­-cccvvv-­-­-000000111555888-­-­-!VVVGGG-­-­-RRRMMM              DDDooocccuuummmeeennnt t     ###: :     111              FFFi il leeeddd: :     111222/ /222333/ /000888              PPPaaagggeee     222     ooof f     888

!aaassseee: :     333: :000888-­-­-cccvvv-­-­-000000111555888-­-­-!VVVGGG-­-­-RRRMMM              DDDooocccuuummmeeennnt t     ###: :     111              FFFi il leeeddd: :     111222/ /222333/ /000888              PPPaaagggeee     333     ooof f     888

!aaassseee: :     333: :000888-­-­-cccvvv-­-­-000000111555888-­-­-!VVVGGG-­-­-RRRMMM              DDDooocccuuummmeeennnt t     ###: :     111              FFFi il leeeddd: :     111222/ /222333/ /000888              PPPaaagggeee     444     ooof f     888

!aaassseee: :     333: :000888-­-­-cccvvv-­-­-000000111555888-­-­-!VVVGGG-­-­-RRRMMM              DDDooocccuuummmeeennnt t     ###: :     111              FFFi il leeeddd: :     111222/ /222333/ /000888              PPPaaagggeee     555     ooof f     888

!aaassseee: :     333: :000888-­-­-cccvvv-­-­-000000111555888-­-­-!VVVGGG-­-­-RRRMMM              DDDooocccuuummmeeennnt t     ###: :     111              FFFi il leeeddd: :     111222/ /222333/ /000888              PPPaaagggeee     666     ooof f     888

!aaassseee: :     333: :000888-­-­-cccvvv-­-­-000000111555888-­-­-!VVVGGG-­-­-RRRMMM              DDDooocccuuummmeeennnt t     ###: :     111              FFFi il leeeddd: :     111222/ /222333/ /000888              PPPaaagggeee     777     ooof f     888

!aaassseee: :     333: :000888-­-­-cccvvv-­-­-000000111555888-­-­-!VVVGGG-­-­-RRRMMM              DDDooocccuuummmeeennnt t     ###: :     111              FFFi il leeeddd: :     111222/ /222333/ /000888              PPPaaagggeee     888     ooof f     888

 -~ - - - - -

··-------------- -

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 3 Filed: 03/24/09 Page 1 of 33

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VlRGIN ISLANDS

UNITEDSTATESOFANUllUC~
Plaintiff;
v.
I. THE TERRITORY OF THE VJRGIN ISLANDS; and
2. THE VJRGIN ISLANDS POUCE DEPARTMENT
Defendant$.

)

)

)

)

)

C.A. No.

- ~'
- ·- L (

r
,· •

)
) CONSENT DECREE

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CONSENT DECREE

/ ·__, 1--;

= = ~
~

;"_-,_"o_';_"u__C;,,"r.>,
'o-~ "-"-n't:"ox"'
">n-.,
-<"•-§'-o:<i_:_:"_c_:',

:>I:
","s.".'-'
:X
-..

:::0 fTI 0 fTI
<
fTI D

sc:.>-

Noting the general principle that settlements are to be encouraged, particularly settlements between goven;unental entities, and having considered the terms of the measures) set forth herein, that the DCfendants agree to undertake to· remedy apattern or practice- ofconduct by officers in the Virgin Islands Police Department' that deprives individuals of rights, privileges or imlnunities secured by the Constitution or federal law, it is ORDERED, ADniDGED AND DECREED that Judgment shall be entered in tlris matter pursuant to the following terms and conditions:

I
i
I '--

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 3 Filed: 03/24/09 Page 2 of 33

TABLE OF CONTENTS

l

JN1RODUCT!ON .............................................................................................................. 1

A. Background .................................,.......................... ................................................ 1
B. General Provisions ................................................................................................ 1 C. Detiirltions .............................................................................................................. 3

Il USE OF FORCE POUCIES .............................................................................................. 5

ill EVALUATION, DOCUMENTATION, AND REVIEW OF USES OF FORCE ............. 6

A. General Use afForce Incidents ............................................................................... 6 B. Specific Force Policies ........................................................................................... 7

N. CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS .............:.................................................................... 8

A Public Information ................................................................................................ 8 B. Means of Filing and Tracking of Complaints ........................................................ 8 C. !ovestigation of Complaints ................................................................................... 9

V. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION ................,....................................................... 11

A. Risk Management System .................................................................................... 11
B. Oversight .............................................................................................................. 16
C. Discipline ......................................................................,..................................... 16

VI. TRAmrnG ...................................................................................................................... 17

A Management Oversight ........................................................................................ 17 B. Curriculum .......,................................................................................................... 18

Case: 3:08--cv--00- 158--C- VG--RM- -Do-cum-en-t #-: 3-F- iled·: 03- /24- /09- - Pag-e - 3 o- f 3- 3 - --
Vll. MONITORING, REPORTING, AND lMPLEMENTATION ........................................ 20
A. Independent Monitor ............................................................................................ 20 B. Independent Monitor Reports .............................................................................. 23 C. Virgin Islands Police Department Reports and Records ...................................... 24
D. lmplemeotation .................................................................................................... 25

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 3 Filed: 03/24/09 Page 4 of 33
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
!. In March 2004, the Department ofJustice ("DOJ'') initiated an investigation of an alleged pattern or practice of excessive force throughout the Virgin Islands Police Department (''VIPD'1 under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 ("Section 14141'~.
2. Virgin Islands officials met with DOJ officials to facilitate the Virgin Islands' cooperation with the Departmc:mt ofJustice investigation and craft a consent decree addressing all the parties' concelns. This consent decree ("Agreement") is the result of a cooperative effort that evinces a commitment to constitutional policing on the part of the Department ofJustice; the Territory ofthe Virgin Islands; and the Virgin lslsnds Police Department (collectively, "the parties'1.
B. General Previsions
3. The parties share a mutual interest in promoting effective and respectful policing. They join together in entering this Agreement to promote police integrity and prevent conduct that deprives persons ofrights. privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or the laws of the United States,
4. This Agreement is effectuated pursuant to the authority granted DOJ under Section 14141 to seek declaratory or equitable relief to remedy a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives individuals of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or federal law.
5. In its investigation ofthe VIPD, DOJ, in conjunction with two police practices consultants,"conducted a detailed fact-finding review, including ride-alongs and tours of the VJPD's facilities, interviews with Virgin Islands officials. VIPD command staff, supervisorS, and police officers; and review of more than 25,000 pages of documents. In addition, in October2005, DOJ sent the Virgin Islands a letter providing detailed technical assistance regarding VIPD practices and policies in the areas ofuse of force, citizen complaints, investigations, discipline, supervisory oversight, and training. Throughout the investigation, there were numerous problems and delays regarding VIPD's responses to DOJ's investigatory requests, including the unavailability of a number ofVIPD documents under the prior administration of the Virgin Islands.
1

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Doc-um·e·n·t #·: -3 -F-ile-d:-0-3/24/09 Page 5 of 33
6. In its Complaint, the United States alleges that the Territory ofthe Virgin Islands and the Virgin Islands Polic_e Department {collectively, "the Defendants") are violating 42 U.S.C. § 14141 by engaging in a pattern or practice of excessive force by officers of the Virgin Islands Police Department and by the failure to adequately train, supervise,
investigate, and discipline officers, and. :the failure to establish consistent policies,
procedures, and practices that appropriately guide and monitor the actions ofVIPD
officers and the VJPD's response to those actions.
7. For purposes ofthis lawsuit only and in order to settle this matter, the Defendants consent to the entry of a .finding that they engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct by VIPD officers that deprives p·ersons of rights, priVileges, or imm.UDities secured or protected by the Constitution or the laws ofthe United States in each area addressed in
Sections n-VI of this Agreement. The Defendants are firmly committed to refraining
from engaging in any ofthe predicate acts fon:n.ing the basis of this pattern or practice of conduct by instituting the remedial measures required by this Agreement.
8. This court has jurisdiction of this ection under28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345. The United States is authorized to initiate this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14141. Venue is proper
in the Dis1rict ofthe Virgin Islands pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because lhe Defendants
reside in and the claims arose in the District ofthe Vtrgin Islands. '
· 9. The parties enter into this settlement jOintly for the purpose of avoiding the burdens of litigation and to partner in support ofvigorous and constitutional law enforcement. Moreover, joint ~try ofthis Agreement is in the public interest because it provides for
expeditious remedial activity, promotes the use ofthe best available policing practices
and procedures, and avoids the diversion offederal and Territorial resources to adversarial actions by the parties.
rD. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to alter the lawful authority of the VIPD to use reasonable and necessary force, effect arrests and file charges, conduct searches or make seiz_ures, or otherwise fulfill its law enforcement obligations in a manner consistent with the requirementS of the Constitution and laws of the United States and the Territory of the Virgin Islands.
11. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to: a) alter the existing collective bargaining agreements between the VIPD and the Police Benevolent Association and between the VIPD and the Law Enforcement Supervisors Union; orb) impair the collective bargaining rights of employees under Territorial and local law. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to amend or supercede any provision of Territorial or local law.
2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 3 Filed: 03/24/09 Page 6 of 33
12. This Agreement shall constitute the entire integrated agreement of the parties. With the exception of correspondence resultiog from technical assistance the United States has provided to the VIPD regarding use offorce, citizen complaints. investigationS, discipline, supervisory oversight, and training, no prior drafts or prior or contemporaneous communications, oral or written, will be relevant or admissible for purposes ofdetermining the mea.nillg ofany provisions herein in any litigation or limY other proceeding.
13. This Agreement is binding upon the parties, by and through their officials, agents, employees, and successors. This Agreement is enforceable only by the parties. No person or entity is intended to be a third-party beneficiary ofthe provisions of this Agreement for purposes of any civil, criminal, or administrative action, and accordingly, no person or entity may assert any claim or right as a beneficiary or protected class under this Agreement This Agreement is not intended to impair or expand the right of any person or organization to seek relief against'the Defendants for their conduct or the conduct ofVIPD officers; accordingly, it does not alter legal standards governing any such claims, including those under Virgin Islands law. This Agreement does not authorize, nor will it be construed to authorize, access to any Virgin Islands, VIPD, or DOJ documents, except ss expressly provided by this Agreemen~ by persons or entities other than DOJ, the Defendants, and the Monitor.
14. The 'l;'enitory ofthe Virgin Islands is responsible for providing necessary support and
resources to the VlPD and Police Commissioner to enable each ofthem to fulfill their
obligations under this Agreement.
15. The Defendants, by and through their officials, agents, employees, and successors, are enjoined from engaging in a pattern or practice of conduct by VIPD officers that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the laws ofthe United States.
C. Definitions
16. The term 'Territory" means the Territory ofthe V~gin Islands, including its agents, officers and employees.
17. The term "VJPD" means the Virgin Islands Police Department, its agents and its employees {both swom snd unsworn).
18: The term "Court" means the United States District Judge for the District ofthe Virgin Islands presiding over this case. 3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 3 Filed: 03/24/09 Page 7 of 33 ------------~-~---
19. The~ "DOJ" means the United States Department of Justice and its agents and employees.
20. The term "deadly force•• -means any use afforce likely to cause death or serious physical injmy, including. but not limited to, the discharge of a firearm.
21. The term "force" means any physical coercion used to effect, influence or persuade an individual to comply with an order from an officer. The term shall not include ordinary, unresisted handcuffing. The tenn shall include the use of chemical irritant and the deployment of a canine and/or pointing a firearm at or in the direction of a human being.
22. The tenn "critical fireann discharge" means each discharge of a fireann by a VIPD officer with the exception ofrange and training discharges and discharges at animals.
23. The term "Monitox" means a person or team ofpeople who shall be selected. pursuant to paragraphs 82 and 83, to monitor and report on the VIPD's implementation of this Agreement.
24. The term "discipline'" means a written reprimand, suspension, demotion or dismissal.
25. The term '~on-disciplinary corrective action" refers to action other than discipline taken by a VIPD supervisor'to enable or encourage an officer to modify or improve his or her
perfurmance,
26. The term "police officer" or "officer" meana any Jaw enforcement officer employed by VIPD, including supervisors.
27. The tenn "supervisor" means a sworn VIPD employee at the rank of corporal or above (or anyone acting in those capacities) and non-sworn personnel with oversight responsibility for other officers.
28. The tenn "compla!nf' means any complaint by a member of the public regarding VIPD services, policy or procedure, claims for damages (which allege officer misconduct) or officer misconduct; and any allegation ofpossible misconduct made by a VIPD officer.
4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM-~D-o- cu· m·· e- n- t · #- : - 3--F-i- le- d-:-0-3-/- 2- 4~ /0~9- Page 8 of 33
29. The term "compla:iru3nf' means any person who files a complaint against an officer or the VJPD.
30. The term "implement'J or 11implementation" means the development or putting into place
a of policy orproced~. including the appropriate training ofpersonnel.
U. USE OF FORCE POLICIES
31. · The VIPD will review and revise its use of force policies as necessary to:
a. define terms ·clearly; b. · define force as that tenn is defined in this Agreement;
c. incorporate a use of force model that teaches disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements or calling in specialized units as appropriate responses to a situation;
<l advise that, whenever possible, individuals should be allowed to submit to arrest before force is used;
e. reinforce that the use ofexcessive force will subject officers to
disCipline, possible criminal prosecuti~ and/or civil liability;
f. ensure that sufficient less lethal alternatives are available to all patrol officers; and
g. explicitly prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized.
Once the DOJ has reviewed and approved ~e policies, the VJPD shall immediately implement any revisions.
5

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 3 Filed: 03/24/09 Page 9 of 33

ill. EVALUATION, DOCUMENTATION, AND REVIEW OF USES OF FORCE

A. General Use afForce Incidents

32. The VIPD will require all uses afforce to be documented in writing. The use of force report form will indicate each and every type of force that was used, and require the
evaluation.of each use of force. Use of force reports will include a supervisor's narrative description of the events preceding the use of force, and include the officer(s)' narrative description of events and the officer(s)' audiotape<! statement.

33. Officers shall notify their supervisors following any use afforce or upon the receipt of an
allegation of excessive force. Supervisors will respond to the scene, examine the subject for injury, interview the subject for complaints ofpain, and ensure that the subject receives needed medical attention.

34. Supervisors will review, evaluate, and document each use of force, and will complete the
supervisor's narrative description section of the use afforce report. The supervisor's narrative description will include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that
either justify or fail to justify the officer's conduct. As part ofthis review, the supervisor
will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officer's actions were within VIPD policy. An officer who used force during the incident, or whose
conduct led to an injury, or who authorized conduct leading to the use offorce or
allegation of excesBive force, Will not be eligible to review the incident.

35. The parties agree that it is improper interview procedure during use of force reviews to

ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that improperly suggest legal

justifications for the officer's conduct when such questions are contrary to appropriate

law enforcement techniques. In each review, the VIPD will consider all relevant

evidence including circw:nstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make

I

credibility determinations, if feasible. The VIPD will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. The VIPD will train all of

its supervisors on the factors to consider when evaluating credibility.

36. Supervisors shall conduct a performance review of all uses of force or an injury resulting from a use of force by any officer under their command. In a performance Ieview, supervisors shall interview all wim.esses. to a use of force or an injury resulting from a use of force. Consistent with the requirements of the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable law, VIPD supervisors shall ensure that all officer witnesses provide a
6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 3 Filed: 03/24/0- 9 - Pa- ge - 10 o- f 3- 3 · --·-··
statement regarding the incident. Supervisors shall ensure that all use offorce reports identify all officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred. Supervisors shall ensme that all reports indicate whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided, and whether the subject refused medic·al treatment. Supervisors shall ensure that all reports include contemporaneous photographs or videotapes taken of all injuries at the earliest praCticable opportunity, both before and
after any treatment, including cleansing of wounds.
37. A Deputy Chiefwill evaluate each performance review conducted by supervisors, identify any deficiencies in those reviews, and require supervisors to correct any deficiencies. Supervisors will be held accountable for the quality oftheir reviews. Appropriate non-disciplinary conective action and/or disciplinary action will be taken when a supervisor fails to conduct a timely and thorough review, or neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action, or neglects to properly implement appropriate COITf?CtiVe action.
38. The VIPD will investigate or review as appropriate all critical firearm discharges. The VIPD will ensme that the investigation or review accounts for all shots and the locations
of all officers who discharged their firearms. The VIPD will conduct all ballistic or
crime scene analyses. including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate.
B. Specific Force Policies
39. VD?D shall complete development of a Use ofFirearms policythat complies with applicable law and current professional standards. The policy shall prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition and shall inform officers that any such use may subject them to disciplinary action. The policy shall establish a single, unifonn reporting system for all firearms discharges. The policy shall prohibit officers from obtaining service ammunition from any source except througll official VIPD channels, and _shall specifY the number of rounds VIPD authorizes its officers to carry. The po.licy will continue to require that all discharges of firearms by officers on- or offduty) ilicluding unintentional discharges, be reported and investigated.
40. The VIPD shall revise its policies regarding off-duty ofiicm taking police action to:
a. provide that off-duty officers shall notify on--duty VIPD or local law enforcez;nent officers before taking police action, absent exigent circumstances, so that they may respond with appropriate personnel and resources to handle the problem; 7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 3 Filed: 03/24/09 Page 11 of 33
b. provide that, if it appears the officer has consumed alcohol or is otherwise impaired, the officer shall submit to field sobriety, breathalyser, and/or blood tests.
41. The VJPD shall continue to provide an intermediate foroe device, which is between chemical spray and firearms on the force continuum, that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The VIPD shall continue its policy regarding the intermediate force device, incorporate the intermediate force device into the force continuum and train all officers in its use on an annual basis.
IV. CITIZEN COMPLAJ:NT PROCESS
A. Public Information
42. The VJPD will develop and implement a program to infonn persons that they may file complaints regarding the perfonnance of any officer. This program will include distribution of complaint forms, fact sheets, informational posters, and public service announcements that describe the citizen Complaint process.
43. The VJPD will make complaint forms and informational materials available at appropriate government properties such as VIPD district stations, substations, and mobile substations, libraries, the Internet, an4, upon request, to commwity groups and community centers. At each VIPD district station, substation, and mobile substation, the VIPD will permanently post a placard describing the complaiD.t process and include the relevant phone numbers. These placards shall be displayed in both English and Spanish and where deemed necessary in French or French P-atois to account for diversity in the VI population. The VlPD will require all officers to carry infonnational brochures and complaint folDls, in English, Spanish, and French Patois translation, in their vehicles at all times while on duty. Ifa citizen objects to an officer's conduct, that officer will inform the citizen ofhis or her right to make a complaint. Officers will not discourage any person from making a complaint.
B. Means ofFiling and Tracking of Complaints
44. Complaints may be filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or 1DD), facsimile or electronic mail. The duty officer at the front desk of each district station will 8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 3 Filed: 03/24/09 Page 12 of 33
be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints. which persons may file at any district station. Complaint intake officers may describe facts that bear upon a complainant's demeanor and physical condition but may not express opinions regarding his/her mental competency or veracity. Each complaint will be resolved in writing. Upon receipt, each complaint will be assigned a unique identifier, which will be provided to the complainant. Bach complaint will be tracked according to the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, improper search~ etc.).
45. Copies of all alleg;t.tions ofmisconduct against the VIPD filed with the Zone Commands will be referred to Jntemal Affairs Unit (''!AU'') within five business days.
C. Investigation ofComplaints
46. Complaints will be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, for wbich the Territory will develop and implement appropriate training.
47. The VIPD will explicitly prohibit from investigating an incident any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to the injury to a person, or who authorized
the conduct that led to these reportable incidents.
48. The VIPD will investigate every citizen complaint. The VlPD will establish a clear policy and procedure regarding the intake of any complaint, including anonymous and confidential complaints, against a VIPD officer. This p'olicy and these procedures will inclu-de instructions to an officer for Wring a complaint and prompt delivery to a supervisor.
· 49. The VIPD will institute a centralized numbering and tracking syatem for all complaints, and each complaint will r-eceive a tracking number as quickly as possible. The IAU will be designated as the primary and centralized agency to detem:rine whether the investigation will be assigned to zone (one ofthe seven zones located throughout the Virgin lslanda), retained by the !AU, or referred for possible criminal investigation. If the IAtl refers a complaint to a zone, copies of all documents, findings, -and recommendations should he immediately forwarded to the !AU fur tr'"'lring and monitoring. For complaints alleging the excessive use offorce or violation of a person's constitutional rights, the Police Commissioner should be notified no less than twenty·four hours after receipt of a complaint.
9
I I

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 3 Filed: 03/24/09 Page 13 of 33 .. · · - - - · ~

--~~

·--~-~~--~- ·--~-----------~~----~--~-

~--- -----~-- - - - - - - - -

50. The VIPD will adopt a single policy concerning the investigation ofmisconduct complaints, regardless ofwhether the investigation is conducted by the IAU or a zone.
51. The VIPD will establish policies and procedures and !;.lin all ofits investigators on the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility; examination and interrogation of accused officers and other witnesses; identifying misconduct even if it is not specifically named in the cOmplaint; and using the preponderance ofthe evidence standard as the appropriate burden ofproof. VIPD investigators will ensure that all
officers on the scene ofan incident provide a statement regarding the incident. The policy will require that all interviews be mechanically recorded using an audio or video tape.
52. The policy will require that the investigative :lindings include whether: 1) the police action was in compliance with policy, training and legal standards, regardless of whether the complainant suffered harm; 2) the incident involved misconduct by any officer; 3) the use of different tactics should or could have been employed; 4) the incider:tt indicates a need for additional training, counseling Or other non-disciplinary corrective measures;
and 5) the incident suggests that the VIPD should revise its policies, tra:iJli.n& or tactics.
53. The policy will prQvide clear guidance to all investigators regarding the procedures for handling criminal misconduct allegations, referring them to the Virgin Islands Attorney General's Office or other appropriate agency for possible criminal prosecution, and the entity or individual who should make the determination ofwhether the complaint should be investigated criminally. The policy shall continue to require the completion of an administrative investigation) irrespective of the initiation or outcome of criminal proceedings.
54. In each investigation, the VIPD will Consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. There will be no auton;tatic preference for an officer's statement over a non--officer's statement, nor will the V1PD completely disregard a witness' statement merely because the witness has some connection to the complainant.
The VIPD will make efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness
statements.
55. During an investigation, all relevant police activity, including each use offeree (ie., not just the type of force complained about) will continue to be investigated. The investigation will also evaluate any searches or seizures that occurred during the incident. The VJPD will not close an investigation simply because the complaint is withdrawn or 10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 3 Filed: 03/24/09 Page 14 of 33
the aqeged victim is unwilling or unable to provide ~edical records or proof ofinjury or the complainant will not prOvide additional statements or written statements; rather, the investigating agency will continue its investigation.as necessary to deterinine whether the original allegation(s) can be resolved based on the information, evidence, and investigatory procedures and techniques available. In each investigation, the fact that a complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense will not be considered as evidence of whether a VIPD officer used or did not use a type of force, nor will it-justify discontinuing the investigation.
56. The complainant will be periodically kept informed regarding the status of the investigation. Upon completion of the -investigation, the complainant will be notified of its outcome, including an appropriate statement regarding whether any non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action was taken.
57. Each allegation in an investigation will be resolved by making one of the following dispositions:
a. ''Unfcnmded," where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that no facts to support that the incident complained of actually occurred;
b. "Sustained.'~ where the investigation determines, by a prepondenmce ofthe evidence, that the person's allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the incident occUrred and the actions of the officer were improper;
c. ''Not Sustained," where the investigation determines, by a preponderance ofthe evidence, that there are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred; and
d. ''Exonerated/' where the investigation detennines,. by a preponderance ofthe evidence, that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate VIPD policies. procedures, or training,
58. Unit commanders will evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command to identifY underlying problems and training needs. Any such problems or needs will be relayed in the form of a recommendation to the appropriate VIPD entity.
11

- - - - -Ca-se-: 3-:08--cv--0-015-8--CV-G--RM- -Do-cu-me-nt -#: -3 -Fil-ed:-03-/2- 4/0-9 -Page 15 of 33
V. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
A. Risk Management S)'lltom
,.
59. The VIPD will develop and implement a risk management system to include a new computerized relational database or paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for supervision and management ofthe VIPD. Priority will be given to the VIPD obtaining any established program and system. The VIPD will regularly use this Q.ata to promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance ofVIPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts.
60. The new risk management system will collect and record the following information:
a. all uses offorce;
b. canine·biteratios;
c. the nUmber of canisters of chemical spray used by officers;
d. all injuries to prisoners;
e. all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with ''resisting arrest," "assault on a police officer," "disorderly conduct," or "obstruction of official business;"
all critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty;
g. all complaints (and their dispositions);
h. all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims tiled with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the Territory and its officers; or agents, resulting from VIPD operations or the actions ofVIPD personnel;
12

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 3 File-d--:-0--3-/-2-4- /- 09-P- ag- e 1- 6 o- f 3- 3
I. all vehicle pursuits;
j. all incidents involving the pointing of a fueann (if aoy such reporting is
j
required); and
k. all disciplinary action taken against officers.
61. The new risk management system will-include, for the incidents included- in the database, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (e.g., name, badge number, shift and supervisor) and civilian (e.g., race, etlmicity or national origin, if available).
62. Within 120 days of the implementation of the new risk management aystem, or later with the agreement ofDOJ, the VIPD will prepare, for the review and approval ofDOJ, a plan for including appropriate fields and values· ofnew and historical data into the risk managemeot system (the "Data lnput Plan'} The Data input Plao will identifY the data to be included and the means for inputtiug such data (direct entry or otherwise), the specific fields of information to be. included, the p.ast time periods for which information is to be included, the deadlines for inputting the data, and the responsibility fur the input ofthe data. The Data Input Plan will include historical data that is up-to-date and complete in the risk management system. The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final review and approval within 30 days after it is preseoted for approval.
63. The VIPD will, within 120 dsys, prepare for the review aod approval ofDOJ, and thereafter implement, a protocol for using the risk management system. The VIPD will submit for the review and approval ofDOJ all proposed modifications to the protocol prior to implementing such modifications.
64. The protocol for using the risk management system will include the following provisions and elements:
a. The pro-tocol is comprised of the following components: data storage, data retrieval, reporting, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation and audit.
b. The protocol will require the automated system to analyze the data according to the following l;:riteria: I) number of incidents for each data category by individual 13

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 3 Filed: 03/24/09 Page 17 of 33
I
I
officer and by all officers in a unit; ii) average level of activity for each data · category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and iii) identification ofpatterns of aotivity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit.
c. The protocol will require the system to generate reports on a moQ.thly basis describing the data and data aualysis and identifying individual and tmit patterns.
d. The protocol will re<jllire that VIPD daputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors will review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, system reports, and WJ.ll evaluate individual officer, supervisor, and tmit aotivity.
e. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors initiate intervention for individual officers, SUpervisors and for units based on appropriate activity and pattern assessment of the information contained in the risk management system.
f. The protocol will require that intervention options include discussion by deputy chiefs, managers, supervisors, and officers; counseling; training; and supervised, monitored, and docwnented action plans and strategies designed to modify activity. All interventions will be documented in writing and entered into the automated system (appropriate intervention options will be employed based on the evaluation described in subsection.(e) above).
g. The protocOl will specify that actions taken as a result ofinformation from the risk management system be based on all relevant and appropriate infonnation, including the nature of the offi-cer's assignment, crime trends and crime problems, and not ·solely on the number or percentages of incidents in any category pf information recotded in the risk management system.
h. " The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers~ and supervisors. will promptly review the risk management system records of all officers recently transferred to their sections and units.
1. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors be evaluated on their ability to us~ the risk management system to enhance effectiveness and reduce risk.
14

I

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 3 Filed: 03/24-· /0- 9~· Pa· g- e- 18-o~ f- 33- - -

'

J·

The protocol will require that the system be managed and administered by the

Internal Affairs Unit of the VIPD. The !AU of the VIPD will conduct quarterly

audits of the system to ensure action is taken according to the process described

above.

k. The protocol will require regular reviews, at no less than quarterly intervals, by appropriate managers ofall relevant risk management system information to evaluate officer performance territory-wide, and to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all VIPD units in order to identify any
significant patterns or series ofincidents.

65. The VIPD will maintain all personally identifiable information about an officer included in the risk management system during the officer's employment with the VIPD for at
least five years. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis will be maintained indefinitely in the risk management system. On an ongoing basis, the VIPD will enter information into the risk management system in a timely, accurate, and complete manner, and maintain the data in a secure ~d confidential ~er.

66. The new risk management system will be purchased off the shelf and customized by

VIPD. Alternatively, the new risk management system maybe developed and

implemented according to the fullowing schedule:

·

a, Withln 150 days of the effective date of this Agreement, subject to the review and approval ofDOJ, the VIPD will issi:te a Request for Proposal (RFP).

b. Within 270 days of the issuance of the RFP, or later with the agreement ofDOJ, the VIPD will select the contractor to create the risk management system.

c. Within 150 days ofthe effective date ofthis Agreement, the VIPD will submit the protocol for using the rbk management system to DOJ for review and approval. The VIPD will share drafts ofthis document with DOJ and the Monitor
(a.position described in Section VJI) to allow DOJ and the Monitor to become familiar with the document as it develops and to provide informal comments on it The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that tlie protocol receives final approval within 30 days after it is presented for review and approval.
15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 3 Filed: 03/24/09 Page 19 of 33
d. Within 14 months of selecting the contractor, the VIPD will have ready fur testing
a beta version of the risk management system consisting of: I) server hardware
and operating systems installed, confignred and integrated with the VIPD's existing automatad systems; ii) necessary data base softwsre installed and configured; iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and iv) the use of force infOIIIIAtion system completed, including historic data. DOJ and
the Monitor will have the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version
using nse of force data and test data created specifically for purposes of checking
the risk management system.
e. The risk management system computer program and computer hardware will be operational and fully implemented within 20 months ofthe selection of the risk management system contractor.
67. Prior to implementation of the new risk management system, the VWD wiU continue to
use existing databases and resources to the fullest extent possible, to identify patterns of conduct by VIPD offiCers or groups of officers.
68. Following the initial implementation of the risk management system, and as experience and the availability ofnew technology may warran~ the VIPD may propose to add, subtrac~ or modify data tables and fields, modify the list of documents scanned or e~ectronically attached, and add, subiract, or modify standardized reports and queries. The VIPD will submit all such proposals for review and approval by DOJ before implementation.
B. Oversight
69. The VIPD will davelop a protocol for condnoting audits. The protocol will be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol will establish a regnlar and fixed schedule to ensnre that snch audits occnr with sufficient frequency, and cover all VIPD zones.
C. Discipline
70. The VJPD will continue to utilize a disciplinary matrix to take into account an officer's violations of different rules, rather than just repeated violations of the same rule. The V!PD will further revise this matrix to increase the penalties for uses of excessive force, 16

Case: ~~~-----3·:·0·8·--c-v---00.158--C-VG--R-M- -Do-cu-m-en-t #-: 3- -Fil-ed-: 0-3/-24/0- 9-- P...a-ge- -20-o-f-33- - - - -
improper searches and seizures, discriminati~ or dishonesty, to reflect the seriousness of those infractions. The revised disciplinary matrix will provide the VIPD with the discretj.on to impose any appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes the officei's misconduct exhibits a lack Of:fitness for duty. This revised matrix will be subject to the review and approval ofDOJ.
71. VIPD policy will oontinue to identify clear time periods by which the various steps of a complaint adjudication process should be completed, from complaint receipt to the imposition of discipline, if any. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions will not be granted without the Police Commissioner's written approval and notice to the complainant. In the limited circumstances when an extension is necessary, appropriate tolling piovisions will be outlined in the policy.
72. Absent exceptional circumstances, the V1PD will not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix indicates the imposition of
discipline. In a case where discipline has been imposed on an officer, the VIPD must also consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action is required.
VL TRAINING
A. Management Oven;ight
73. The VIPD will continue to coordinate and review all use offorce· policy and training to ensure quality. consistency) and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy. The VIPD will conduct regular subsequent reviews) at least semi-annually.
74. The Director of Training, either directly or through his/her designee(s), consistent with applicable law and VJPD policy will:
a. ensure tbe quality of all use of force training;
b. develop and implement use offorce training curricula;
c. select and train VIPD officer trainers;
17

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Docu- m- en- t - #: - 3 - F~ ile- d:- 03- /2- 4/· 09·· Pa· ge·2· 1 - of- 33--

d

develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service training;

e.

in conjunction with the Chiefs~ develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol

division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers ofrelevant

changes in policies and procedures;

f.

establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and

g. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use afforce training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.

75. The VIPD will continue to provide training consistent with VIPD policy, law, and proper police practices, and will ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by instructors. The VlPD will m<ik.e best efforts to train each work shift as a team in their use of force 1raining.

76. The VIPD shall continue to keep adequate records oflesson plans and other training

materials, such that the most current training documents are maintained in a central,.

commonly accessible file, and are clearly dated.

·

77_ The VIPD shall continue to maintam training records regarding every VIPD officer that
reliably indicate the training each officer has received. The training records shall, at a mini:mmn, include the course description and du;ration, curriculum, and instructor for
each officer.

B. Cuniculum

78. The Training Director will review all use of force training and use of force polices on a regular basis to ensure compliance with applicable laws and Virgi.n Islands Police Department policy. The Training Director will consult with the Attorney General's Office on any additions, changes and/or modifications regarding use of force training_ or
policies to ensure compliance with applicable laws.

18

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 3 Filed: 03/24/09 Page 22 of 33
79. The V1PD will continue to provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on use of force. Such training will include and address the following topics:
a. the VIPD's use offorce model, as described in this Agreementj
b. proper use of force decision!.making;
c. the VlPD's use of force reporting requirements;
d. the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements;
e. examples of Scenarios face<fby VIPD officers that illustrate proper use of force
dec~ion-making;
f. interactive eJteteises that emphasize proper use of force decision-making;
g. de-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without using force, and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation even when the use of force would be legallyjustified;
h. threat assessment;
I. appropriate training on conflict management.
80. The VIPD will continue to provide training to all its officers on the VIPD citizen complaint process. The VIPD will deVelop a protocol for all its officers on appropriate conduct and responses in handling citizens' complaints and will train officers in the protocol.
-81. The VIPD will provide training on appropriate burdens ofproof to all supervisors. as well as the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility (to
19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-R· M·D· o· cu- m~ en· t #- : - 3 - F- ile- d: 0- 3/2- 4/09-~ Pa- ge- 2- 3 - of· 33- - · -
ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform., and legally appropriate). The VIPD will also continue to provide training to supervisors on leadership and command accolliltability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training will be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities, and will be made part Of annual ~service training.
Vll. MONITORING, REPORTING, AND IMPLEMENTATION
A. fudependent Monitor
82. By 150 days from the date ofthis Agreement, the Territory and the DOJ shall together select an Independent Monitor, acceptable to both, who shall monitor and report on the VIPD's implementation of this Agreement. The parties recognize that one person, or
team ofpeople, maybe selected to· ful£i.ll the role ofMonitor. The selection ofthe Monitor shall be pursuant to a method jointly established by the DOJ and the Territocy.
Ifthe DOJ and Territory are unable to agree on a Monitor or an alternative method of selectioo within 150 days from the date ofthis Agreeroent, the DOJ and the Territory each shall submit two candidates who have experience as a law enforcement practices expert or monitor, or as a Federal, state or local prosecutor or judge, along with resumes and cost proposals, to the Court. The Court shall then appoint the Monitor from among the names of qualified persons submittod. The selection of the Monitor shall be conducted solely pursuant to the procedures set forth in this Agreement, and will not be governed by any formal or legal procurement requirements.
83. The Monitor, at anytime after the initial selection ofthe person or team ofpersons a_s the Monitor, may request to be allowed to hire or employ such additional persons or entities as are reasonably necessary to perform the tasks assigned to him or her by this Agreement. Any person or entity hired or otherwise retained by the Monitor to assist in furthering any provisions of this Agreement shall be subject to the prqvisions of paragraphs 94, 96, and 97, goveroing testifYing, oonflicting employment and confidentiality. The Monitor shall notify the Tertitory and the DOJ in writiog ifthe Monitor wishes to select such additional persons or entities. The notice shall identify and describe the qualifications ofthe person or entity to be hired or employed and the monitoring task to be performed. Ifthe Territory, through its Department of Justice, and the DOJ aglee to the Monitor1s proposal. the Monitor shall be authorized to hire or employ such additional persons or entities. The Territory or the DOJ have ten days to disagree with the proposal. Ifthe Territory and the DOJ are unable to reach agreement within ten days ofreceiving notice ofthe disagreement,. the Court shall resolve the 20

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 3 Filed: 03/24/09 Page 24 of 33 --------~-
dispute. The Monitor and any person he or she retains to assist in furthering any
provisions ofthis Agreement must successfully pass a background check by the Virgin Islands Police Department in order to be eligible to carry out his or her role under this Agreement
84. The Territory shall bear all reasonable fees and costs ofthe Monitor. In selecting the
Monitor, DOJ and the Territory recognize the importance of ensuring that the fees and costs borne by the Territocy are reasonable, and accordingly fees and costs shall be one factor considered·in selecting the Monitor. In the event that any dispute arises regarding the reasonableness or payment ofthe Monitor's fees and costs, the Territory, DOJ and the
Monitor shall attempt to resolve such dispute cooperatively prior to seeking the :assistance of the Court to resolve such dispute.
85. The Monitor shall only have the duties, responsibilities and authority conferred by this
Agreement. The Monitor shall not, and is not intended to, replace or take over the role
and duties of the Governor ofthe Territory or the Poli-ce Commissioner. In order to monitor and report on the VIPD's iniplementation ofeach substantive provision of this Agreement, the Monitor shall conduct the reviews specified in paragraph 86, infra, and such additional reviews regarding the implementation ofthis Agreement as the Monitor deems appropriate. At the request of the DOJ or the Territory,based on the Monitor's
reviews, the Monitor may make recommendations to the parties regarding measures necessary to ensure full and timely implementation ofthis Agreement
86. In order to monitor and report on the VIPD's implementation of this Agreement, the
Monitor shall regularly conduct compliance reviews to ensure that the VWD has
implemented and continues to implement all measmes required by this Agreement. The
Monitor shall provide reasonable notice to VIPD prior to conducting any on-site
compliance reviews.
87. Subject to the limitations set forth in this paragraph and applicable collective bargaining
agreem.ents, the VJPD will reopen for further investigation any use of force or citizen complaint investigations the Monitor determines to be incomplete. The Monitor will provide written instructions for completing any investigation detennined to be incomplete. The Monitor will provide these recommendations so that the directive given by the Police Commissioner to implement the Monitor's instructions is given within a reasonable period following the inveStigation's conclusion. The Monitor may not exercise this option concerning any investigation the disposition ofwhich has been
officially communicated to the officer who is the subject of the investigation.
21

- - - -Ca-se:-3:0-8-cv-- 00~ 1- 5~ 8~ -C~ VG-R~ M-- Do- cu- me- nt~ #~ : 3~ F~ ile~ d:~ 03~ /2- 4/0- 9 - P- ag~ e 2- 5- of- 33-~--~
88. The parties agree that the VIPD will hire and retain, or reassign a current VIPD employee for the duration of this Agreemen.t,. to serve as a full-time VIPD Compliance Coordfuator. The Compliance Coordinator will serve as a liaison between the Virgin Islands Attorney General"s Office, the VIPD, the Monitor and DOJ, and will assist with the VIPD's compliance with this Agreemerit. At a minimum, the Compliance Coordinator will: co.ordinate the V1PD's compliance and implementation activities; facilitate the provision of data, documents and other access to VIPD employees and material, to the Monitor and :POJ as needed; ensure that all documents and records are maintained as provided in this Agreement; and assist in assigning compliance tasks to VIPD personnel, as directed by the Police Commissioner or his designee. The VIPD Compliance Coordinator will take primary responsibility for collecting the information the Monitor requires to carry out the tenns ofthis Agreement
89. In monitoring the implementation of this Agreement, the Monitor shall maintain regular contact with the Police Commissioner and Virgin Islands Attorney General's Office, as well as the DOJ.
90. The Monitor shall have reasonable access to all VIPD employees and facilities that the Monitor reasonably deems necessary to cany out the duties assigned to the Monitor by this Agreement. The Monitor shall cooperate with the VIPD to access people and .facilities in a reasonable manner that, consistent with the Monitor's responsibilities, minimizes interference with daily operations.
91. The Monitor shall have reasonable access to all Territory-and VIPD docmnents for monitoring plll"jJoses only that the Monitor reasonably deems necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by this Agreemen~ except any docwnents protected by the attorney-client privilege. Should the Territory or the VIPD decline to provide the Monitor with access to a document based on attorney-client privilege, the Territory shall provide the Monitor and DOJ with a log describing the document
92. For the pw:pose of implementing this Agreement, the DOJ and its consultative experts and agents shall have reasonable access to all VlPD employees, facilities, and VIPD documents, to the extent pennitted by law. The DOJ and its consultative experts and agents shall cooperate. with the Tenitory and the VIPD to access involved personnel, VIPD facilities, and documents in a reasonable manner that minimizes interference with daily operations. Should the Territory and the VIPD decline to provide the DOJ with access to a document based on attorney-client privilege, the Territory shall provide the. DOJ with a log describing the document.
22

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 3 Filed: 03/24/09 Page 26 of 33
93. The Monitor and DOJ shall provide the Territory, the Virgin Islands Attorney General's Office, and the VIPD with reasonable notice of a request for copies of docmnents. Upon such request, the Territory and the V1PD shall provide the Monitor and DOJ with copies (electronic, where readily available) of any documents that the Monitor and DOJ are entitled to access under this Agreement.
94. All non-publit;; information provided to the Monitor or DOJ, whether by the Territory or the V1PD, shall be maintained in a confidential manner. Other than as expressly provided inthis Agreement, this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege or right the Territory or the Vll'D may assert, including those recognized at common law or created by statute, rule or regulation, against any other person or entity with respect to the disclosure of any document.
95. For the purpose of implementing this Agreement, the Monitor shall have reasonable access to all documents in criminal investigation files that have been closed by the VIPD. The Monitor shall also have reasonable access to all anest reports, warrants, and warrant applications whether or not contained in open criminal investigation files; where practicable arrest reports, wanants and warrant applications shall be obtained from sources other than op_en Criminal investigation files.
B. Independent Monitor Reports
96. The Monitor shall issoe quarterly written, public reports detailing the Territory of the Virgin Islands' compliance with and implementation of each substantive provision of this Agreement. These reports shall be written with due regard for the privacy interests of individual officers and the interest ofthe Territory and the VIPD in protecting against disclosure ofnon-public infonnation. At least 16 business days before filing a report, the Monitor shall provide a copy of the draft to the parties for input as to whether any factual errors were made or whether any sensitive data or non-public information is disclosed. The Monitor shall consider the parties' responses and make appropriate changes, if any, before issuing the report. The Monitor may testify in this case regarding any matter relating to the implementation, enforcemeO.t or dissolution ofthis Agreement.
97. Except as required or authorized by the terms of this Agreement or the parties acting together: neither the Monitor, nor any member of their staff, shall tnake any public statements or issue findings with regard to any act or omission ofthe Tenitory, or its agents, representatives, or employees; or disclose non-public information provided to the Monitor pursuant to the Agreement. Any press statement made by the Monitor or any 23

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 3 Filed:-03-/2-4/0-9- P-a-ge-2-7-of-3-3 -
member of the Monitor's staffregarding their employment must first be-approved by
DOJ, the Virgin Islands Attorney General's Office, and VIPD. Neither the Monitornor any member of its staff shall testify in any other litigation or proceeding with regard to any act or omission of the Territory, the VIPD, or any of their agents, representatives, or employees related to this Agreement or regarding any matter or subject that th_e Monitor or their staff may have received knowledge of as a result of his or her performance under this Agreement. Unless such conflict is waived by the parties, the Monitor shall not accept employment or provide consulting services that would present a conflict of interest with the Monitor's responsibilities under this Agreement, including being retained (on a·paid or unpaid basis) by any current or future litigant or claimant, or such litigant's or claimant's attorney, in connection with a clai:rn or suit against the Territory or its departments, officers, agents or employees. The Monitor is not a state or local agency, or an agent thereof, and accordingly the records maintained by the Monitor shall not be deemed,public records subject to public inspection. Neither the Monitor nor any person or entity hired or otherwise retained by the Monitor to assist in furthering any provision of this Agreement shall be liable for any claim, lawsuit, or demand arising out ofthe Monitor's performimce pursuant to this Agreement. This paragraph does not -apply to any proceeding before a court related to performance of contracts or subcontracts for monitoring this Agreement.
C. Virgin Islands Police Department Reports and Reoords
98. Within 90 days following entry ofthis Agreeroent and no later than every three mooths theresfter until this Agreement is terminated, the VIPD shall file with the Monitor and Virgin Islands Attorney General's Office, with a copy to the DOJ, a status report delineating the steps taken by the VIPD during the reporting period to comply with each provision of this Agreement. The VIPD shall also file such a report documenting the steps t~en to comply with each provision of this Agreement during the term of this Agreement 120 days before the end ofthe Agreement's term.
99. During the term of this Agreeroent, the Virgin Islands Attorney General's Office and the VIPD shall maintain all records, as applicable, necessary to document their compliance with the terms of this Agreement and all documents expressly required by this Agreement.
24

--~~---~-
Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 3 Filed: 03/24/09 Page 28 of 33
D. Implementation I00. The Territory ofthe Virgin Islands and the VJPD shall implemeot each and every
provision ofthis Agreemeot as that term is defined in Paragraph 30 ofthis Agreeroent. 101. The VIPD shall implemeot immediately all provisions of this Agreemeot that involve the
continuation of cmrent VIPD policies,_ procedures, and practices. The remaining provisions shall be implemented either by the specified implementation date or, for those provisions that have no specified implementa:t;ion date, as soon as is reasonably practicable and no later than 150 days after this Agreement's effective date. 102. In regard to any provision that provides for DOJ 'nwiew and approval,'~ approval will be granted in a timely fashion provided that the VIPD action reasonably satisfies the requirerneots and standards set forth in the relevant provision(s).
25

· - - - - - - - - ------ ------

--~~~----~-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 3 Filed: 03/24/09 Page 29 of 33

I 03. The Agreement will terminate five years after the effective date of the Agreement or earlier if the parties agree thatthe VIPD and the Territory are in substantial compliance with each ofthe provisions ofthis Agreement, and have maintained substantial
compliance for at least two years. The burden will be on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate this level of compliance. Noncompliance with mere technicalities, or temporary failure to cott1ply during a period of otherwise sustained compliance, will not constitute failure to maintain substantial compliance. Noncompliance during a period of declared emergency or acts. of God (such as, but not limited to: hurricane, earthquake, . tsunami, flood), that makes compliance impossible or impractical will not constitute failure to maintain substantial compliance. Parties to this CoiiBent Decree -shall not consider any period of time for which compliance was not possible or impractical due to an act of God in any calculations used in determining substantial compliance. At the same time, temporary compliance during a period of otherwise sustained noncompliance
will not constitute substantial compliance.
104. This Agreement will be posted on the_ web site ofthe Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division-ofDOJ.

PAULA. District of the Virgin Islands

FOR THE UNITED STATES
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY Attorney General
Aic:~~cb-<
Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

26

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 3 Filed: 03/24/09 Page 30 of 33

Chief Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division
TAMMIE M. GREGG Principal Deputy Chief

MARINA

R

CHARLENE MCMILLAN

Trial Attorneys

Special Litigation Section

Civil Rights Division

U.S. Department ofJustice

950 Pennsylvania Aveuue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

(202) 514-6255 (telephone)

(202) 514-0212 (facsimile)

27

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 3 Filed: 03/24/09 Page 31 of 33

FOR THE VIRGIN ISLANDS:

VINCEN!' FRaZER

AttQrney General for the

~ Departmen:

ce

G.E.R.S. Complex 488-50C

Krtmprinsdens Qade

St Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802

FORTHE VIRGIN"ISLANDS POLICE DEPAR"I:MENT:

JAMES H. MCCALL Police: COinlllis$ioner
0-.-- ' ' i f II !? ~Farrelly Crimlnal Justice Center
Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas, VI 00802
28

- - - - ~----------
Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 3 Filed: 03/24/09 Page 32 of 33
SOORDEREDtbis 2} dayof ~Uv~ 2009.
&21/
de United States District Comt Judge
Dis1rict oftheVirgin Islands
I
i
29

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 3 Filed: 03/24/09 Page 33 of 33

CERTIF1CATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy ofthe Consent Decree in United States v. The Territory of the Virgin

Jl,3 , Islands; and the Vircin Islands Police nwartment was served by electronic mail arid regular mail

on December

2008, on tho following:

Wayrw Aoderson
Special Counsel Department of Justice G.E.R.S. Complex 48B-SOC Kronprinsdens Gade St. Thomaa, VI 00802 wanderson@doj. vi.gov

Fn::d Randleman
Lesal Counsel
Government ofthe US Virgin Islands Virgin Islands Police Department Office ofthe Police Commissioner #45 Mars Hill Frederiksted, St. Croix 00840 Frederick.Handleman@VIPD.GOV.Vl

30

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 9 Filed: 06/29/10 Page 1 of 2

FOR PUBLICATION

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS )

and THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE

)

DEPARTMENT,

)

)

Defendants.

)

___________________________________ )

Civil No. 2008-158

APPEARANCES:
Je Yon Jung, Esq. Washington, D.C.
For the plaintiff,
Carol Thomas-Jacobs, Esq. St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
For the defendant.
ORDER
Before the Court is the joint motion of the plaintiff, the United States of America (the “United States”), and the defendants, the Territory of the Virgin Islands (the “Virgin Islands”) and the Virgin Islands Police Department (the “VIPD”), to modify certain timelines found in the Consent Decree in this

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 9 Filed: 06/29/10 Page 2 of 2
United States v. Territory of the Virgin Inlands et al. Civil No. 2008-158 Order Page 2
matter. The premises considered, it is hereby
ORDERED that Paragraphs 96 and 98 of the March 23, 2009
Consent Decree are amended to read as follows:
Paragraph 96 of the Consent Decree:
The Monitor shall issue quarterly written, public reports detailing the Territory of the Virgin Islands’ compliance with and implementation of each substantive provision of this Agreement. These reports shall be written with due regard for the privacy interests of individual officers and the interest of the Territory and the VIPD in protecting against disclosure of nonpublic information. At least ten (10) business days before filing a report, the Monitor shall provide a copy of the draft to the parties for input as to whether any factual errors were made or whether any sensitive data or non-public information is disclosed. The Monitor shall consider the parties’ responses and make appropriate changes, if any, before issuing the report. The Monitor may testify in this case regarding any matter relating to the implementation, enforcement or dissolution of this Agreement.
Paragraph 98 of the Consent Decree:
Beginning April 7th, 2010, and no later than every three months thereafter until this Agreement is terminated, the VIPD shall file with the Monitor and Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office, with a copy to the DOJ, a status report delineating the steps taken by the VIPD during the reporting period to comply with each provision of this Agreement. The VIPD shall also file such a report documenting the steps taken to comply with each provision of this Agreement during the term of this Agreement 120 days before the end of the Agreement’s term.
S\ Curtis V. Gómez Chief Judge

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 1 of 66
Fourth Quarterly Report
of the Inc1.ependent Monitor
for the Virgin Islands Police Department

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 2 of 66 Office of the Independent Monitor |
Independent Monitoring Team
Independent Monitors William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
Fried Frank Monitoring Team Leah C. Aden Joshua D. Roth
Police Practices Coordinator Chief Charles A. Gruber Elgin (Illinois) Police Department (retired)
Police Practices Experts Superintendent Ann Marie Doherty Boston (Massachusetts) Police Department (retired) Chief Dennis E. Nowicki Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Police Department (retired) Chief Robert L. Stewart Ormond Beach (Florida) Police Department (retired)

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 3 of 66 Office of the Independent Monitor | I

Executive Summary

This is the fourth quarterly report of the Office of the Independent Monitor (the “OIM” or the “Monitor”) for the Virgin Islands Police Department (the “VIPD” or the “Department”), covering the quarter ending on December 31, 2010.1 During the Fourth Quarter, among other things, the OIM conducted two separate, week-long monitoring trips to the Virgin Islands. On those trips, members of the OIM team continued their practice of meeting with VIPD personnel in the St. Thomas, St. John, and Water Island District (the “St. Thomas District”) and the St. Croix District to monitor the VIPD’s on-going efforts to comply with the Consent Decree, as well as to provide technical assistance as needed.
Despite a slow start, the VIPD ultimately made significant progress towards complying with the Consent Decree during the Fourth Quarter (although substantial work remains to be done).2 For example, in December, the Police Commissioner invited the OIM to participate in a two-day Consent Decree Summit (the “Summit”) with the VIPD’s executive leadership team (the Police Commissioner, Assistant Police Commissioner, Chiefs, and Deputy Chiefs) and other senior personnel. The Police Commissioner’s vision for the Summit was clear — to strengthen the VIPD’s commitment to the Consent Decree. In order to prepare for the Summit, the VIPD and the OIM spent a significant amount of time during the last two weeks of December discussing specific objectives for the Summit and coordinating logistics.
The OIM is pleased to report that the Summit, which was held on St. Thomas from January 3-4, 2011, appears to have been a success. Among other things, the Police Commissioner appointed specific Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to lead working groups focused on different provisions of the Consent Decree. While the Police Commissioner encouraged the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to prudently delegate discrete tasks, he vowed

1

This Report references a limited number of events that occurred after December

31, notably a Consent Decree Summit led by the Police Commissioner on

January 3-4, 2011 (See Consent Decree Summit Addendum). This Report

touches upon these events in order to provide the reader with additional context

for some of the strides that the VIPD took during the Fourth Quarter and at the

beginning of the next quarter, though substantial work remains. The next

quarterly report will provide a more extensive treatment of events that occurred

after December 31.

2

A summary of the Consent Decree requirements is excerpted at Appendix A.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 4 of 66
II | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
to hold them ultimately accountable for their respective areas. The OIM applauds the Police Commissioner’s initiative to more directly involve the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs in the Consent Decree compliance process.
The VIPD also made progress at the Summit by further revising a number of key policies, including, but not limited to, the Use of Force Policy and the Complaint Policy. In addition to revising specific policies based on comments from the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) and the OIM, the VIPD also made strides toward consolidating its policies (which are currently found in a number of different sources) into a single, user-friendly manual — something that the VIPD does not currently have.
The Summit also provided the VIPD’s Policy Consultant (who the VIPD formally engaged, after a lengthy delay, in October) with a needed opportunity to work face-to-face with the VIPD’s executive leadership team and other senior personnel. In addition to playing an important role at the Summit, the Policy Consultant spent a significant amount of time leading up to the Summit (particularly in the month of December) working with the VIPD to finalize many of its force-related policies. For additional details about Summit events, the OIM has included a Consent Decree Summit Addendum near the end of this report.
Earlier in the Fourth Quarter, the United States District Court for the Virgin Islands ordered the Parties (the VIPD and DOJ) to propose a timetable by which the VIPD would substantially comply with each provision in the Consent Decree. The Court — much like the OIM — was concerned about the VIPD’s relatively slow rate of progress. The Parties conferred and ultimately agreed on a timetable following a November 22 hearing. Thus, on November 24, the Parties jointly filed a timetable setting forth specific dates by which the VIPD would, among other things, submit policies to the DOJ for approval (the “Consent Decree Timetable”). The OIM attributes much of the VIPD’s recent progress in revising its force-related policies to the deadlines established by the Consent Decree Timetable. The VIPD deserves recognition for proposing a very ambitious timetable and, with only a few exceptions, meeting its obligations.
The OIM is hopeful that the VIPD will receive final DOJ approval for most (if not all) of its force-related policies during the next quarter. As we have previously reported, the lack of these foundational policies has significantly hampered the VIPD’s ability to comply with the Consent Decree. As such, the VIPD should dedicate itself to obtaining DOJ approval for all force-related policies as soon as possible (and preferably before the dates mandated in the Consent Decree Timetable).

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 5 of 66
Office of the Independent Monitor | III
The VIPD should be prepared to implement those policies as soon as the DOJ provides final approval. In order to do so, the VIPD must, among other things, develop training programs and curricula relating to these policies in advance of their final approval. This is particularly true with respect to the Use of Force Policy, given its central role in the Consent Decree compliance process.
While the VIPD made a number of strides during the Fourth Quarter, the OIM was disappointed by the Department’s inadequate, truncated, and late Seventh Quarterly Status Report. While the OIM appreciates the Compliance Manager and Compliance Coordinator’s overall hard work and enthusiastic efforts to develop the quarterly status reports (among their many other contributions), the VIPD must develop a more robust and systematic reporting process. Thus, rather than restating information from previous quarters, the quarterly status reports should provide a detailed account of everything that the VIPD did during the prior quarter (and only the prior quarter) relating to the Consent Decree. Moreover, quarterly status reports should clearly state in an introductory paragraph the time period that the report covers. If the Compliance Manager and Compliance Coordinator are not receiving complete and timely updates from other VIPD personnel responsible for areas of Consent Decree compliance, that fact should be brought to the attention of the Police Commissioner and the Police Commissioner should hold those personnel accountable. Given that the OIM relies, in part, on the VIPD’s quarterly status reports to evaluate the Department’s progress each quarter, it is in the VIPD’s interest to provide a more complete description of its activities.
In addition, the VIPD sent the OIM and DOJ the Seventh Quarterly Status Report on February 3, almost a month later than expected. The OIM believes that the VIPD fell off schedule this quarter because it was focused on complying with the Consent Decree Timetable (which required the VIPD to submit a significant number of force-related policies to the DOJ in December) and organizing the Summit. Nonetheless, going forward, the VIPD should also submit its quarterly status reports to the DOJ and the OIM within seven business days after the end of the preceding quarter (e.g., for the next quarter, by April 7, 2011).
As discussed in greater detail below, the OIM’s monitoring activities during this quarter built upon our previous work and specifically included, among other things: the provision of technical assistance to the VIPD, including the review of draft policies, protocols, and directives; the observation of policy drafting sessions; the monitoring of training programs relating to use of force reporting requirements; the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 6 of 66 IV | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

review of incident and arrest reports to identify potential use of force events; the review of the adequacy of internal investigations conducted by the VIPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau (“IAB”) and Zone supervisors; and, the monitoring of the status of the VIPD’s citizen complaint intake and tracking processes and related public information campaign.
Use of Force Policy Development
The VIPD took a significant step towards complying with the Consent Decree when it submitted its draft Use of Force Policy (along with a number of other specific use of force policies) to the DOJ during the Fourth Quarter. Although the DOJ asked the VIPD to make further revisions to these policies, it “commended the VIPD for the progress” that it made.3 Given that the VIPD has scheduled training programs relating to these policies for late March and early April, the VIPD must incorporate the DOJ’s most recent comments and finalize these policies as quickly as possible.

The OIM attributes the VIPD’s recent policy development strides, in large part, to the Consent Decree Timetable, which was described above, and the Department’s decision to engage the Policy Consultant. In addition, the Policies and Procedures Committee (“Committee”) has dramatically ramped up its level of activity. In addition to holding biweekly meetings, the Committee has also invited VIPD personnel with expertise in specific areas to participate in meetings and comment on policies relevant to their areas.

Survey of Use of Force Events
In the Third Quarterly Report, the OIM reported that a significant number of VIPD personnel appeared to be uncertain about the Department’s reporting use of force requirements. Unfortunately, much of that uncertainty remained in the Fourth Quarter. Even senior officers are unsure about when they or their subordinates are required to report use of force events. One Zone Commander, for example, instructs subordinates to complete a use of force report “when in doubt.” Based on our monitoring, that phrase appears to encompass a range of conduct — including non-resistant handcuffing — beyond the scope of the Use of Force Reporting Directive. Consequently, officers are overreporting use

3

Letter from Marina Mazor, Esq. to Wayne Anderson, Esq. and Frederick

Handleman, Esq. regarding “United States v. Virgin Islands, et al.” at 1 (Jan. 3,

2011).

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 7 of 66
Office of the Independent Monitor | V
of force events because of inadequate policy guidance and related training. Many supervisors are similarly unsure about how to conduct an adequate use of force investigation.
Because of continuing technical roadblocks, the VIPD was still not able to track use of force events using an electronic system during the Fourth Quarter. However, as an interim measure, the VIPD implemented a manual system to track use of force events near the end of the Fourth Quarter; the VIPD also plans to retain the manual tracking system as a backup once its electronic system is operational. The OIM will monitor the VIPD’s new manual system in the next quarter.
Public Information Regarding the Citizen Complaint Process
The VIPD has made significant progress implementing its citizen complaint process. At the beginning of the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD held a press conference announcing the Department’s citizen complaint process. Since that time, the VIPD has, among other things, run a number of public service announcements on television and radio in order to further increase public awareness. In addition, the VIPD has made progress streamlining its complaint process policies and related materials, including the complaint form and complaint/compliment brochure.
Unfortunately, the Department has lagged behind in training officers on how to investigate citizen complaints. The VIPD just began to train officers on applying the preponderance of the evidence during the Fourth Quarter, and based on its observations, the OIM believes that the VIPD must improve these trainings so that they meet generally accepted police practices.
Risk Management
The VIPD continues to face technological roadblocks with respect to the IAPro system, which is supposed to be an essential part of the Department’s risk management system. The OIM is hopeful, however, that the new Director of Management and Information Systems (“MIS”), who started work at the end of 2010, will be able to move this project forward. Thus far, the OIM has been impressed by the Director of MIS’ commitment to the Consent Decree compliance process.
The OIM expects the VIPD to finalize its early intervention policies in the next quarter. The OIM is also pleased to note that the Department

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 8 of 66 VI | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

established an Early Intervention Plan Committee to help implement early intervention policies and assist with related tasks.
Training
Given that many of the Department’s upcoming training programs are predicated on receiving DOJ approval for various policies, the VIPD should be diligent about meeting the deadlines contained in the Consent Decree Timetable. As the OIM has emphasized a number of times now, the Training Division should not wait for those policies to be approved before updating its corresponding training materials. Because the upcoming use of force training programs are vital to the Consent Decree, and the changes to the Department’s policies, procedures, and practices will be significant, the OIM recommends that the Training Division seek input from the Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, and other senior VIPD personnel on any training materials.
During the Fourth Quarter, the Training Division made progress in maintaining lesson plans, attendance sheets, instructor certification records, and training program evaluations in central repositories in both Districts. In addition, the Training Division adopted several of the OIM’s suggestions relating to record keeping.
Unfortunately, the Department’s Field Training Officer (“FTO”) Program continues to fall short. Overall, there are too few certified FTOs and even some of those individuals need refresher training. Given the importance of the FTO program — supervising and training inexperienced, new officers — the Department must devote significant attention to the administration, supervision, and resources associated with improving this program.
Status of Substantial Compliance
In order to be released from the Consent Decree, the VIPD must substantially comply with each of the Consent Decree’s requirements and remain in compliance for two years.4 At the end of the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD, as was the case at the end of the Third Quarter, has substantially complied with the following Consent Decree requirements:
• In January 2010, the Parties selected the Monitor (CD ¶¶ 82-86);

4

Consent Decree (“CD”) ¶ 103.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 9 of 66
Office of the Independent Monitor | VII
• In the Spring of 2010, the Police Commissioner appointed a Compliance Coordinator to serve as a liaison between the Parties and the Monitor (CD ¶ 88); and,
• Beginning in June 2009, the VIPD began issuing quarterly status reports delineating the steps taken by the VIPD to comply with the Consent Decree (CD ¶ 98).
As discussed in detail below, the VIPD has not yet substantially complied with any of the other substantive provisions of the Consent Decree, most significantly those relating to use of force. In order to begin that process, the VIPD must finalize its outstanding force-related policies. Given that those policies are very close to being finalized (thanks, in particular, to the hard work of the VIPD’s Policies and Procedures Committee), the VIPD should prioritize that task. Once those policies are finalized and approved by the DOJ, the OIM is hopeful that the Department will begin to make more rapid progress.
Conclusion
Overall, the VIPD (more so than ever before) appears to be moving in the right direction with a renewed sense of commitment and purpose. The Summit, for example, produced a significant amount of positive momentum, including the near-finalization of a number of important policies. However, it is worth noting that the Parties entered into the Consent Decree on March 23, 2009 — almost two years ago. Since that time, the VIPD has only achieved substantial compliance with three administrative provisions in the Consent Decree. The time has clearly come for the VIPD to pick up the pace. Over the next two quarters, the OIM expects the VIPD to achieve substantial compliance with a much broader cross-section of the Consent Decree, including, but not limited to, core provisions relating to use of force. In light of the VIPD’s recent progress, the OIM believes that this goal is entirely reasonable.
In addition, consistent with the Police Commissioner’s appointments at the Summit, the OIM expects the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to take a much more active role in Consent Decree compliance efforts. The OIM — like the Police Commissioner — will hold the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs ultimately responsible for overseeing their respective working groups and complying with the Consent Decree. In the future, the OIM will study and report on the progress that the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs have made. As always, the OIM stands ready to provide the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 10 of 66 VIII | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs with technical assistance as needed.
Finally, the OIM learned at the end of the quarter that the Police Commissioner, after a long and distinguished career with the Department, will be retiring within the next few months. On a personal note, the OIM appreciates the Police Commissioner’s unflagging commitment to the Consent Decree compliance process over the past two years, including his leadership in convening the Summit in January 2011. The OIM looks forward to continuing to work with the Police Commissioner over the next few months and sincerely thanks him for his leadership and contributions to the Consent Decree compliance process.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 11 of 66 Office of the Independent Monitor
Table of Contents Page
Introduction .......................................................................................... 1 Compliance Assessment ........................................................................ 4 I. Use of Force Policies (CD ¶ 31) & Specific Use of Force
Policies (CD ¶¶ 39-41) .................................................................. 4 A. Status and Assessment ....................................................... 4 B. Recommendations............................................................... 8 II. Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force (CD ¶¶ 32-41) ..................................................................... 9 A. Status and Assessment ....................................................... 9
1. Policies and Directives ............................................... 9 2. Survey of Use of Force Incidents .............................. 11 3. Supervisor Review of Uses of Force .......................... 15 B. Recommendations............................................................. 16 III. Citizen Complaint Process (CD ¶¶ 42-58).................................... 17 A. Public Information (CD ¶¶ 42-43) & Means of Filing & Tracking Complaints (CD ¶¶ 44-45) ..................... 17 1. Status and Assessment ........................................... 17 2. Recommendations ................................................... 19 B. Investigation of Complaints (CD ¶¶ 46-58) ........................ 19 1. Status and Assessment ........................................... 19 2. Recommendations ................................................... 21 IV. Management and Supervision (CD ¶¶ 59-72) .............................. 22 A. Risk Management System (CD ¶¶ 59-68)........................... 22

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 12 of 66 William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Page
1. Status and Assessment ............................................ 22 2. Recommendations.................................................... 23 B. Oversight (CD ¶ 69) ........................................................... 23 1. Status, Assessment, and
Recommendations.................................................... 23 C. Discipline (CD ¶¶ 70-72) ................................................... 24
1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations.................................................... 24
V. Training (CD ¶¶ 73-81) ............................................................... 24 A. Management Oversight (CD ¶¶ 73-77) and Curriculum (CD ¶¶ 78-81)................................................. 24 1. Status and Assessment ............................................ 24 2. Recommendations.................................................... 29
VI. Monitoring, Reporting, and Implementation (CD ¶¶ 82-102) ........................................................................... 29 1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations.................................................... 29
Conclusion........................................................................................... 32 Consent Decree Summit Addendum .......................................................A Appendix A, Consent Decree Requirements ............................................. i

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 13 of 66
Office of the Independent Monitor | 1
Introduction
This is the fourth quarterly report of the Office of the Independent Monitor (the “OIM” or the “Monitor”) for the Virgin Islands Police Department (the “VIPD” or the “Department”), covering the quarter ending on December 31, 2010.1 The OIM was established in January 20102 to monitor compliance by the Territory of the Virgin Islands (the “Virgin Islands”) and the VIPD with the Consent Decree entered by the United States District Court for the Virgin Islands on March 23, 2009. The Monitor is required by the Consent Decree to “issue quarterly written, public reports detailing the Territory of the Virgin Islands’ compliance with and implementation of each substantive provision” of the Consent Decree.3
The Consent Decree reflects the agreement of the Virgin Islands, the VIPD, and the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) (collectively, the “Parties”) to resolve a lawsuit brought by the United States alleging that the Virgin Islands and the VIPD violated 42 U.S.C. § 14141 by engaging “in a pattern or practice of excessive force by

1

This Report references a limited number of events that occurred after December

31, notably a Consent Decree Summit led by the Police Commissioner on January 3-4, 2011. See Consent Decree Addendum. This Report touches upon

these events in order to provide the reader with additional context for some of the strides that the VIPD took during the Fourth Quarter and at the beginning of the next quarter, though substantial work remains. The next report will provide a more extensive treatment of the events that occurred after December 31.

2

After an initial procurement process, the Territory of the Virgin Islands and the

VIPD contracted for the services of a monitoring team led by Michael R. Bromwich, a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Fried, Frank, Harris,

Shriver & Jacobson LLP (“Fried Frank”). In June, the Independent and Deputy Independent Monitors joined President Obama’s administration. After interviews and further review, the Parties appointed William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel, partners in the New York City office of Fried Frank and former Assistant United States Attorneys in the United States Attorney’s Office for the

Southern District of New York, as the Independent Monitors, effective August 13, 2010. Messrs. Johnson and Witzel continue to work with the police

practices experts that were hired as part of the original OIM team.

3

Consent Decree (“CD”) ¶ 96. This Quarterly Report, along with the OIM’s prior

reports, is available on the internet at

http://www.policemonitor.org/VI/VIindex.html.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 14 of 66 2 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

officers of the Virgin Islands Police Department and by the failure to adequately train, supervise, investigate, and discipline officers.”4
The Parties entered into the Consent Decree “to promote police integrity and prevent conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.”5 The 104 paragraphs of the Consent Decree contain a broad range of substantive requirements for reform in areas such as the revision of the VIPD’s force-related policies; the training of officers to properly use force in accordance with constitutional requirements, VIPD policy, and existing best practices in policing; the reporting and investigation of use of force events; the receipt and investigation of complaints alleging misconduct by VIPD officers; the development of systems for managing and supervising VIPD officers; and, the discipline of officers found to have engaged in misconduct.
The Compliance Assessment section of this report, which follows, details the OIM’s findings and observations based on our monitoring activities during the quarter ending December 31, 2010. In addition, the Compliance Assessment section also includes recommended next-steps relating to each provision in the Consent Decree.
As discussed in greater detail below, the VIPD made significant strides in a number of areas during and immediately following the Fourth Quarter. For example, the Police Commissioner convened a Consent Decree Summit (the “Summit”) from January 3-4, 2011 in order to reinvigorate the Consent Decree compliance process. At the Summit, among other things, the Police Commissioner appointed specific Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to oversee working groups focused on different components of the Consent Decree. The Police Commissioner also stated that he would hold the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs ultimately responsible for the success of their respective working groups.
The VIPD also made substantial progress in revising many of its force-related policies during the Fourth Quarter (at the Summit and before). After repeated suggestions by the OIM and DOJ, at the beginning of the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD engaged a Policy Consultant to help the Department revise its force-related policies and generally improve its policy writing infrastructure. Despite coming on board quite

4

CD ¶ 6; see also Complaint, United States v. The Territory of the Virgin Islands,

No. 3:08-CV-00158-CVG-GWB (D.V.I.).

5

CD ¶ 3.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 15 of 66
Office of the Independent Monitor | 3
recently, the Policy Consultant has already established himself as an invaluable resource to the VIPD.
In addition, on November 24, at the request of the United States District Court for the Virgin Islands, the Parties submitted a timetable (the “Consent Decree Timetable”) to the Court setting forth dates by which the VIPD would, among other things, submit policies to the DOJ for approval. The OIM is pleased to report that the VIPD has thus far satisfied almost all of its obligations under the Consent Decree Timetable. Over the next quarter, the OIM expects the VIPD to obtain final DOJ approval for most (if not all) of its force-related policies. Such an achievement would undoubtedly help pave the road to substantial compliance.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 16 of 66 4 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

Compliance Assessment
In this section of the report, we describe the VIPD’s compliance efforts with respect to each of the substantive provisions of the Consent Decree,6 as well as the OIM’s monitoring activities during this quarter. The organization of this section of the report parallels the organization of the Consent Decree. Specifically, we provide a status and assessment discussion that describes and analyzes the VIPD’s progress toward achieving substantial compliance with the Consent Decree’s requirements.7 Then, we include recommendations to assist the VIPD in achieving full and timely implementation of the Consent Decree’s requirements.8
I. Use of Force Policies (CD ¶ 31) & Specific Use of Force Policies (CD ¶¶ 39-41)
A. Status and Assessment
The VIPD made significant progress in revising its Use of Force Policy and related specific use of force policies (which concern specific use of force tools, such as firearms, TASERs, etc.) during the Fourth Quarter. Although the quarter started out relatively slow, the pace of the Department’s policy development increased dramatically in December when the VIPD submitted eleven policies to the DOJ for approval. Although the DOJ asked the VIPD to further revise those policies, it “commended the VIPD for the progress” that it had made.9
The OIM attributes much of the VIPD’s recent policy development activity to two events. First, the VIPD engaged a Policy Consultant — at the repeated suggestion of the OIM and DOJ, and only after a protracted procurement process — in October to help the Department revise its force-related policies and generally improve its policy writing infrastructure (which is critical for the Department to be able to

6

A summary of the Consent Decree requirements is excerpted at Appendix A.

7

The Consent Decree provides that “[t]he Monitor shall issue quarterly written,

public reports detailing the Territory of the Virgin Islands’ compliance with and

implementation of each substantive provision of [the] Agreement.” CD ¶ 96.

8

See CD ¶ 85.

9

Letter from Marina Mazor, Esq. to Wayne Anderson, Esq. and Frederick

Handleman, Esq. regarding “United States v. Virgin Islands, et al.” at 1 (Jan. 3,

2011).

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 17 of 66 Office of the Independent Monitor | 5

independently draft and revise policies in the future). As discussed further below, the Policy Consultant appears to have reinvigorated the VIPD’s Policies and Procedures Committee (the “Committee”),10 which the Police Commissioner charged with, among other things, developing, reviewing, and revising the Department’s policies.
Second, in response to the VIPD’s slow progress in prior quarters, the United States District Court for the Virgin Islands ordered the Parties to submit the Consent Decree Timetable. In addition, the Court requested that the Parties also set interim deadlines by which the VIPD would, among other things, submit policies to the DOJ for approval. After conferring and agreeing on deadlines following a November 22 hearing, the Parties submitted an ambitious timetable to the Court on November 24. For example, the Consent Decree Timetable required the Department to submit a significant number of force-related policies to the DOJ by December 17 — less than three weeks after initially submitting the Timetable to the Court. Notably, the VIPD suggested the tight deadlines reflected in the Consent Decree Timetable, which appears to have helped spur the VIPD into action.
During the Fourth Quarter, both prior to and after submitting the previously mentioned policies to the DOJ, the OIM provided the VIPD with extensive comments on those force-related policies — which are foundational to the Consent Decree. The Use of Force Policy, among other things, sets forth the Department’s use of force rules as dictated by the United States Constitution and Virgin Islands law. Because the Use of Force Policy serves as a building block for many other policies, including, but not limited to, the specific use of force policies, the Committee appropriately devoted a significant amount of time to that policy over the past two quarters.
For example, in October, the Committee submitted a draft version of the Use of Force Policy to the Policy Consultant for his review. After extensive discussions between the Committee and the Policy Consultant, the Policy Consultant sent a revised draft version of the Use of Force Policy to the VIPD for its review. After making further revisions, the VIPD submitted the Use of Force Policy to the DOJ for approval on December

10

The Committee has six members, including: a Deputy Chief (chairperson), the

Director of IAB, a police Captain, a police Sergeant, the Training Supervisor for

the St. Thomas District, and the Training Cadre for the St. Croix District. VIPD

July 2010 Status Report at 3.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 18 of 66 6 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

17, pursuant to the Consent Decree Timetable deadline.11 In addition to the Use of Force Policy, the VIPD also submitted the following ten forcerelated policies to the DOJ on December 17: Reportable Use of Force; O.C. Spray; Electronic Control Weapon; Impact Weapon; Firearms; Vehicle Pursuit; Spike Strip; Disciplinary Matrix; Off-Duty Official Action; and, Canine.

Under the terms of the Consent Decree Timetable, the DOJ had 30 calendar days to provide the VIPD with comments on the force-related policies submitted on December 17.12 However, in light of the Summit — which took place from January 3-4 — the DOJ graciously agreed to provide feedback on an expedited basis. Consequently, the DOJ provided detailed feedback to the VIPD on the evening of January 3 with respect to the following force-related policies: Use of Force; Reportable Use of Force; O.C. Spray; Electronic Control Weapon; Impact Weapon; Firearms; Vehicle Pursuit; and Spike Strip. This quick turnaround by the DOJ was essential to a constructive discussion of the policies at the Summit.

The Summit participants subsequently discussed the DOJ’s feedback on January 4 and begin making the required revisions. Shortly after the Summit, on January 13, the DOJ provided comments to the VIPD on three other policies: Disciplinary Matrix; Off-Duty Official Action; and, Canine. The OIM also provided the VIPD with comments on those policies. After reviewing all of the DOJ and OIM’s comments and working with the Policy Consultant, the VIPD resubmitted these policies to the DOJ on February 3. On February 11, the VIPD also submitted the Disciplinary Policy. Going forward, the VIPD should strive to respond to any further comments from the DOJ promptly, and, to the extent possible, sooner than the full 21-day period permitted by the Consent Decree Timetable.

Spurred on by the Consent Decree Timetable, the Committee demonstrated tremendous commitment to the Consent Decree compliance process during the Fourth Quarter. The Committee’s efforts

11

VIPD February 2011 Status Report at 3-4.

12

Indeed, “[p]ursuant to the Court’s November 22, 2010 Order, after [the] VIPD

has submitted a policy to [the DOJ], each [P]arty [has] twenty-one (21) calendar

days to complete its review and/or revisions and to return the policy to the other

party, except that [the DOJ] shall initially have thirty (30) calendar days to

review and submit comments on policies submitted [to it] by December 17,

2010.”

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 19 of 66 Office of the Independent Monitor | 7

are particularly notable given the time-consuming and painstaking nature of its work. The OIM notes that even the most straightforward policies present complex issues. In addition, because the VIPD is concurrently revising a significant number of its force-related policies, the Committee must ensure that each policy “fits” into the desired policy framework. As part of that process, the Committee, among other things, must consistently define terms across different policies and crossreference relevant policies as well. Moreover, in order to satisfy the Consent Decree Timetable, the VIPD also reports that the Committee is meeting two times per week (up from once a week in previous quarters) to “expedite the process of drafting and reviewing/revising policies.”13 Based on the OIM’s observations, Committee meetings also appear to be functioning far more efficiently and productively than in past quarters.
The Committee has taken another positive step by starting to invite VIPD personnel with subject matter expertise relating to particular policies to participate in Committee meetings. For example, at the December 10 Committee meeting, a member of the St. Thomas District Canine Unit participated in a discussion about the Department’s draft Canine Policy. Among other things, that officer discussed the VIPD’s canine training programs, current studies on canine use, and the role that supervisors play during canine deployments with the Committee. The Committee needed to know that information before it could begin to draft a workable Canine Policy.
The OIM also notes that the Training Director attended the December 10 Committee meeting. The OIM has previously stated that the Training Director (or another Training Division representative) should consistently attend Committee meetings given the close relationship that should exist between policy development and training. By participating in policy drafting sessions, the Training Director can begin developing corresponding training programs well in advance of policies actually being finalized. That way, the VIPD will be able to implement new/revised policies as soon as they are approved by the DOJ and/or Police Commissioner. The OIM encourages the Training Director to personally participate in as many Committee meetings as possible.
Finally, the OIM commends the Committee for soliciting feedback from VIPD personnel on draft policies. To that end, the Compliance Coordinator developed a policy questionnaire to obtain feedback from personnel throughout the Department; the OIM provided comments on

13

VIPD October 2010 Status Report at 4.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 20 of 66
8 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
the questionnaire in mid-December and, among other things, recommended that the Committee seek feedback on policies from a cross-section of VIPD personnel (high level supervisors and rank and file officers). The questionnaire gives VIPD personnel the opportunity to comment on draft policies which should help facilitate Department-wide buy-in for these vital policies that, in certain instances, has been missing. In addition, by seeking feedback from VIPD personnel, the Committee should better be able to align new/revised policies with operational concerns. In order to achieve these goals, however, the Committee must give VIPD personnel enough time to review the relevant policy and complete the policy questionnaire while still being conscientious of the Consent Decree Timetable. The OIM notes that it reviewed a number of completed policy questionnaires during the Fourth Quarter and a number indicated that the officers lacked sufficient time to review the relevant policy and comment.
Despite the Committee’s progress, the OIM remains concerned that the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs have not fully asserted themselves with respect to policy development. Once again, the OIM encourages the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to more actively participate in the Committee’s activities, particularly as key policies near finalization. As the OIM previously reported, in addition to lending the Committee a wealth of institutional experience, the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs can help underscore the authority of the Committee throughout the Department by their participation. Likewise, the OIM believes that the Committee would benefit from the regular participation of the Assistant Police Commissioner, who played a helpful and active role at the Summit. The OIM is also hopeful that the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs will naturally assume a more prominent role in policy development as they begin to lead their respective Consent Decree working groups. In future quarters, the OIM will monitor and assess the progress that the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs make towards achieving substantial compliance.
B. Recommendations
The OIM is hopeful that the VIPD will receive final DOJ approval for most (if not all) of its force-related policies during the next quarter. The OIM encourages the Committee to keep up its hard work. Given that the VIPD has already exchanged multiple draft versions of each policy with the DOJ, the OIM expects the VIPD to finalize its outstanding forcerelated policies promptly. Notwithstanding the fact that the Consent Decree Timetable provides the VIPD with twenty-one days to resubmit draft policies to the DOJ after receiving comments, we encourage the Committee, in consultation with the Policy Consultant, to address the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 21 of 66
Office of the Independent Monitor | 9
DOJ’s comments and resubmit its policies on an expedited basis. As the OIM has repeated often, the lack of these foundational force-related policies will prevent the VIPD from moving forward and complying with the Consent Decree.
The OIM also recommends that the Committee continue holding bi-weekly meetings until the DOJ approves all of the Department’s forcerelated policies. In addition, the Committee should continue to seek participation and input from VIPD personnel with relevant expertise. The Committee should also continue to use the policy questionnaire to seek feedback from across the Department on draft policies. With respect to the questionnaire, the VIPD should provide personnel with ample time to review any such policies and offer thoughtful comments.
Given the close relationship that exists between policy development and training, the OIM reiterates its recommendation that a representative from the Training Division attend each Committee meeting to stay abreast of developing policies. The Training Division should recognize that most of the force-related policy changes are more than incremental modifications to past practices and, thus, will require significant rewrites to any existing lesson plans. Consequently the Training Division must start developing training programs for the new policies well before they are finalized.
Likewise, the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs should make a concerted effort to attend Committee meetings, particularly as important policies are nearing finalization. In light of their new roles leading the Consent Decree working groups, the OIM believes that it would be helpful for them to take a more direct role in policy development. Without engaging in the policy development process, it has been and will continue to be difficult for them to fully appreciate the number of moving parts that must work together for a policy to function properly.
II. Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force (CD ¶¶ 32-41)
A. Status and Assessment
1. Policies and Directives
The VIPD submitted the Reportable Use of Force Policy to the DOJ, pursuant to the Consent Decree Timetable, on December 17. The DOJ subsequently provided feedback to the VIPD on January 3, 2011. The VIPD reports that the Committee, in consultation with the Policy

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 22 of 66 10 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

Consultant, will revise the Reportable Use of Force Policy and resubmit it to the DOJ “within the required time limit for review and approval.”14 Like the Use of Force Policy, the Reportable Use of Force Policy is a foundational policy. Without a robust Reportable Use of Force Policy, the VIPD will not be able to effectively monitor use of force events, which is imperative under the Consent Decree. As such, the VIPD should address the DOJ’s comments as soon as possible, preferably before the full 21day period permitted by the Consent Decree Timetable.
In the interim, the Reporting Use of Force Directive (#005-2010), which was issued on May 5, 2010, remains in effect “to provide guidance relative to reporting use of force within the guidelines as stipulated in the [C]onsent [D]ecree.”15 Under the Reporting Use of Force Directive, officers are required to report use of force events to their supervisors (and others) by completing the Reporting Use of Force Form (USVIPD/UFF2009). 16 Given that the VIPD is working to replace and/or revise the Reporting Use of Force Directive and Reporting Use of Force Form, the OIM has not opined about whether they satisfy the Consent Decree; the VIPD maintains that the Directive and Form are compliant.
In order to help officers more efficiently document use of force events, the VIPD reports that it recently installed computers at all Zones, with the exception of Zone C in the St. Thomas District, which is undergoing renovations. Once the Blue Team Component of IAPro is operational,17 officers will be able to enter use of force information directly into IAPro, obviating the need for officers to prepare formal use of force reports and then have to enter that information into a database. In addition, the newly installed computers are equipped with web-based cameras to record officer and witness statements, which are required aspects of use of force investigations under the Consent Decree. The VIPD’s Management and Information Systems Division (“MIS”) is currently coordinating training for supervisors on how to use the webbased cameras.

14

VIPD February 2011 Status Report at 5-6.

15

Id.

16

Id. at 6-7. Specifically, the VIPD previously reported that the Form has a

“section for the type of force used and requires the [s]upervisor to indicate

whether he/she concurs with the involved [o]fficers[’] action.” VIPD October

2010 Status Report at 4. The form also requires the relevant officer and his/her

supervisor to provide narrative descriptions of the circumstances that lead to the

use of force event.

17

See, infra, § IV.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 23 of 66 Office of the Independent Monitor | 11

Once fully operational, the VIPD plans to track use of force events using IAPro. In the interim, however, the OIM has repeatedly suggested that the VIPD implement a manual tracking system. Moreover, even once IAPro is operational, the OIM recommends that the VIPD continue using a manual tracking system as a back-up, at least until IAPro proves itself to be reliable.
In response to the OIM’s recommendations, the VIPD recently began implementing a manual tracking system. On November 5, for example, the VIPD reports that it assigned log books with sequentially numbered pages to all Zone Commanders to record use of force events and citizen complaints.18 On November 21, the Police Commissioner issued the Use of Force/Citizen Complaint Log Book Directive (#162010), which explains the purpose of the log books and sets forth procedures for logging all use of force events and citizen complaints. Among other things, the Directive requires officers to document the following information: Zone; Use of Force number; 1-A or Offense Report number; Citizen Complaint number; date received; and, supervisor assigned. According to the Directive, officers will also be subject to appropriate disciplinary action(s) for failing to log use of force events or citizen complaints.
Although the VIPD assigned log books to each Zone Commander on November 5, a number of Zone Commanders had not yet signed out their log books from their respective Chief or Deputy Chief (as is the protocol). During a December monitoring visit to one Zone, the OIM observed that only seven Zone Commanders had signed for their logbooks, according to records maintained by the Deputy Chief for the St. Thomas District. During the upcoming quarter, the OIM will review the contents of logbooks in both Districts to evaluate compliance with the Use of Force/Citizen Complaint Log Book Directive.
2. Survey of Use of Force Incidents
Since the VIPD continues to lack a reliable use of force reporting program (due, in large part, to the lack of approved Use of Force and Reportable Use of Force policies), the Department continues to generate unreliable statistics concerning use of force events. Therefore, for the fourth straight quarter, the OIM conducted a review of general incident reports (Form 1-As) and arrest reports to identify officers’ actions which indicate a possibility that force was used and determine more generally

18

VIPD February 2011 Status Report at 6.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 24 of 66 12 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

whether the VIPD is making progress adhering to its reporting obligations.
As part of this review, the OIM looks for information that suggests the use of force by one or more officers. Such evidence includes: (1) statements in the narrative of the incident or arrest report explicitly stating that force was used; (2) information indicating that a suspect fled from, resisted arrest, or otherwise likely had to be subdued with some level of force by the involved officer; and, (3) information indicating that the suspect or an officer was injured during the incident. The OIM then classifies the type of force that appears to have been used under one of the following six categories: (1) hand controls or forcible handcuffing; (2) take down or hand strikes; (3) oleoresin capsicum (“OC”) spray; (4) baton or ASP; (5) pointing of a firearm; and, (6) discharge of a firearm.19
Whenever an arrest report indicated that a use of force report should have been prepared (including when an arrest report indicated that a subject resisted arrest), the OIM cross-referenced the corresponding Form 1-A for more information. If there remained a question as to whether force was used, the OIM gave the VIPD “the benefit of the doubt” and the incident was not identified as requiring completion of a use of force form. While a more labor-intensive review of all Form 1-As may have exposed additional instances of unreported use of force events, the OIM adopted this approach to determine whether there was any measurable improvement to the reporting requirements during this quarter.
With respect to the St. Thomas District, the OIM identified 25 potential use of force events. However, the OIM was only able to locate 14 related use of force reports; we will try to locate the other 11 reports during the next quarter. With respect to the 14 use of force reports that we located, we found, with few exceptions, that supervisors conducted inadequate and/or improper investigations. For example, we reviewed a use of force event where the supervisor who conducted the investigation and signed off on the use of force report was directly involved in the use of force event, in clear violation of the Consent Decree.20 The OIM also

19

The OIM classifies use of force according to the minimum level of force that was

consistent with the report’s information regarding the facts and circumstances

of the underlying events.

20

CD ¶ 34.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 25 of 66
Office of the Independent Monitor | 13
found that most of the use of force reports that we reviewed from the St. Thomas District failed to note whether witness canvasses were conducted, and did not include statements or reports from all officers on the scene or medical reports when the subject of the use of force was treated for injuries. Nevertheless, the OIM notes some signs of improvement. Importantly, officers in the St. Thomas District appear to be completing (or at least attempting to complete) use of force reports with greater consistency than in past quarters.
For the St. Croix District, the OIM identified 19 1-As as potential use of force cases and ultimately identified 10 use of force events. The OIM subsequently located use of force reports for each of those suspected events — a positive sign that, at a minimum, officers are starting to understand their reporting obligations. With respect to those use of force reports, many were inadequate and lacked necessary information such as evidence or witness (officer or civilian) statements. Also, there were instances when an officer participated in a force event and failed to write a report or a supervisor on the scene of an event failed to write a report.
In the Third Quarterly Report, the OIM reported that there was widespread uncertainty among VIPD personnel (including senior officers) about the Department’s use of force reporting process. In response to those concerns, the VIPD, at the OIM’s request, held a number of remedial training sessions. Notably, however, the VIPD did not provide details about any of those training sessions in its Seventh Quarterly Status Report. Going forward, the VIPD should provide the OIM with detailed information about, among other things, each force-related training program that was held during the preceding quarter (describing the topics covered, identifying the attendees and instructors, etc.) in its quarterly status reports.
Notwithstanding those remedial training sessions, the OIM still has concerns about the extent to which VIPD personnel understand the use of force reporting process. For example, discussions with command personnel from the St. Thomas District (commanders or acting commanders for Zones A and C and the Special Operations Bureau) indicate that even senior officers are unsure about when they or their subordinates are required to report use of force events. One commander instructs subordinates to complete a use of force report “when in

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 26 of 66 14 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

doubt.”21 Based on our monitoring, that phrase appears to encompass a range of conduct —including non-resistant handcuffing — beyond the scope of the Use of Force Reporting Directive. Consequently, officers are overreporting use of force events because of inadequate policy guidance and related training. Many supervisors are similarly unsure about how to conduct an adequate use of force investigation.

During the Fourth Quarter, the OIM reviewed 39 use of force reports from one Zone in St. Thomas. As the chart below demonstrates, officers are routinely completing use of force reports unnecessarily. For example, compliant handcuffing and non-resistant searches — which should not be reported under the Reporting Use of Force Directive or the Consent Decree — accounted for 19 of the 39 use of force reports listed below. While our focus has typically been the underreporting of use of force events, we are also concerned about overreporting. In addition to demonstrating that VIPD personnel are unaware of their reporting obligations, overreporting makes it more difficult for supervisors to effectively investigate use of force events for potential misconduct and places an unnecessary burden on supervisory resources. Overreporting also reinforces the belief among certain VIPD personnel that the Consent Decree’s reporting requirements are overly burdensome.

Level of Force Compliant handcuffing Search, no resistance Resisted handcuffing Hard hands Pointing of firearm OC Spray Asp Baton Canine Deadly Force Kicked in a door Restrain a mental patient

Number of events 16 3 2 7 1 1 1 2 0 1 5

Overall, the VIPD must do a better job at educating officers about their reporting obligations. Even though the Reporting Use of Force Directive is temporary, that does not excuse the VIPD’s failure to adequately educate officers about the Directive. Moreover, officers who

21

That same commander was also unsure about whether the IAB or Zone

commanders are responsible for investigating serious use of force events.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 27 of 66
Office of the Independent Monitor | 15
receive training on the Reporting Use of Force Directive should be able to quickly adapt to the Reporting Use of Force Policy once it is approved by the DOJ.
3. Supervisor Review of Uses of Force
The VIPD reports that it incorporated the Reporting Use of Force Directive — which, it claims, satisfies the Consent Decree’s requirement that use of force events be reviewed and evaluated by a supervisor — into the Reportable Use of Force Policy. Once the DOJ approves the Reportable Use of Force Policy, the VIPD plans to hold related training programs in both Districts in March and April.
Based on the OIM’s observations, some of which have been noted above, those training programs are sorely needed. In addition to the issues identified above, a number of supervisors have reported that they were never taught how to conduct basic use of force investigations. Although the VIPD reports that it is making headway in this area, the OIM remains unconvinced. For example, as discussed below (see infra III, C), the Training Division’s efforts, after much delay, to train supervisors on the preponderance of the evidence standard have not met generally accepted policing standards. Moreover, the OIM is not aware of any efforts by the Division to train officers on the factors to consider when evaluating the credibility of witnesses.
The Department’s current shortage of supervisors may also be hampering its ability to adequately investigate use of force events. The VIPD’s organizational table calls for each Zone to be commanded by a Captain and each watch to be commanded by a Lieutenant. However, there is only one Captain on the entire island of St. Thomas, and he is not currently assigned to a Zone command. Police operations on St. Croix face similar problems. Specialized units, such as SWAT, Canine and Traffic are also short on command personnel. The Traffic Unit, for example, is commanded by a Sergeant instead of a Captain. Additionally, during conversations with VIPD staff at the Zones, we were frequently informed of first line supervisor shortages such that it is not uncommon to have no Sergeant working on a given shift. With so few supervisors, it is easy to see why the VIPD has had trouble adequately reviewing every use of force event. The OIM encourages the VIPD to address this issue. While we recognize that the Department is operating with significant fiscal restraints, the current situation is untenable.
In addition to providing supervisors with adequate training and providing an adequate supply of supervisors, the VIPD must also

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 28 of 66
16 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
implement an audit function (at the Zone, District, and/or Territorial level) to review the adequacy of completed use of force forms. During the Fourth Quarter, the OIM sought to examine whether the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs were reviewing use of force forms for completeness. Early in the quarter, at the suggestion of the OIM, one Deputy Chief agreed to review a random sample of use of force forms in his District. However, when the OIM followed up with the Deputy Chief, we learned that he delegated the task to one of his subordinates, who did not complete the review. The OIM subsequently sent the Deputy Chief a checklist to help him (or his subordinates) undertake such a review. The OIM’s checklist also helps the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs document what they did as part of their review. The OIM is hopeful that the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs will devote more attention to reviewing the adequacy of completed use of force forms during the next quarter. As the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs are aware, reviewing a relatively small sample of use of force reports provides an opportunity to identify, among other things, deficiencies in use of force investigations, problems with systems, and training and equipment needs.
B. Recommendations
As is the case with the Use of Force Policy, the VIPD is hampered by the lack of an approved Reportable Use of Force Policy. As such, the VIPD should strive to finalize that policy and obtain DOJ approval as quickly as possible. In addition, the VIPD needs to provide additional guidance to VIPD personnel about their use of force reporting responsibilities. Further instruction on the Reporting Use of Force Directive will prime Department personnel to adapt to the Reporting Use of Force Policy (which will be very similar to the Directive) once it is approved. The pervasive confusion surrounding the reporting use of force process cannot continue.
While the Roll Call and Commanders Call training sessions — which the OIM has encouraged the Department to hold — have been helpful and should be continued, the OIM recommends that the Training Division design a more comprehensive, mandatory in-service training program. In addition, we understand that the Committee is currently designing an operational flow chart to provide step-by-step guidance about the use of force reporting process (from the use of force event itself through disposition).
In addition, with respect to use of force investigations, the OIM recommends that the VIPD train all supervisors; the current process

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 29 of 66 Office of the Independent Monitor | 17

appears to involve Commanders selecting certain supervisors to attend such trainings. Moreover, the VIPD should strive to staff each Zone with an adequate number of trained supervisors given the vital role that supervisors play in the use of force investigation and reporting process.
Finally, during the upcoming quarter, the OIM requests that the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs audit the use of force forms in their respective Districts. The working group focused on force-related issues, particularly the Chief overseeing it, should take the lead in designing a uniform audit protocol. The OIM will report on those audits in future quarterly reports. In addition, the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs should also ensure that the Zone commanders within their Districts have signed out and are using their log books. If certain Zone commanders have not yet done so, the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs should remedy the situation immediately.
III. Citizen Complaint Process (CD ¶¶ 42-58)
A. Public Information (CD ¶¶ 42-43) & Means of Filing & Tracking Complaints (CD ¶¶ 44-45)
1. Status and Assessment
As previously reported, the VIPD has organized the roll-out of its complaint process into two phases.22 The first phase includes completing policies related to the complaint process, reviewing complaint policies with Commanders prior to dissemination department-wide, printing posters, brochures, and compliment/complaint forms, installing compliment/complaint drop boxes throughout the Districts, and holding a press conference to inform the public about the complaint process. The second phase of the complaint process consists of on-going roll call/inservice training regarding the complaint policies.
With respect to the complaint policies, the Committee initially developed a single, overarching policy to govern the complaint process, the Investigation of Employee Misconduct Policy. That policy, among other things, addressed two primary areas: 1) the mechanics of submitting and processing civilian complaints; and 2) how the VIPD should investigate those complaints. After receiving comments from the OIM during the Fourth Quarter, the Committee, in consultation with the Policy Consultant, divided that policy into two separate, but related

22

VIPD July 2010 Status Report at 11; VIPD February 2011 Status Report at 12.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 30 of 66 18 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

policies, the Acceptance of Citizen Complaint Policy and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. The OIM commends the Committee for breaking the Investigation of Employee Misconduct Policy into two, more user-friendly policies. The VIPD ultimately submitted the Acceptance of Citizen Complaint Policy and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy to the DOJ on January 18, 2011. The OIM notes that while the Consent Decree does not require the DOJ to review or approve complaint process related policies, the DOJ provides comments on these policies as a matter of technical assistance. To the extent that the comment process regarding these policies is relevant, the OIM will discuss it in the next quarterly report.
Pending issuance of those policies, the VIPD’s complaint process continues to be governed by the Processing Citizen Complaints Directive (#014-2010), which the Police Commissioner issued in late October 2010. The Directive provides, among other things, interim guidance on the complaint process. In addition, it requires officers to carry information brochures and complaint forms in their vehicles at all times while on duty and prohibits officers from discouraging any person from filing a complaint.
The VIPD also continued to promote the complaint process through its public awareness campaign during the Fourth Quarter. During the Fourth Quarter, as we previously reported, the VIPD developed compliment/complaint brochures to help promote public awareness about the complaint process.23 On December 9, the VIPD held a meeting to consider revisions to the complaint form, brochures, and poster prior to reordering additional copies. The OIM subsequently reviewed the poster and brochure and provided comments to the VIPD on two occasions in February, some of which the VIPD incorporated into the current version. Among other things, the VIPD agreed to reduce the size of the warning against filing false complaints and added a new toll-free hotline (1-877-391-7376) and email address for the IAB (internal.affairs@vipd.gov.vi). In addition, the VIPD is considering developing a preformatted notification letter for potential use by Zone supervisors to advise complainants of the resolution of complaints disposed of at the Zone level after investigation.
After holding a press conference on October 13, at the beginning of the Fourth Quarter, to promote the Department’s new complaint process, the VIPD began running related public service announcements (“PSAs”)

23

OIM Third Quarterly Report at 25.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 31 of 66
Office of the Independent Monitor | 19
on radio and television. Among other things, the PSAs explained the multitude of ways that complaints may be filed. The VIPD plans to evaluate the effectiveness of its public awareness campaign, particularly the PSAs, in the coming months.
In addition to providing complainants with a copy of their complaint and a control number, the VIPD reports that the IAB will notify all non-anonymous complainants in writing about the disposition of their complaints. In order to facilitate that process, the VIPD, as mentioned above, is developing a preformatted notification letter that could be used to advise certain complainants about the disposition of less serious complaints. However, the OIM recommends that the VIPD take a more individualized approach when dealing with complaints alleging more serious misconduct (including any allegations of excessive force).
2. Recommendations
The OIM encourages the VIPD, specifically the Committee, to turn around their revisions to the complaint process policies promptly. Once those policies are issued, the Training Division should immediately begin training VIPD personnel about the complaint process. In addition, during the next quarter, the VIPD should audit the complaint process to determine the extent to which officers are complying with the Processing Citizen Complaint Directive (which is in force pending issuance of the complaint process policies). Among other things, the VIPD should ensure that officers carry complaint-related brochures and forms while on-duty and do not discourage persons from filing complaints, and that supervisors appropriately notify complainants of the disposition of their complaints. The Deputy Chief overseeing the complaint process working group should see that these recommendations are implemented.
B. Investigation of Complaints (CD ¶¶ 46-58)
1. Status and Assessment
As discussed above, the VIPD’s investigation of complaints will be governed by the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy once it is issued. According to the VIPD, all complaint investigations will be evaluated using the preponderance of the evidence standard as required by the Consent Decree. During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD made some progress developing and implementing training programs relating to the preponderance of the evidence standard. As discussed in

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 32 of 66 20 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

the Third Quarterly Report, on October 12, an Attorney in the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office conducted a preponderance of the evidence training for Zone Commanders in both Districts.24 On December 20, the Training Director conducted another preponderance of the evidence training in St. Thomas, which was followed by a similar training in St. Croix on January 13.25 The OIM observed this January 13 training and will detail in the next quarterly report how these trainings require improvement in order to meet generally accepted police practices.
The Consent Decree also requires the VIPD to institute a centralized numbering and tracking system for all complaints. While the VIPD reports that it has established a protocol with 911 to issue complaint numbers, it is not possible to use a single set of numbers because 911 operates as two separate systems in the Virgin Islands, one for St. Thomas and another for St. Croix. Because technical difficulties continue to impair the VIPD from implementing a single numbering and tracking system, during a hearing on November 22, the VIPD stated that it would promptly provide the DOJ with a written description of the technical issues it faces so that the Parties can further discuss them. The DOJ reports that despite numerous requests, the VIPD has not provided it with the requested written description. Accordingly, the OIM encourages the VIPD to provide this information to the DOJ so that the Parties can discuss possible solutions. The VIPD also reports that it has a protocol in place to notify the Police Commissioner about certain types of serious complaints within twenty-four hours.
During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD reports that the IAB continued to use digital voice and video recording devices during all complaint-related interviews. Starting in February, the VIPD also reports that MIS will begin training supervisors to use the web-based cameras that were installed at all Zones (other than Zone C) during the Third Quarter. The Zones have lagged behind the IAB in recording complaintrelated interviews because of a number of technical issues. Once MIS completes its training, the OIM expects Zone supervisors to video record

24

Id.

25

According to the VIPD, between October 22-26, IAB Agents and Supervisors

from both Districts also attended training in St. Croix titled “Internal Affairs, Administrative Investigations, Early Intervention and Legal Issues,” which included as a component a discussion on the preponderance of the evidence standard.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 33 of 66
Office of the Independent Monitor | 21
all complaint-related witness interviews in accordance with the Consent Decree and Departmental policies.
Finally, the OIM commends the IAB for developing an audit program to review the status of filed complaints. Under this new program, the Assistant Director of the IAB (or the assigned supervisor) will review completed the IAB investigations, discuss any findings with the lead investigator and the assigned supervisor, and seek to identify any deficiencies. In addition, the Assistant Director of the IAB (or the assigned supervisor) will document her/his findings using an audit form and compile statistics to be included in a monthly report. The OIM plans to review the IAB’s audit forms during the next quarter.
2. Recommendations
In light of the technical difficulties that are preventing the VIPD from instituting a single numbering and tracking system for complaints, the OIM recommends that the VIPD promptly provide the DOJ with a written description of its difficulties. Once the DOJ receives that information, the Parties should discuss mutually acceptable and technologically feasible alternatives.
With regard to video recording all complaint-related witness interviews, the OIM recommends that MIS complete its training of all officers on the use of video recording devices as soon as possible. Once that training is complete, the OIM will hold the VIPD accountable for the recording of all complaint-related witnesses as required by the Consent Decree.
The OIM also recommends that the VIPD provide the IAB with sufficient staffing to implement a quality control function to review forcerelated investigations completed at the unit level. Similar to the audit function being implemented at the IAB for its investigations, this quality control function should identify any deficiencies in unit level investigations and, minimally, document any findings in a memorandum to the investigating supervisor’s Deputy Chief. Eventually, this review function should be completed in a timely fashion to allow further investigation when deficiencies are identified, and disposition within the restrictive time limitations of the current collective bargaining agreement. In addition, the reviewer’s findings should be compiled into a periodic statistical report broken down by each command.
In addition, the IAB should continue to develop an audit system to review the status of complaints. The OIM believes that such an audit

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 34 of 66
22 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
system is absolutely critical, particularly as citizens become more aware of the complaint process and the total number of complaints increases.
IV. Management and Supervision (CD ¶¶ 59-72)
A. Risk Management System (CD ¶¶ 59-68)
1. Status and Assessment
The VIPD hired a new Director of MIS near the end of 2010. During his first week on the job, the Director took an active role in the Summit and provided valuable information about the VIPD’s technological capabilities and limitations. One of the biggest challenges facing the Director relates to implementing the VIPD’s risk management system (“RMS”), which includes, but is not limited to, the IAPro system and Blue Team component. During the next quarter, the VIPD reports that the Director will assess the VIPD’s equipment, hardware, and software to determine how the VIPD will proceed with developing and implementing the RMS required by the Consent Decree.
Unfortunately, technical issues continue to hamper the VIPD’s efforts to make IAPro fully operational. Consequently, the VIPD was forced to cancel training programs relating to IAPro that were scheduled to take place in December. The OIM is hopeful that the new Director of MIS will be able to rectify the current technical problems. If not, the VIPD should propose an alternative approach because it needs to make progress in this area soon.
As noted in previous reports, the Consent Decree requires the VIPD to use an electronic system for collecting, analyzing, and tracking data. In the interim, the VIPD reports that it is complying with the Consent Decree by manually collecting the required information, including, but not limited to, all uses of force, critical firearms discharges, and complaints and any related dispositions. According to the VIPD, this information will be entered into IAPro once it is fully operational. The IAB also recently created an internship program to help expedite the data entry in which selected cadets from the VIPD’s Cadet Program participate.
The VIPD submitted its Early Intervention Program Policy to the DOJ on December 17. Among other things, that policy seeks to identify potentially problematic behavior by officers at an early stage when corrective measures are likely to be the most effective. The VIPD received

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 35 of 66 Office of the Independent Monitor | 23

feedback on its Early Intervention Program Policy on January 28, 2011. The Police Commissioner approved the establishment of an Early Intervention Program Committee on January 12, 2011. Committee members include: a Deputy Chief; the Director of the IAB; the Director of Human Resources; the LESU President; a Psychologist; the EIP Coordinator; the Acting Audit Clerk from the Payroll Division; and, a PBA member. The Committee held its first meeting at the end of January 2011. The OIM will provide details about this meeting and the EIP Committee more generally in the next quarterly report.
2. Recommendations
The OIM encourages the newly instituted EIP Committee to work with the Policies and Procedures Committee to finalize the Early Intervention Program Policy as soon as possible. In addition, the OIM would like to learn more about the expected role of the EIP Committee. As such, we request that the VIPD provide a more detailed explanation of the EIP Committee’s charge in its next quarterly status report.
Additionally, the OIM recommends that the MIS Director complete his assessment of the Department’s current technical capabilities and limitations, and then develop proposed solutions. If some of the systems envisioned by the Consent Decree are not technologically feasible, the Parties should discuss alternatives.
B. Oversight (CD ¶ 69)
1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations
The VIPD continues to report that it has not yet prepared an audit protocol for the RMS.26 However, the VIPD reports that senior VIPD personnel have discussed the possibility of creating a unit charged with conducting audits of “several areas of the VIPD as an effective means of quality control overall within the Department.” It is unclear whether any such unit would have audit responsibility for the RMS.
The OIM recognizes that making IAPro fully operational is a prerequisite to designing and implementing an effective RMS audit protocol. As such, the VIPD must bring IAPro on-line within a reasonable period of time or commit itself to finding a technologically feasible alternative.

26

VIPD February 2011 Status Report at 25.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 36 of 66
24 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
C. Discipline (CD ¶¶ 70-72)
1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations
Pursuant to the Consent Decree Timetable, the VIPD submitted a Disciplinary Policy and Matrix to the DOJ on December 17. The DOJ provided the VIPD with comments on January 13, 2011. The VIPD’s revisions to this policy and the matrix will be discussed in greater detail in the next quarterly report.
Based on our discussions with officers during the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD’s disciplinary system appears, at least in part, to be broken. For example, many command personnel, who are responsible for reviewing misconduct investigations and conducting disciplinary hearings, have not been adequately trained to carry out those responsibilities. In addition, disciplinary sanctions have been made so inconsequential and inconsistent that any deterrent effect may be lost. For example, we learned that the Department allows officers to add vacation days to the end of suspensions or to split a suspension into some days active and some days held in abeyance, with little likelihood that a subsequent sustained finding for a rule violation would result in activation of the days held in abeyance. Further, in lieu of disciplining officers, the Department sometimes shifts officers between units rather than re-training, suspending, and/or terminating them. According to some officers, the Department also lacks a progressive discipline system, meaning that violators are not punished more severely when they engage in the same prohibited conduct on multiple occasions. As a result of these observations, the OIM encourages the Department to address these concerns with better enforcement of discipline, more strict sanctions, and a progressive system of punishment. The Deputy Chief overseeing the Management and Supervision working group must pay particular attention to these issues.
V. Training (CD ¶¶ 73-81)
A. Management Oversight (CD ¶¶ 73-77) and Curriculum (CD ¶¶ 78-81)
1. Status and Assessment
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to coordinate all force-related training, and the Training Director, in consultation with the Attorney General’s Office, to regularly review all use of force training programs and policies.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 37 of 66
Office of the Independent Monitor | 25
For several months, the Training Division has reported that its Use of Force Policy lesson plan is ready to be implemented once the policy is approved by the DOJ. However, in light of recent revisions to the draft Use of Force Policy that were suggested by the DOJ, the OIM strongly recommends that the Training Division once again examine its Use of Force Policy lesson plan to ensure that it is consistent with those revisions. The same is true for the VIPD’s other draft force-related policies. As we have repeatedly stated in prior quarterly reports and in face-to-face meetings with Training Division personnel, the Division must be prepared to expeditiously implement training programs relating to its force-related policies once they are approved. The OIM is mindful that the Training Division plans to hold a number of force-related policy training programs throughout March and April 2011. The Training Division must work quickly to finalize, among other things, the curricula and lesson plans that it intends to use for those trainings. In addition, the Training Division should carefully select the instructors for those training programs and ensure that they are qualified and prepared to teach the subject matter at issue. Instructors with expertise in physical skills, such as martial arts or firearms, should not be primarily responsible for teaching the legal dimensions of policies.
During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD reports that the Training Division held the following training programs (in addition to the preponderance of the evidence training programs, which were discussed above): (1) Defensive Tactics Training (St. Croix District); and (2) Recruit Class Training (both Districts). Although the Training Division also planned to hold SWAT Training during the Fourth Quarter, it was cancelled at the last minute — after representatives from the OIM arrived in the Virgin Islands, in part, for the purpose of monitoring those training programs. Although we were able to reorganize our monitoring activities, we needlessly lost valuable time. The Training Director later explained to the OIM that the Virgin Islands’ Property and Procurement Division had not signed-off on the training program. If unreasonable delay is coming from the Property and Procurement Division, those concerns should be raised immediately with the Police Commissioner. Sending representatives from the OIM to training programs only to find out that they have been cancelled is a significant waste of the OIM’s time and, ultimately, the VIPD’s resources. As such, the OIM strongly advises the Training Division to satisfy procurement procedures before scheduling training programs.
The OIM also learned that severe weather recently damaged the VIPD’s firearms range. As a result, the Training Division was unable to

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 38 of 66
26 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
complete its planned firearms training. While the Training Division has improved its notice to the OIM of upcoming training programs (especially since the Summit in January 2011), there is still room for improvement. Given that training programs should be scheduled well in advance, the OIM should be notified of training programs at least one month ahead of time. Likewise, in the event that a cancellation is necessary, the Training Division should provide as much notice as possible, as we have repeatedly requested. During a recent monitoring trip, a number of officers also expressed a desire to receive advanced notice of upcoming training programs and any related changes. Commanders, in particular, need adequate time to select officers to participate in training programs and to reallocate personnel as needed.
During the Fourth Quarter, the OIM spent a considerable amount of time reviewing, among other things, lesson plans, attendance sheets, instructor certification records, and training program evaluations. While the Training Division is beginning to do a better job of documenting various aspects of their operations, records are still maintained separately in both Districts. There has been some discussion about using IAPro (once it is fully operational) to consolidate the Training Division’s records, but that remains aspirational given the Department’s technical issues.
With respect to the Training Division’s lesson plans, the OIM notes that the Training Director recently obtained “training keys” (i.e., model lesson plans covering a wide range of topics) from the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The Training Director reports that he intends to use the “training keys” to prepare, among other things, roll call training programs and training bulletins. While the OIM commends the Training Director for taking this initiative, he must customize the “training key” based on the unique requirements and characteristics of the VIPD. In addition, the Training Director should also recognize that certain aspects of the “training keys,” particularly those dealing with legal developments, may become outdated relatively quickly, and the Director should not hesitate to seek legal counsel as needed.
The OIM previously recommended that the Training Division submit policies with legal components to an attorney to be reviewed for legal sufficiency. As such, the OIM is pleased to report that the Training Director sent a letter on December 9 to the Police Commissioner asking that an attorney be appointed to “review all legal training updates,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 39 of 66 Office of the Independent Monitor | 27

training bulletins and decisions.”27 The OIM will follow up about the Training Division’s request in the next quarterly report.
In order to track attendance at training programs, the OIM previously stressed the importance of maintaining accurate attendance sheets for all programs. Therefore, the OIM paid close attention to the Training Division’s attendance sheets during the Fourth Quarter. Overall, these attendance sheets were more complete than in previous quarters. Among other things, the more recent attendance sheets required attendees to sign in and out next to their typed name, solving our previous concern about not being able to identify attendees’ signatures. When officers miss scheduled training programs, the Training Director explained that he notifies the relevant Chief by letter. The Training Director’s expectation is that the Chief would then direct the officer to make up the training or, depending on the circumstances, impose a disciplinary sanction. During the next quarter, the OIM will examine how the Chiefs have responded to those letters from the Training Director (i.e., whether they have directed officers to make up the training or have otherwise taken corrective action). The OIM also encourages the Training Director to follow up proactively with the respective Chiefs on this issue.
The OIM also continued its review of instructor certification records during the Fourth Quarter. Specifically, we reviewed the certification records for seven instructors. We are pleased to report that all of those instructors were appropriately certified in their respective disciplines. In addition, as part of our monitoring activities, we also spoke with two Training Division instructors. In addition to helping to further evaluate their qualifications, these conversations provided insight into the VIPD’s training infrastructure.
In addition, the OIM reviewed a number of training program performance evaluations (completed by Training Division personnel) during the Fourth Quarter. With respect to those performance evaluations, we subsequently learned that the Training Director asked his staff to identify solely training program weaknesses for remediation. Going forward, the OIM suggests that Training Division personnel identify both strengths and weaknesses, and that they complete

27

Letter from Vancito Gumbs, Sr., Training Director to Novelle E. Francis, Jr.,

Police Commissioner, regarding “Request for Legal Assistance” at 1 (Dec. 9,

2010).

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 40 of 66
28 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
performance evaluations for every class that they observe. In addition, the OIM reviewed a revised version of the class evaluation form, which training program participants will be required to complete after each training program; currently, training program participants do not have a formal means to provide feedback to the Training Division. The OIM will likewise review completed class evaluations in future quarters.
The OIM was pleased to learn that the Training Director recently created an internal committee to help evaluate the efficacy of existing training programs. Thus far, the committee is composed of the following: the Training Director; the Training Manager; a Lieutenant; an IAB Agent; and, a (retired) Captain. The OIM will monitor the work of this committee during the next quarter.
Finally, the OIM identified a number of deficiencies relating to the Department’s Field Training Officer (“FTO”) program in our Third Quarterly Report. Unfortunately, many of the issues that we identified have not yet been satisfactorily addressed. For example, in St. Croix, the VIPD assigned probationary officers to FTOs who were not certified. When the OIM inquired about this practice, a VIPD representative responded that it was temporary because the Department lacked a sufficient number of certified FTOs.
In one St. Thomas Zone, the Commander told representatives from the OIM that there is one trained FTO for six probationary officers. As a result, the Commander directs a number of other officers, depending on their day-to-day availability, to help supervise and train the probationary officers notwithstanding the fact that none of them are trained to carry out these responsibilities. Because different officers rotate in and out of that role, there is very little continuity of supervision and training.
The OIM also had the opportunity to speak with the lone certified FTO at that Zone, as well as another officer designated as an FTO and a probationary officer. The OIM was impressed by both FTOs, particularly because they expressed a strong desire to acquire additional training. Although the certified FTO previously attended an FTO training program, the FTO was interested in attending a refresher program. The OIM was also impressed with the probationary officer, who generally expressed satisfaction with the field training that he had received. With respect to that probationary officer, the OIM reviewed his FTO folder, which included, among other things, weekly observation reports. According to the certified FTO, weekly observation sheets are not typically reviewed by a supervisor unless the probationary officer is having difficulty. The

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 41 of 66 Office of the Independent Monitor | 29

probationary officer’s FTO file did not, however, contain daily reports, which are best practices in FTO programs and another useful tool for monitoring probationary officers’ performance.
2. Recommendations
The Training Division should revise its current force-related lesson plans based on the draft force-related policies that the VIPD most recently submitted to the DOJ. At this point, it appears unlikely that any of those policies will change significantly. They should, however, anticipate that there will be substantive changes to past lesson plans, and that the revised plans will have to be reviewed by both legal advisors and the Department’s Policy Consultant. As such, the Training Division cannot wait to revise its force-related lesson plans until the relevant policies are approved.
In preparation for the upcoming force-related trainings (which are scheduled to begin in late March), the OIM recommends that the Training Division conduct “test runs” using its proposed lesson plans. Given the importance of those trainings, the Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, and other senior VIPD personnel should provide the Training Director with feedback on those “test runs” and on any materials (e.g., handouts) that will be used during the training programs.
VI. Monitoring, Reporting, and Implementation (CD ¶¶ 82-102)
1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations
The VIPD has fulfilled its obligations with regard to these specific provisions of the Consent Decree. Namely, as discussed in previous reports, the VIPD named a Compliance Coordinator and the Police Commissioner also designated a Compliance Manager for St. Croix.28
On February 3, the VIPD submitted its Seventh Quarterly Status Report to the DOJ and the OIM. The OIM was disappointed by the Department’s inadequate, truncated, and late Seventh Quarterly Status Report. While the OIM appreciates the Compliance Manager and Compliance Coordinator’s overall hard work and enthusiastic efforts to develop the quarterly status reports (among their many other contributions), the VIPD must develop a more robust and systematic

28

OIM First Quarterly Report at 49; OIM Second Quarterly Report at 45.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 42 of 66 30 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

reporting process. Thus, rather than restating information from previous quarters, quarterly status reports should provide a detailed account of everything that the VIPD did during the prior quarter (and only the prior quarter) relating to the Consent Decree. Moreover, quarterly status reports should clearly state in an introductory paragraph the time period that the report covers. If the Compliance Manager and Compliance Coordinator are not receiving complete and timely updates from other VIPD personnel responsible for areas of Consent Decree compliance, that fact should be brought to the attention of the Police Commissioner and the Police Commissioner should hold those personnel accountable. Given that the OIM relies, in part, on the VIPD’s quarterly status reports to evaluate the Department’s progress each quarter, it is in the VIPD’s interest to provide a more fulsome description of its activities.
In addition, the VIPD sent the OIM and DOJ the Seventh Quarterly Status Report on February 3, almost a month later than expected. The OIM believes that the VIPD fell off schedule this quarter because it was focused on complying with the Consent Decree Timetable (which required the VIPD to submit a significant number of force-related policies to the DOJ in December) and organizing the Summit. Nonetheless, going forward, the VIPD should also submit its quarterly status reports to the DOJ and the OIM within seven business days after the end of the preceding quarter (e.g., for the next quarter by April 7, 2011).
Status of Substantial Compliance
In order to be released from the Consent Decree, the VIPD must substantially comply with each of the Consent Decree’s requirements and remain in compliance for two years.29 At the end of the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD, as was true by the end of the Third Quarter, has substantially complied only with the following Consent Decree requirements:
• In January 2010, the Parties selected the Monitor (CD ¶¶ 82-86);
• In the Spring of 2010, the Police Commissioner appointed a Compliance Coordinator to serve as a liaison between the Parties and the Monitor (CD ¶ 88); and,
• Beginning in June 2009, the VIPD began issuing quarterly status

29

CD ¶ 103.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 43 of 66 Office of the Independent Monitor | 31
reports delineating the steps taken by the VIPD to comply with the Consent Decree (CD ¶ 98).
As discussed above, the VIPD has not yet substantially complied with any of the other substantive provisions of the Consent Decree, most significantly those relating to use of force. In order to begin that process, the VIPD must finalize its outstanding force-related policies. Given that those policies are very close to being finalized (thanks, in particular, to the hard work of the VIPD’s Policies and Procedures Committee), the VIPD should prioritize that task. Once those policies are finalized and approved by the DOJ, the OIM is hopeful that the Department will begin to make more rapid progress with every other aspect of the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 44 of 66 32 [ William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

Conclusion
his Quarterly Report demonstrates that the VIPD, more so than ever before, appears to be moving in the right direction with a renewed sense of commitment and purpose. Despite making relatively little department-wide progress during October and November, the VIPD acquired considerable momentum at the end of the Fourth Quarter. The Consent Decree Time Table and the Summit both spurred the VIPD to a new level of heightened activity.
At the Summit, the VIPD not only improved upon draft use of force and complaint process related policies, but also the Police Commissioner assigned the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs with specific responsibility for bringing the Department into compliance with the Consent Decree. In the upcoming quarter, the OIM expects the DOJ to approve these forcerelated policies, among others, and, consistent with the court-approved Consent Decree Timetable, the VIPD must promptly start training its personnel on these policies. Likewise, in the upcoming quarters, the OIM -- like the Police Commissioner -- will hold the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs ultimately responsible for overseeing their respective working groups. The OIM will report on the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs' progress in detail in upcoming quarterly reports.
Finally, the OIM welcomes all opportunities to work with the Police Commissioner in these upcoming months before he retires from the Department.
/

March 18, 2011
Principal Contributors Leah C. Aden, Esq. Ann Marie Doherty, Esq. Charles A. Gruber Dennis E. Nowicki Joshua D. Roth, Esq. Robert L. Stewart

William F. J6ÿ{nson and Steven M. WÿI

Iÿ/dependent Monitors

/'

Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 45 of 66
Office of the Independent Monitor | A
Consent Decree Summit Addendum
In an effort to reinvigorate the VIPD’s commitment to the Consent Decree compliance process, the Police Commissioner convened a Consent Decree Summit on St. Thomas on January 34, 2011.
The OIM and the VIPD spent a significant amount of time during the last two weeks of December discussing mutual goals for the Summit and coordinating logistics. The Commissioner ultimately decided that the Summit would focus on the following goals: (1) ensuring that all participants understood their leadership roles in achieving substantial compliance with the Consent Decree; (2) assigning Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, and other senior VIPD personnel responsibility for key provisions of the Consent Decree (e.g., Use of Force and Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force; Citizen Complaint Process; Management and Supervision; and Training); (3) requiring these assigned Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, and senior VIPD personnel to lead working groups focused on these key Consent Decree provisions beyond the Summit; (4) requiring these assigned Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, and other senior VIPD personnel to work with their respective working groups to establish detailed plans of actions (setting interim timelines, meeting schedules, and quarterly objectives, etc.) to achieve substantial compliance with their assigned provisions; (5) advancing the status of the force-related draft policies that were submitted to the DOJ beginning on December 17; and (6) generally defining a path to compliance. The Commissioner circulated a detailed agenda to the invited participants shortly before the Summit commenced.
In addition to representatives from the OIM, the following VIPD personnel (representing a cross-section of the Department, including its executive leadership team) attended the Summit: the Police Commissioner; the Assistant Police Commissioner; Chief of St. Croix; Chief of St. Thomas/St. John; Deputy Chief of St. Thomas; Deputy Chief of St. John; the Compliance Coordinator; the Territorial Compliance Manager; the Director and Assistant Director of the IAB, as well as an IAB agent; the Director of Training, the Training Manager, and a Training Cadre; two police Captains; two Lieutenants; the Police Benevolent Association President; the new Director of Management Information Systems;

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 46 of 66 B | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

and the Director of the Planning and Research Bureau. In addition, the VIPD’s Policy Consultant attended the Summit.
In line with one of the Police Commissioner’s chief goals for the Summit, he appointed specific Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to oversee four working groups that correlate to the four substantive areas of the Consent Decree — (1) Use of Force Policies & Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force (St. Croix District Chief); (2) Citizen Complaint Process – (St. Thomas District Chief); (3) Management and Supervision (St. Thomas District Deputy Chief); and, (4) Training (St. Croix Former Chief).1 While the Police Commissioner recognized that those individuals could (and should) prudently delegate certain tasks to others, he stated that he would hold each of them ultimately responsible for the success of their respective working groups. In addition, the Police Commissioner stressed that their oversight responsibilities would continue until their working groups achieved substantial compliance. The Police Commissioner then divided the other participants into working groups.2
Each working group reflected a broad cross-section of the Summit participants and included representatives from the IAB, the Training Division, the Policies and Procedures Committee, and the OIM, as well as a number of Zone Commanders. The Policy Consultant moved between each group to observe their progress and offer technical assistance with regard to policies. For approximately a day-and-a-half, these working groups (1) developed detailed plans of action for achieving substantial compliance with their Consent Decree provisions and (2) revised policies relevant to their working group topic.
The Use of Force working group focused on force-related policies. Among other things, that working group reviewed many of the force-related policies that the VIPD submitted to the DOJ on

1

The Police Commissioner appointed the Former Chief of the St. Croix District as

the Training Director in early 2011. All references to the “Chiefs and Deputy

Chiefs” in this section include the Former Chief of the St. Croix District.

2

While the Police Commissioner designated Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to lead four

working groups that correlate to the four substantive provisions of the Consent Decree, for Summit related purposes, the Police Commissioner collapsed the four working groups into two groups, Use of Force and Citizen Complaint, with personnel from Training and MIS dispersed between these two groups.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 47 of 66
Office of the Independent Monitor | C
December 17. In addition, the working group also reviewed and incorporated the DOJ’s comments on each policy. The discussions that took place at the Summit were reflected in the force-related policies that the VIPD resubmitted to the DOJ later in January.
The Complaint Process working group spent a substantial amount of time reworking the VIPD’s complaint policy. The working group ultimately decided to break the complaint policy into two pieces, one relating to how the VIPD accepts complaints and the other relating to how the VIPD investigates complaints. Those comments were reflected in the complaint process policies that the VIPD subsequently submitted to the DOJ.
Each working group also set interim deadlines related to, among other things, upcoming training. That training is contingent on receiving final approval of the relevant policies from the DOJ. Given that both working groups discussed training extensively, the Training Director and his staff spent time working with both groups.
Another important outcome of the Summit involved the consolidation of the VIPD’s policies into a single, user-friendly manual. Currently, the VIPD has a policies manual, procedures manual and general orders manual, as well as field manuals, field directives, and training bulletins. As a result, officers often have difficulty locating particular policies. In addition, officers are often confronted with contradictory policies in different sources. The development of a single policy manual represents a significant step forward for the VIPD.
Finally, the Summit provided an invaluable opportunity for the VIPD personnel to work side-by-side with the Policy Consultant, and representatives from the OIM. Moreover, VIPD personnel from the St. Thomas District and the St. Croix District had the opportunity to interact and learn from each others’ experiences.
Following the Summit, the Police Commissioner disseminated a memorandum, titled “Meeting Current Standards of Policing,” that memorialized the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs’ appointments and provided recommendations for specific actions that each group should take in the short and long-term to achieve substantial compliance with the Consent Decree. Along similar

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 48 of 66
D | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
lines, the OIM’s Police Practices Experts provided the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs with a memorandum outlining their respective responsibilities and a road map for how to lead their working groups. Each of the OIM’s four Police Practices Experts has a direct working relationship with a particular Chief or Deputy Chief.
In the upcoming quarter, the Police Practices Experts will be in regular contact with their respective Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs. In order to ensure that the Summit’s goals are realized, the OIM will monitor each working group closely.
Overall, the VIPD recognizes that extensive reform is needed department-wide and the level of activity generated by the Summit demonstrates that VIPD personnel are genuinely committed to the hard work that it will take to achieve institutional reform. The Department recognizes that officers have a right to be trained on how to use force to protect themselves and others. Likewise, citizens have a right to be treated fairly and to expect the Department to review use of force events and take corrective actions when officers improperly use force. Compliance with the Consent Decree is a means to afford officers and citizens these rights, as well as for the VIPD to become a model for other departments in the Caribbean.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 49 of 66 Office of the Independent Monitor | i

Appendix A Summary of Consent Decree Requirements
Below is a summary of the requirements imposed by each substantive section of the Consent Decree. Because these summaries of the substantive requirements significantly lengthen our reports, we include them here in this Appendix to provide the reader with context concerning the VIPD’s progress in implementing the broad range of reforms required under each section of the Consent Decree.
I. Use of Force Policies (CD ¶ 31)
A. Requirements
Under paragraph 31 of the Consent Decree, the VIPD is required to review and revise its use of force policies as necessary to:
• Define terms clearly, including establishing a definition of force that is consistent with the definition of force under the Consent Decree;1
• Incorporate a use of force model that teaches officers to use, as appropriate, strategies such as disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, or calling in specialized units to assist with a situation;
• Advise VIPD officers that, whenever possible, individuals should be allowed to submit voluntarily to arrest before force is used;
• Reinforce that the use of excessive force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and potential civil liability;
• Ensure that sufficient less lethal force alternatives are available to all VIPD officers; and

1

Under the Consent Decree, “[t]he term ‘force’ means any physical coercion used

to effect, influence or persuade an individual to comply with an order from an

officer. The term shall not include ordinary, unresisted handcuffing. The term

shall include the use of chemical irritant and the deployment of a canine and/or

pointing a firearm at or in the direction of a human being.” CD ¶ 21.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 50 of 66 ii | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

• Explicitly prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized.2
This provision requires that the VIPD implement its revised use of force policies immediately after the DOJ has reviewed and approved finalized versions of the policies.
II. Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force (CD ¶¶ 32-41)
A. General Use of Force Events (CD ¶¶ 32-38)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires that the VIPD document in writing all uses of force and develop a use of force reporting form on which officers are required to record each and every type of force used in an incident. The use of force reports must include: (1) a narrative description, prepared by a supervisor, of the events preceding the use of force; (2) a narrative description, prepared by the involved officer, of the event relating to the use of force incident; and, (3) audiotaped statements, as appropriate, from those officers.3
The Consent Decree requires officers to notify their supervisors following any use of force or allegation of excessive force. The supervisor must respond to the scene, examine the person who was subjected to the use of force for injury, interview him or her to determine the extent of any injuries, and ensure that the person receives medical attention, if necessary.
A supervisor must conduct a review and evaluation of each use of force by a VIPD officer. The Consent Decree contains the following requirements relating to these evaluations of uses of force:
• The supervisor must prepare a detailed narrative description of the incident that includes all of the facts and circumstances relevant to determining whether or not the involved officers’ conduct was justified.

2

The Consent Decree defines “deadly force” as “any use of force likely to cause

death or serious physical injury, including, but not limited to, the discharge of a

firearm.” CD ¶ 20.

3

The Consent Decree defines “supervisor” as a “sworn VIPD employee at the rank

of corporal or above (or anyone acting in those capacities) and non-sworn

personnel with oversight responsibility for other officers.” CD ¶ 27.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 51 of 66
Office of the Independent Monitor | iii
• The supervisor must evaluate the grounds for the use of force and determine whether the involved officers’ actions were consistent with VIPD policy.
• To filter out potential bias, reviews of use of force incidents may not be conducted by any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized action that led to a use of force or allegation of excessive force.
• Supervisors are required to interview all witnesses of a use of force, as well as all witnesses of any incident in which an injury results from a use of force. Supervisors must ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident, subject to any limitations imposed by any applicable provision of collective bargaining agreements or law.
• Supervisors are not permitted to ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that might, for example, suggest legal justifications for the officers’ conduct.
• Supervisors must consider all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence, as appropriate. Supervisors are required to make reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between statements provided by witnesses and make determinations with respect to the credibility of witnesses when feasible. VIPD is required to train all of its supervisors on methods and factors for evaluating the credibility of a witness.
• Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that use of force reports identify every officer who was involved in a use of force incident or was on the scene when the incident occurred. Supervisors must ensure that use of force reports reflect whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided to an injured person, and, if not, whether the person refused medical treatment. Supervisors also must ensure that use of force reports include contemporaneous photographs or video of all injuries resulting from the underlying incident. These images must be taken both before and after any treatment of the injuries, including the cleansing of wounds.
• Supervisors are required to evaluate the performance of all officers under their command who use force or were involved in

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 52 of 66 iv | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

an incident that resulted in a subject being injured due to a use of force by an officer.
• Finally, the Consent Decree requires a Deputy Chief to review and evaluate every use of force performance review prepared by a VIPD supervisor. The Deputy Chief’s review must include the identification of any deficiencies in the supervisors’ reviews and must require supervisors to correct any such deficiencies. The Consent Decree requires the Department to hold supervisors accountable for the quality of their use of force reviews, including subjecting a supervisor to appropriate corrective or disciplinary action in cases where the supervisor failed to conduct a timely and thorough review, or failed to recommend or implement appropriate corrective action with respect to a subject officer.
VIPD also must investigate all critical firearm discharges.4 These reviews must account for all shots fired and the locations of all officers who discharged their weapons. In connection with the investigation of all critical firearm discharges, VIPD is required to conduct, as appropriate, ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue and bullet trajectory tests.
B. Specific Force Policies (CD ¶¶ 39-41)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop a Use of Firearms Policy that is consistent with applicable law and current professional standards. This policy must:
• Prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition and inform officers that any such use may subject them to disciplinary action;
• Establish a single, uniform system for reporting all firearm discharges;
• Prohibit officers from obtaining service ammunition from any source other than official VIPD channels;

4

The Consent Decree defines the term “critical firearm discharge” as “each

discharge of a firearm by a VIPD officer with the exception of range and training

discharges and discharges at animals.” CD ¶ 22.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 53 of 66
Office of the Independent Monitor | v
• Specify the number of rounds VIPD officers are authorized to carry; and,
• Require that all discharges of firearms by officers, including unintentional discharges, whether on duty or off-duty at the time of the discharge, are reported and investigated.
The VIPD also must develop a revised policy regarding officers’ offduty conduct that:
• Provides that, absent exigent circumstances, off-duty officers must notify VIPD or the relevant local law enforcement agency before taking police action; and
• Requires that an officer who responds to an incident while offduty must submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests if it appears that the officer had consumed alcohol or was otherwise impaired at the time of the incident.
Finally, the VIPD is required to implement a policy that provides for an intermediate force device that falls between the use of chemical spray and the use of a firearm on the use of force continuum. This intermediate force device must be one that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The VIPD must incorporate the use of this intermediate force device into its use of force continuum and train officers in the device’s use on an annual basis.
III. Citizen Complaint Process (CD ¶¶ 42-58)
A. Public Information (CD ¶¶ 42-43) & Means of Filing & Tracking Complaints (CD ¶¶ 44-45)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop and implement a program to inform members of the public that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any VIPD officer. The Consent Decree contains the following requirements with respect to this public information program:
• VIPD must develop and distribute complaint forms, fact sheets, informational posters, and public service announcements that describe its citizen complaint process.
• VIPD must make complaint forms and informational materials available at government facilities, including VIPD stations,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 54 of 66 vi | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

substations, mobile substations, and libraries. These forms and materials also must be available on the Internet and, upon request, with community groups and at community centers.
• Each VIPD station, substation, and mobile substation must permanently post a placard that describes the complaint process and includes relevant contact information, including telephone numbers. These placards must be displayed in English, Spanish, and, where necessary in light of the local community, in French or French Patois.
• VIPD officers are required to carry English, Spanish, French, and French Patois5 versions of complaint forms and informational brochures in their vehicles at all times while on duty.
• If a citizen objects to an officer’s conduct, the officer is required to inform the citizen of his or her right to make a complaint.
• Officers are prohibited from discouraging any person from making a complaint concerning an officer’s conduct.
The Consent Decree imposes the following requirements relating to the availability of means by which members of the public may lodge complaints against VIPD officers and the tracking of such complaints:
• VIPD must be able to receive complaints filed in writing or orally, in person or by mail, and by telephone (or TDD), facsimile, or electronic mail.
• The duty officer at the front desk of each District station shall be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints. At the intake stage, an officer taking a complaint is permitted to describe facts that relate to a complainant’s demeanor and physical conditions but may not express

5

The OIM notes that paragraph 43 of the Consent Decree does not expressly

require VIPD officers to carry French language complaint forms and

informational brochures in addition to French Patois. However, in light of the

third sentence in paragraph 43 (which requires French language placards

describing the complaint process), the OIM believes that this was an inadvertent

omission. For future printings of brochures and other similar promotional

information, the OIM suggests that the VIPD create versions in English,

Spanish, French, and French Patois to satisfy the intent of the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 55 of 66
Office of the Independent Monitor | vii
opinions regarding the complainant’s mental competency or veracity.
• Upon receipt, VIPD is required to assign each complaint a unique identifier number, which must be provided to the complainant.
• VIPD must track each complaint according to the type of misconduct alleged in the complaint – e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, and improper search.
• Copies of all allegations of misconduct against a VIPD officer that are filed with the Zone Commands shall be referred to the IAB within five business days.
B. Investigation of Complaints (CD ¶¶ 46-58)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree establishes numerous specific requirements relating to the investigation of complaints against VIPD officers, including the following:
• Complaints must be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. The VIPD is required to develop and implement appropriate training regarding application of the preponderance of the evidence standard in internal investigations of allegations of officer misconduct.
• VIPD must explicitly prohibit an officer from being involved in the investigation of a complaint or incident if the officer used force during the underlying incident, was involved in conduct that led to the injury of a person during the incident, or authorized the conduct that led to the reported incident.
• VIPD must investigate every citizen complaint and the resolution of each complaint shall be documented in writing.
• VIPD must develop a clear policy and procedure regarding the intake of complaints, including anonymous and confidential complaints, against VIPD officers.
• The Department must implement a centralized system for numbering and tracking all complaints.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 56 of 66
viii | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
• IAB is responsible for determining whether each individual investigation of a complaint will be assigned to a Zone, retained by IAB, or referred for possible criminal investigation.
• If IAB refers a complaint to one of the Zones for investigation, the Zone must immediately forward to IAB copies of all documents, findings, and recommendations so that IAB is able to track and monitor the investigation.
• The Police Commissioner must be notified of all complaints alleging excessive force or violation of a person’s Constitutional rights within twenty-four hours of VIPD’s receipt of the complaint.
The VIPD also is required to develop a single policy governing the investigation of misconduct complaints, regardless of whether the investigation of such complaints is conducted by IAB or a Zone command. This policy must:
• Provide guidance concerning factors for investigators to consider in evaluating the credibility of the complainant and other witnesses, examining and interrogating accused officers and other witnesses, identifying potential misconduct that is not specifically referred to in the complaint, and applying the preponderance of evidence standard. VIPD also must train all officers who perform internal investigations on these issues.
• Require that VIPD investigators ensure that all officers present at the scene of the underlying incident provide a statement and that all interviews be recorded, as appropriate, on audio or video.
• Require that investigation findings include conclusions regarding whether:
 The police action was in compliance with policy, training, and legal standards, regardless of whether the complainant suffered harm;
 The incident involved misconduct by any officer;
 The use of different tactics could have, or should have, been employed;

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 57 of 66 Office of the Independent Monitor | ix

 The underlying incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling, or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and,
 The incident suggests that VIPD should revise its policy, training, or tactics.
• Establish that each allegation investigated must be resolved by a finding of either “unfounded,” “sustained,” “not sustained,” or “exonerated.”6
• Provide guidance to all investigators regarding procedures for handling allegations of potential criminal misconduct, including the referral of such allegations to the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office or other appropriate agency for possible criminal prosecution. The policy must establish the entity or individual responsible for making the determination as to whether a matter should be investigated criminally. The policy also must require the completion of VIPD’s administrative investigations of potentially criminal misconduct, regardless of the initiation or outcome of any criminal proceedings.
• Require that all relevant police activity, including each use of force, be investigated, even if the activity or force was not specifically complained about.
• Require that investigations evaluate any searches or seizures that occurred during the underlying incident.
• Prohibit investigators from closing an investigation solely because a complaint is withdrawn, the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of an injury, or the complainant will not provide additional statements or written statements. The policy shall require that, under such circumstances, investigators must continue the

6

Under the Consent Decree, a finding of “unfounded” means that there are

insufficient facts establishing that the alleged incident actually occurred. A

finding of “sustained” means that there is sufficient evidence to determine that

the alleged incident occurred and that the officer’s actions were improper. A

finding of “not sustained” means that there is insufficient evidence that the

alleged misconduct occurred. Finally, a finding of “exonerated” means that the

alleged conduct occurred but that the conduct did not violate VIPD policies,

procedures, or training. Each of these findings must be based on a

preponderance of the evidence. CD ¶ 57.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 58 of 66
x | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
investigation as necessary to determine whether the allegations can be resolved based on available information, evidence, and investigative techniques.
• Prohibit investigators from considering the fact that a complainant pleaded guilty to, or was found guilty of, an offense as evidence of whether or not an officer used a type of force or as a justification for the investigator to close the investigation.
The VIPD must keep complainants periodically informed of the status of the investigation of their complaints. Upon the completion of each investigation, the VIPD must notify the complainant of the outcome of the investigation, including an appropriate statement regarding whether any disciplinary action or non-disciplinary corrective action was taken against any officer.
Finally, the Consent Decree requires that unit commanders evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command in order to identify potential problems or training needs. Unit commanders must report any such issues to the appropriate VIPD entity in the form of a recommendation that appropriate action in response to the identified issues be taken.
IV. Management and Supervision (CD ¶¶ 59-72)
A. Risk Management System (CD ¶¶ 59-68)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop and implement a Risk Management System (“RMS”) that includes a computerized relational database or a paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for the supervision and management of VIPD personnel. The VIPD is required to use this data regularly to promote respect for civil rights and the employment of best police practices, manage risks, and potential liability for the Department, and evaluate the performance of VIPD officers and personnel across all ranks, units, and shifts.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 59 of 66 Office of the Independent Monitor | xi

The Consent Decree specifically requires the VIPD to collect and record the following information in its new RMS:
• All uses of force;
• Canine bite ratios;7
• The number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers;
• All injuries to prisoners;
• All instances in which a VIPD officer used force and the subject was charged with resisting arrest, assault on a police officer, disorderly conduct, or obstruction of official or police business;
• All critical firearm discharges, whether they took place on duty or off-duty;
• All complaints against officers and the dispositions of those complaints;
• All criminal proceedings, civil or administrative claims, and civil lawsuits resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel;
• All vehicle pursuits;
• All incidents involving the pointing of a firearm;
• All disciplinary action taken against VIPD officers; and,
• For incidents included in the database, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (e.g., the officer’s name, badge number, shift, and supervisor) and member of the public (including race and ethnicity or national origin, if such information is available).
The VIPD has the option either to purchase the RMS “off the shelf” and customize the system to VIPD’s requirements or to develop and

7

A canine bite ratio relates to apprehensions in which a canine unit participated.

It is the ratio of incidents that involved the canine biting or otherwise coming

into physical contact with the suspect compared to the overall number of such

apprehensions in which a canine unit participated.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 60 of 66 xii | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

implement the RMS pursuant to a contracting schedule set forth in the Consent Decree.8
Within 120 days of the effective date of the Consent Decree, the VIPD is required to prepare a protocol for the use of the RMS, which must be submitted to DOJ for review and approval. Any proposed modifications to the RMS protocol also must be submitted to DOJ for review and approval prior to the implementation of the proposed modifications. The RMS protocol must contain:
• Provisions regarding data storage, data retrieval, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation, and audit;
• Requirements that the automated system be able to analyze data according to the following criteria:
 The number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit;
 The average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and,
 The identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit.
• Requirements relating to the generation of reports on a monthly basis that describe data contained in the RMS and identify patterns of conduct by individual officers and units;
• Requirements that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors initiate appropriate interventions with individual officers, supervisors, and units based on activity and pattern assessments derived from the information contained in the RMS and that VIPD have the following intervention options available:
 Discussions among Deputy Chiefs, managers, supervisors, and officers;
 Counseling;
 Training; and,

8

See CD ¶ 66.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 61 of 66
Office of the Independent Monitor | xiii
 Documented action plans and strategies designed to modify officer conduct and activity.
• A requirement that all interventions be documented in writing and entered into the RMS;
• A provision that actions taken as a result of information derived from the RMS be based on all relevant and appropriate information – including the nature of the officer’s assignment, crime trends, and crime problems – and not solely on the number or percentage of incidents in any category of information recorded in the RMS;
• A requirement that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors promptly review the RMS records of all officers who transfer into their sections or units;
• A requirement that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors be evaluated based on their ability to use RMS to enhance the effectiveness of their units and to reduce risks associated with officer conduct;
• Provisions that IAB shall manage and administer the RMS and that IAB shall conduct quarterly audits of RMS to ensure compliance with the RMS protocol; and,
• A requirement that appropriate managers conduct regular reviews, at least quarterly, of relevant RMS information to evaluate officer performance across the Virgin Islands. The purpose of such reviews is to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all VIPD units in order to identify significant patterns or series of incidents.
Within 120 days of the implementation of the RMS (or later with the agreement of DOJ), the VIPD must prepare, for the DOJ’s review and approval, a Data Input Plan for including appropriate fields and values for new and historical data entered into the RMS.
• The Data Input Plan must identify the data to be included in the RMS and the means for inputting the data, the specific fields of information to be included in the RMS, the historical time periods for which information will be inputted into the system, deadlines for inputting data, and the persons responsible for the input of data.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 62 of 66
xiv | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
• The Data Input Plan must provide for the input of historical data that is up to date and complete into the RMS.
• Once the RMS is operational, VIPD is required to enter information into the RMS in a timely, accurate, and complete manner and to maintain the RMS data in a secure and confidential manner.
The VIPD must maintain all personally identifiable information about individual officers that is contained in RMS for at least five years. The VIPD shall maintain information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis in the RMS indefinitely.
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD, even prior to the implementation of the RMS, to use existing databases and resources to the fullest extent possible to identify patterns of conduct by individual VIPD officers or groups of officers.
Following the initial implementation of the RMS, the VIPD may propose to add, subtract, or modify data tables and fields in the system, modify the types of documents entered into the RMS, or modify the standardized reports generated by the RMS. The VIPD is required to submit all such proposals to the DOJ for review and approval prior to implementing the proposed changes.
B. Oversight (CD ¶ 69)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop a protocol for conducting audits within the RMS, which must be followed by the VIPD personnel responsible for conducting audits. The protocol must establish a regular and fixed audit schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency and cover all VIPD Zones.
C. Discipline (CD ¶¶ 70-72)
1. Requirements
The VIPD is required to use a disciplinary matrix to take into account a subject officer’s violations of various rules, as opposed to considering only repeated violations of the same rule. The VIPD must revise its disciplinary matrix to increase penalties for uses of excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, and dishonesty. The revised disciplinary matrix, which must be reviewed and approved by DOJ, is required to provide the VIPD with the discretion to impose any

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 63 of 66
Office of the Independent Monitor | xv
appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes an officer’s misconduct reflects a lack of fitness for duty.
• Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD is not permitted to take mere non-disciplinary corrective action against an officer in cases in which the revised disciplinary matrix indicates that the imposition of discipline is appropriate.
• In cases in which disciplinary action is imposed on an officer, the VIPD is required to also consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action is necessary.
The VIPD’s policy must identify clear time periods by which each step — from the receipt of a complaint through the imposition of discipline, if any — of the complaint adjudication process should be completed. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions of these deadlines must not be granted without the Police Commissioner’s written approval and notice to the complainant. The policy must outline appropriate tolling provisions in the limited circumstances when an extension of these deadlines is necessary.
V. Training (CD ¶¶ 73-81)
A. Management Oversight (CD ¶¶ 73-77)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to provide training to its officers that is consistent with VIPD policy, the law, and proper police practices. Accordingly, the Consent Decree requires that:
• VIPD review all use of force policies and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy;
 After completing its initial review of its force-related policies and training programs, VIPD must conduct regular reviews of its use of force training program at least semi-annually.
• VIPD must ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by training instructors; and,
• VIPD must make best efforts to train each work shift as a team in its use of force training.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 64 of 66
xvi | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Under the Consent Decree, VIPD’s Director of Training, either directly or through his or her designees, is responsible for:
• Ensuring the quality of all use of force training;
• Developing and implementing use of force training curricula;
• Selecting and training VIPD officer instructors;
• Developing, implementing, approving, and overseeing all inservice training;
• In conjunction with the District Chiefs, developing, implementing, approving, and overseeing a protocol for patrol division roll calls that is designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in law, policies, and procedures;
• Establishing procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and,
• Conducting regular training needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
The VIPD must keep complete and accurate records of force-related lesson plans and other training materials. These lesson plans must be maintained in a central, commonly accessible file and must be clearly dated.
The VIPD also must maintain training records for every VIPD officer. These records must reliably reflect the training that each officer has received. These records must include, at a minimum, the course description, duration, curriculum, and instructor for each training program in which each individual officer participated.
B. Curriculum (CD ¶¶ 78-81)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD’s Training Director to review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure that the training program complies with applicable laws and VIPD policy. Moreover, the Training Director must consult with the Virgin Island Attorney General’s Office concerning any additions, changes, or modifications regarding use of force training or policies to ensure compliance with applicable laws.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 65 of 66
Office of the Independent Monitor | xvii
The VIPD must provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on the use of force. This use of force training must address the following topics:
• VIPD’s use of force model;
• Proper use of force decision-making;
• VIPD’s use of force reporting requirements;
• The Fourth Amendment and other Constitutional requirements;
• Examples of scenarios faced by VIPD officers that illustrate proper use of force decision-making;
• De-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without using force;
• Instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a suspect, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying an arrest may be appropriate responses to a situation even when the use of force would be legally justified;
• Threat assessment; and,
• Appropriate training regarding conflict management.
The VIPD also is required to provide training to all officers regarding the citizen complaint process. VIPD must develop a protocol, to be used by all VIPD officers, that sets forth an appropriate process for handling and responding to complaints by members of the public. VIPD must train officers regarding this protocol.
• VIPD also is required to train all supervisors with respect to appropriate burdens of proof in conducting misconduct investigations. This training also must include a discussion of the factors investigators should consider in evaluating complainant or witness credibility.
Finally, the VIPD must provide training to all supervisors regarding leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices.
• This training must be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of the officer’s assumption of

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 27 Filed: 03/28/11 Page 66 of 66
xviii | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
supervisory responsibilities. This training also must be made a part of the annual in-service training of supervisors.
VI. Monitoring, Reporting, and Implementation (CD ¶¶ 82-102)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to appoint a full-time Compliance Coordinator to serve as a liaison among the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office, VIPD, the OIM, and DOJ. The Compliance Coordinator’s responsibilities include:
• Coordinating VIPD’s compliance and implementation activity relating to the Consent Decree;
• Facilitating the provision of data and documents and access to VIPD employees and materials to the Monitor and DOJ as needed;
• Ensuring the proper maintenance of relevant documents and records relating to the Consent Decree; and,
• Assisting the Police Commissioner and his designees in assigning compliance-related tasks to appropriate VIPD personnel.
In addition to fulfilling these functions, the VIPD must file with the Monitor and the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office, with a copy to DOJ, quarterly status reports describing the steps taken during the reporting period to comply with each provision of the Consent Decree.
Finally, the Virgin Islands and the VIPD are required to implement the provisions of the Consent Decree “as soon as reasonably practicable” and, in any event, no later than 150 days after the March 23, 2009 effective date of the Consent Decree.

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 1 of 64

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 2 of 64

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 3 of 64 Office of the Independent Monitor |
Independent Monitoring Team
Independent Monitors William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
Fried Frank Monitoring Team Leah C. Aden Joshua D. Roth
Police Practices Coordinator Chief Charles A. Gruber Elgin (Illinois) Police Department (retired)
Police Practices Experts Superintendent Ann Marie Doherty Boston (Massachusetts) Police Department (retired) Chief Dennis E. Nowicki Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Police Department (retired) Chief Robert L. Stewart Ormond Beach (Florida) Police Department (retired)

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 4 of 64

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 5 of 64 Office of the Independent Monitor | I

Executive Summary
This is the First Quarterly Report of 2011 from the Office of the Independent Monitor (the “OIM” or the “Monitor”) for the Virgin Islands Police Department (the “VIPD” or the “Department”), covering the quarter ending on March 31, 2011.1
During this quarter, among other things, the OIM conducted three separate, week-long monitoring trips to the Virgin Islands. Two of those trips focused on monitoring training programs intended to teach VIPD personnel about the Department’s revised force-related policies, including, but not limited to, the Use of Force Policy and the Reportable Use of Force Policy. Those policies (along with six other force-related policies) were approved by the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and issued by the Police Commissioner on March 30. The finalization of these policies represents a long-overdue, but significant milestone for the VIPD.
Additionally, OIM representatives continued their practice of meeting with VIPD personnel in the St. Thomas, St. John, and Water Island District (the “St. Thomas District”) and the St. Croix District to monitor the VIPD’s on-going efforts to comply with the Consent Decree,2 and to provide technical assistance as needed. For example, during each monitoring trip the OIM met (or made every effort to meet) the Chiefs, Deputy Chief, and Training Director charged with overseeing the Consent Decree working groups—Use of Force, Citizen Complaint Process, Management and Supervision, and Training—which were formed at the Consent Decree Summit (“Summit”) in January and described in detail in the previous quarterly report.3 The OIM also spent a considerable amount of time meeting with other members of the VIPD about the

1

This Report references a limited number of events that occurred after March 31,

notably training on force-related policies that took place in early April. The OIM’s next quarterly report will give a more extensive treatment of events that

occurred after March 31.

2

A summary of the Consent Decree requirements is excerpted at Appendix A. A

copy of the full text of the Consent Decree is available at:

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/VIPD_CD_03-23-09.pdf.

3

See the Consent Decree Summit Addendum at the end of this Report for details

about the two-day gathering. Although the Summit occurred in the first week of this quarter, the OIM reported on it in the Fourth Quarterly Report of 2010 due to its importance to the Consent Decree. See, e.g., the OIM Fourth Quarterly Report of 2010 at I-II, 2 and 6.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 6 of 64 II | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

Consent Decree compliance process, including the Director and Assistant Director of the Internal Affairs Bureau (“IAB”), the Compliance Manager, and the Compliance Coordinator.
Finally, the OIM reviewed, among other things, arrest reports, general incident reports (Form 1-As), Response to Resistance Reporting Forms (“RRRs”) (formerly known as Use of Force Reports), and related investigatory files to gauge the extent to which use of force events are being properly reported and investigated.
The OIM commends the VIPD (particularly the Policies and Procedures Committee (“Committee”))4 for finalizing eight force-related policies and beginning to train VIPD personnel on those policies during the first quarter of 2011. However, many of the VIPD’s other efforts to comply with the Consent Decree have stalled. For example, as discussed in greater detail below, the Use of Force, Training, and Complaint Process working groups have made minimal progress since being formed nearly five months ago. Moreover, without the active involvement of the OIM, it appears unlikely that those working groups would have made any progress whatsoever.

Overall, based on our observations and discussions with VIPD personnel, it has become clear that most of the VIPD’s efforts to comply with the Consent Decree take place in anticipation of the OIM’s monitoring trips. Unfortunately, those efforts appear to wane shortly after each monitoring trip.5 This practice is unacceptable and cannot continue if the VIPD intends to comply with the Consent Decree and deadlines established by the Consent Decree Timetable. More than two years after the VIPD entered into the Consent Decree, the VIPD appears to be unable or unwilling to independently move towards compliance at an acceptable speed. Going forward, the VIPD’s executive leadership team (Police Commissioner, Assistant Police Commissioner, Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, and Training Director) must fully commit themselves and the Department to complying with the Consent Decree. To that end, the

4

The Committee is charged with, among other things, developing, reviewing, and

revising the Department’s policies, and has six members, including: a Deputy

Chief (chairperson), the Director of IAB, a police Captain, a police Sergeant, the

Training Supervisor for the St. Thomas District, and the Training Cadre for the

St. Croix District. VIPD July 2010 Status Report at 3.

5

Still, the OIM notes that certain VIPD personnel, particularly the Director and

Assistant Director of IAB, the Compliance Manager and many members of the

Committee, have demonstrated laudable commitment to the Consent Decree

compliance process.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 7 of 64 Office of the Independent Monitor | III

Police Commissioner should no longer tolerate any VIPD personnel who shortsightedly view the Consent Decree as a distraction.
Use of Force Policy Development
The VIPD’s most significant accomplishment during this quarter was the finalization of its revised force-related policies, which were issued on March 30. Those policies include: (i) Use of Force; (ii) Reportable Use of Force; (iii) Impact Weapons; (iv) Electronic Control Weapon; (v) O.C. Spray; (vi) Vehicle Pursuit; (vii) Spike Strip; and, (viii) Off-Duty Official Action. The Department also developed the RRR to document all use of force events pursuant to the Reportable Use of Force Policy.
The Committee deserves much of the credit for finalizing the policies and RRR referenced above. The Committee also appears to have developed a robust policy writing infrastructure, which was one of the Committee’s objectives. For example, the Committee members appear to understand: (i) how meetings should function (e.g., circulating agendas in advance of meetings, taking minutes, designating individuals to followup on specific tasks); (ii) how a policy, protocol, form or other document takes shape (e.g., identifying a model policy, tailoring it to the VIPD, writing clear and consistent definitions and cross-referencing related policies); and, (iii) how the revision and review process functions (e.g., soliciting feedback from VIPD personnel and the DOJ, incorporating adopted suggestions, and communicating why other suggestions were rejected). The Committee should serve as an example for other VIPD personnel leading the Consent Decree compliance process, particularly the working groups, in terms of how to effectively operate.
In the next quarter, the OIM expects the VIPD to finalize and seek approval for several additional force-related policies, including Canine, Firearms, Sniper and the Special Operations Response Team.6 In addition, the OIM expects to see the Committee become comfortable operating independently of the VIPD’s Policy Consultant. While the Policy Consultant was instrumental in helping the Committee meet its early obligations under the Consent Decree Timetable, the time has come for the Committee to operate with less external involvement.

6

Prior to the publication of this Report, the OIM learned that the DOJ approved

the Canine Policy and Firearms Policy on April 26. The OIM is hopeful that the

Police Commissioner will issue these policies during the second quarter of 2011.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 8 of 64
IV | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force
The VIPD has repeatedly excused the failure of its personnel to adequately report and investigate use of force events by pointing to the lack of definitive policy guidance. Now that the VIPD has issued eight force-related policies and provided corresponding training, that excuse is moot.
In particular, the VIPD must address a number of critical deficiencies that the OIM identified this quarter, including: (i) failing to complete an RRR when a Form 1-A or arrest report indicates that force may have been used; (ii) failing to interview and video record all Officers who were involved in a use of force event and any other witnesses; (iii) failing to collect and preserve physical evidence; (iv) permitting Officers who were involved in a use of force event to supervise the corresponding investigation; and, (v) supervisory investigations failing to document whether the force used was appropriate. As discussed in the body of this Report, the Chief of the St. Croix District noted many of these deficiencies in a memorandum that he sent to Commanders in the St. Croix District. In light of recent policy developments, the OIM expects to find far fewer deficiencies next quarter.
Finally, the OIM recently developed a standardized check sheet (based on the Consent Decree’s requirements) to help VIPD personnel ensure that they are adequately reporting and investigating use of force events. The OIM will also use that check sheet (which has been shared with VIPD personnel) to measure the extent to which the VIPD is complying with the Consent Decree in the upcoming quarters.
Public Information Regarding the Citizen Complaint Process
The VIPD has not yet finalized the two policies that will govern the complaint process: (i) Acceptance of Citizen Complaint; and, (ii) Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints, which concern the in-take and investigation of complaints (both citizen and command), respectively. While the Consent Decree does not require the VIPD to obtain DOJ approval for these policies, the VIPD has nonetheless voluntarily sought technical assistance from the DOJ. The OIM commends the VIPD for taking this additional helpful step. The OIM expects the VIPD to finalize the complaint process policies in the next quarter. These policies are particularly important because the related public information campaign has been underway since October 2010.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 9 of 64
Office of the Independent Monitor | V
In the interim, the VIPD’s complaint process continues to be governed by the Processing Citizen Complaints Directive, which was issued in October 2010 (#014-2010). The VIPD trained Officers and Supervisors about their respective obligations under the Directive in late March and early April. Once the VIPD finalizes its complaint process policies, the OIM expects the VIPD to retrain its personnel on those policies.
The VIPD also continues to promote the complaint process through the public information campaign that it began in October 2010. As part of that campaign, the Department is in the process of revising and reprinting several of its citizen complaint materials. In addition, the Department is continuing to air radio and television announcements informing the public about the complaint process.
Risk Management
Although the VIPD continues to face technological roadblocks with respect to IAPro (the VIPD’s new risk management system) in the St. Croix District, the VIPD reports that IAPro is functional in the St. Thomas District. The Acting Administrator of Management and Information Systems (“MIS”) spent much of the last quarter assessing the Department’s technology capabilities and needs after assuming his position in January. In light of the experience that MIS gained installing IAPro in the St. Thomas District (and conducting related troubleshooting), we are hopeful that it will expeditiously bring IAPro online in the St. Croix District. In addition, the Acting Administrator also trained Officers and Supervisors on the use of webcams this quarter to facilitate the video recording of force and complaint-related interviews (which is required by the Consent Decree).
Training
As noted above, the VIPD began training its personnel on the Use of Force Policy, the Reportable Use of Force Policy, the RRR, and the citizen complaint process at the end of the quarter. Given the importance of those training programs, the OIM devoted a significant amount of time to monitoring them in-person. Unfortunately, we observed substantial differences in the quality of instruction between the Districts. While the quality of instruction in the St. Croix District was generally good, the instructors in the St. Thomas District primarily read policies verbatim to the attendees without using visual aids, role-playing, or other commonly-used adult teaching techniques. Most of these

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 10 of 64 VI | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

pitfalls could have been avoided by conducting a “test run” of the training program. Although the OIM previously stressed the importance of vetting training programs,7 the VIPD failed to heed those recommendations.
The OIM expects the VIPD to retrain the Officers who attended the training program in the St. Thomas District as soon as possible. In addition to conducting a “test run” for any such training programs, instructors from the St. Croix District should also participate to lend additional experience. Moreover, the distinction between the quality of instruction in the St. Thomas District and the St. Croix District is emblematic of larger challenges in the Training Division (and throughout the VIPD), including a lack of communication between Training Division staff in both Districts and the apparent lack of strong, centralized leadership. The Training Division must start operating more consistently across the Districts.
Status of Substantial Compliance
In order to be released from the Consent Decree, the VIPD must substantially comply with each of the Consent Decree’s requirements and remain in compliance for two years.8 At the end of first quarter of 2011, the VIPD has substantially complied with the following Consent Decree requirements:
• In January 2010, the Parties selected the Monitor (CD ¶¶ 82-86);
• In the Spring of 2010, the Police Commissioner appointed a Compliance Coordinator to serve as a liaison between the Parties and the Monitor (CD ¶ 88); and,
• Beginning in June 2009, the VIPD began issuing quarterly status reports delineating the steps taken by the VIPD to comply with the Consent Decree (CD ¶ 98).
Because the VIPD issued eight force-related policies this quarter, it is close to achieving substantial compliance with its obligation to review and revise its force-related policies. Nevertheless, the OIM understands

7

OIM Fourth Quarterly Report of 2010 at 29.

8

Consent Decree (“CD”) ¶ 103.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 11 of 64
Office of the Independent Monitor | VII
that the VIPD is still in the process of reviewing and/or revising several other force-related policies (e.g., Sniper and Special Operations Response Team). The VIPD must receive DOJ approval for any outstanding forcerelated policies before it can substantially comply with the Consent Decree.
In addition, although the VIPD has made progress implementing the public information campaign about the citizen complaint process, the Department must finalize and then implement the related policies in order to substantially comply with those aspects of the Consent Decree. The OIM is also hopeful that the VIPD’s use of force reporting and investigation practices will come into substantial compliance over the next two quarters.
Conclusion
The VIPD must immediately recommit itself to achieving compliance with the Consent Decree and dramatically pick up the pace of its compliance efforts. At the current rate, the VIPD will not be able to substantially comply with each of the Consent Decree’s requirements (and remain in substantial compliance for two years) before the Consent Decree expires on March 23, 2014. With a few notable exceptions, the Department’s lack of urgency and accountability with respect to the Consent Decree is unacceptable and must change immediately. As a first step, the VIPD’s executive leadership team must make the Consent Decree process a top priority for the Department. Based on our observations, that has not been the case. In particular, the OIM expects the Consent Decree working group leaders to take a more active role in ensuring that their respective groups succeed. As of March 31, 2011, only three of the four working groups had selected their members and only one had developed an action plan. The Police Commissioner should hold the working group leaders accountable for the progress of their respective groups. Given that the Police Commissioner has advised that he will be retiring within the next few months, the OIM looks forward to working with him and his successor to ensure a successful transition.
The VIPD has spent the last two years developing the tools and infrastructure necessary, as well as receiving extensive guidance from the DOJ and OIM, to comply with the Consent Decree. The time has come for the VIPD to execute.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 12 of 64

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 13 of 64 Office of the Independent Monitor
Table of Contents Page
Introduction .......................................................................................... 1 Compliance Assessment ........................................................................ 4 I. Use of Force Policies (CD ¶ 31) & Specific Use of Force
Policies (CD ¶¶ 39-41) .................................................................. 4 A. Status and Assessment ....................................................... 4 B. Recommendations............................................................... 6 II. Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force (CD ¶¶ 32-41) ..................................................................... 7 A. Status and Assessment ....................................................... 7
1. Policies and Directives ............................................... 7 2. Survey of Use of Force Incidents ................................ 8 3. Supervisor Review of Uses of Force ............................ 8 B. Recommendations............................................................. 10 III. Citizen Complaint Process (CD ¶¶ 42-58).................................... 11 A. Public Information (CD ¶¶ 42-43) & Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints (CD ¶¶ 44-45) .................. 11 1. Status and Assessment ........................................... 11 2. Recommendations ................................................... 13 B. Investigation of Complaints (CD ¶¶ 46-58) ........................ 13 1. Status and Assessment ........................................... 13 2. Recommendations ................................................... 15 IV. Management and Supervision (CD ¶¶ 59-72) .............................. 16 A. Risk Management System (CD ¶¶ 59-68)........................... 16

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 14 of 64 William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Page
1. Status and Assessment ............................................ 16 2. Recommendations.................................................... 18 B. Oversight (CD ¶ 69) ........................................................... 18 1. Status, Assessment, and
Recommendations.................................................... 18 C. Discipline (CD ¶¶ 70-72) ................................................... 18
1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations.................................................... 18
V. Training (CD ¶¶ 73-81) ............................................................... 19 A. Management Oversight (CD ¶¶ 73-77) and Curriculum (CD ¶¶ 78-81)................................................. 19 1. Status and Assessment ............................................ 19 2. Recommendations.................................................... 24
VI. Monitoring, Reporting, and Implementation (CD ¶¶ 82-102) ........................................................................... 25 1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations.................................................... 25
Conclusion........................................................................................... 28 Consent Decree Summit Addendum .......................................................A Appendix A, Consent Decree Requirements ............................................. i

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 15 of 64 Office of the Independent Monitor | 1

Introduction

This is the First Quarterly Report of 2011 from the Office of the Independent Monitor (the “OIM” or the “Monitor”) for the Virgin Islands Police Department (the “VIPD” or the “Department”), covering the quarter ending on March 31, 2011.1 The OIM was established in January 20102 to monitor compliance by the Territory of the Virgin Islands (the “Virgin Islands”) and the VIPD with the Consent Decree entered by the United States District Court for the Virgin Islands (“Court”) on March 23, 2009. The Monitor is required by the Consent Decree to “issue quarterly written, public reports detailing the Territory of the Virgin Islands’ compliance with and implementation of each substantive provision” of the Consent Decree.3
The Consent Decree reflects the agreement of the Virgin Islands, the VIPD, and the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) (collectively, the “Parties”) to resolve a lawsuit brought by the United States alleging that the Virgin Islands and the VIPD violated 42 U.S.C. § 14141 by engaging “in a pattern or practice of excessive force by Officers of the Virgin Islands Police Department and by the failure to adequately train, supervise, investigate, and discipline Officers.”4
The Parties entered into the Consent Decree “to promote police integrity and prevent conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges,

1

This Report references a limited number of events that occurred after March 31,

notably training on force-related policies that took place in early April. The

OIM’s next quarterly report will give a more extensive treatment of events that

occurred after March 31.

2

After an initial procurement process, the Territory of the Virgin Islands and the

VIPD contracted for the services of a monitoring team led by Michael R.

Bromwich, a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Fried, Frank, Harris,

Shriver & Jacobson LLP (“Fried Frank”). In June, the Independent and Deputy

Independent Monitors joined President Obama’s administration. After

interviews and further review, the Parties appointed William F. Johnson and

Steven M. Witzel, partners in the New York City office of Fried Frank and former

Assistant United States Attorneys in the United States Attorney’s Office for the

Southern District of New York, as the Independent Monitors, effective August

13, 2010. Messrs. Johnson and Witzel continue to work with the police

practices experts that were hired as part of the original OIM team.

3

Consent Decree (“CD”) ¶ 96. This Quarterly Report, along with the OIM’s prior

reports, is available on the internet at

http://www.policemonitor.org/VI/VIindex.html.

4

CD ¶ 6; see also Complaint, United States v. The Territory of the Virgin Islands,

No. 3:08-CV-00158-CVG-GWB (D.V.I.).

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 16 of 64 2 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.”5 The 104 paragraphs of the Consent Decree contain a broad range of substantive requirements for reform in areas such as the revision of the VIPD’s force-related policies; the training of Officers to properly use force in accordance with constitutional requirements, VIPD policy, and existing best practices in policing; the reporting and investigation of use of force events; the receipt and investigation of complaints alleging misconduct by VIPD Officers; the development of systems for managing and supervising VIPD Officers; and, the discipline of Officers found to have engaged in misconduct.
The Compliance Assessment section of this Report, which follows, details the OIM’s findings and observations based on our monitoring activities during the quarter ending on March 31. In addition, the Compliance Assessment section also includes recommended next-steps relating to each provision in the Consent Decree.
This Report begins with a discussion of the Consent Decree Summit (“Summit”), which we first referenced in the Fourth Quarterly Report of 2010.6 The Summit was held on January 3 and 4, 2011 to reinvigorate the VIPD’s Consent Decree compliance process. At the Summit, among other things, the Police Commissioner appointed specific Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to lead and ultimately be held accountable for working groups focused on different components of the Consent Decree. The OIM left the Summit optimistic that the VIPD was finally on the right course. Unfortunately, the OIM’s sense of optimism was short-lived. For example, as of March 31, only three of the four working groups had selected their members and only one had developed an action plan. In addition, although the VIPD’s executive leadership team (the Police Commissioner, Assistance Police Commissioner, Chiefs, and Deputy Chiefs) appeared to be committed to satisfying the Consent Decree at the Summit, the VIPD’s slow progress demonstrates that the Consent Decree is not a top priority for the Department. That must change.
Nevertheless, one of the lasting achievements to come out of the Summit was the finalization of many of the VIPD’s force-related policies, including the Use of Force Policy and Reportable Use of Force Policy. While the Court’s Consent Decree Timetable (which requires the VIPD to meet various deadlines) provided the impetus to finalize these policies,

5

CD ¶ 3.

6

See the Consent Decree Summit Addendum at the end of this Report for details

about the two-day gathering.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 17 of 64 Office of the Independent Monitor | 3
the members of the Policies and Procedures Committee (“Committee”)7 deserve recognition for their hard work. While the finalization of those policies is a significant milestone for the VIPD, the inconsistent quality of the corresponding training (which is discussed in detail below) highlights larger infrastructure problems that exist throughout the Department.
More than two years after entering into the Consent Decree, the VIPD (from the Police Commissioner to Patrol Officers) must recommit itself to the Consent Decree compliance process. Moreover, the Police Commissioner should swiftly correct any lingering perceptions within the Department that the Consent Decree will simply go away.

7

The Committee is charged with, among other things, developing, reviewing, and

revising the Department’s policies, and has six members, including: a Deputy

Chief (chairperson), the Director of IAB, a police Captain, a police Sergeant, the

Training Supervisor for the St. Thomas District, and the Training Cadre for the

St. Croix District. VIPD July 2010 Status Report at 3.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 18 of 64 4 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

Compliance Assessment

In this section of the Report, we describe the VIPD’s compliance efforts with respect to each of the substantive provisions of the Consent Decree,8 as well as the OIM’s monitoring activities during this quarter. The organization of this section of the Report parallels the organization of the Consent Decree. Specifically, we provide a status and assessment discussion that describes and analyzes the VIPD’s progress toward achieving substantial compliance with the Consent Decree’s requirements.9 Then, we include recommendations to assist the VIPD in achieving full and timely implementation of the Consent Decree’s requirements.10
I. Use of Force Policies (CD ¶ 31) & Specific Use of Force Policies (CD ¶¶ 39-41)
A. Status and Assessment
At the Summit in early January, the Police Commissioner designated the former Deputy Chief, now Chief, of the St. Croix District to lead the Use of Force working group. Unfortunately, the Chief has made very little progress with his working group during this quarter. For example, the Chief has not yet designated a point person or any other members of his working group. Likewise, the Chief has not drafted an action plan detailing the objectives for his working group.

Despite receiving clear instructions from the Police Commissioner11 and having regular contact with the OIM, the Chief has expressed uncertainty about his responsibilities as the Use of Force working group leader. In response, the OIM has repeatedly explained the scope of his responsibilities, including: (i) designating a point person and recruiting other working group members; (ii) drafting an action plan; (iii) interacting with other VIPD personnel on interrelated Consent Decree issues; and,

8

A summary of the Consent Decree requirements is excerpted at Appendix A. A

copy of the full text of the Consent Decree is available at:

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/VIPD_CD_03-23-09.pdf.

9

The Consent Decree provides that “[t]he Monitor shall issue quarterly written,

public reports detailing the Territory of the Virgin Islands’ compliance with and

implementation of each substantive provision of [the] Agreement.” CD ¶ 96.

10

See CD ¶ 85.

11

Memorandum from the Police Commissioner to various VIPD personnel, title

“Meeting Current Standards of Policing,” dated January 19, 2011.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 19 of 64 Office of the Independent Monitor | 5

(iv) monitoring his working group’s progress, by, for example, attending and participating in as many meetings as his schedule permits, but no less than twice a month. Based on our observations, it does not appear that the Chief accomplished any of those tasks during the first quarter of 2011.
In addition, the OIM understands that the Chief may feel somewhat overburdened by his primary responsibilities as Chief coupled with the additional responsibilities of being a working group leader. Part of the problem, however, is the Chief’s reluctance to delegate tasks to his subordinates. As we have repeatedly communicated to the Chief, he must learn how to effectively delegate in order to succeed in his new role. The OIM also reiterates to the Chief (and all other personnel charged with bringing the Department into compliance) that by prioritizing his time and organizational goals to be consistent with the Consent Decree, he is bringing the Department in line with the nation’s generally accepted police practices, an expressed departmental priority.
Notwithstanding the Chief’s lack of progress advancing the Use of Force working group, the VIPD issued the following force-related policies on March 30: (i) Use of Force; (ii) Reportable Use of Force; (iii) Impact Weapons; (iv) Electronic Control Weapon; (v) O.C. Spray; (vi) Vehicle Pursuit; (vii) Spike Strip; and, (viii) Off-Duty Official Action. The Department also implemented the Resistance Report Form (“RRR”) (formerly known as the Use of Force Report) for Officers to document use of force events pursuant to the Reportable Use of Force Policy.
The OIM commends the Committee and its Policy Consultant12 for leading the Department to finalize these policies. Spurred on by the Consent Decree Timetable and the Summit, the Committee has also made significant progress towards developing a comprehensive policy writing infrastructure. For example, the Committee meets regularly, takes meeting minutes, researches model policies and practices from accredited departments, invites VIPD personnel with subject matter expertise relevant to a particular policy to attend Committee meetings,

12

The VIPD engaged a Policy Consultant – at the repeated suggestion of the OIM

and the DOJ – in October 2010 to help the Department revise its force-related

policies, specifically, and improve its policy writing infrastructure, generally.

The OIM has stressed how critical it is for the Department to develop its internal

capacity to independently draft and revise policies.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 20 of 64
6 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
and seeks feedback in a systematic way on draft policies from VIPD personnel with varying ranks serving across the Department.13
The OIM observed a Committee meeting on April 7 which highlights how effectively the Committee is operating. In preparation for that meeting (which focused on the VIPD’s Risk Management System (“RMS”)), the Director of IAB and Committee members researched model protocols from accredited departments and created a draft protocol that was discussed at length at the meeting. The Committee also invited VIPD personnel from across the Department, including Payroll and Human Resources, as well as members of the Management and Supervision working group to attend the meeting. By the end of the meeting, the Committee had made substantial progress advancing the draft protocol.
B. Recommendations
During the second quarter of 2011, the Chief must make substantial progress leading the Use of Force Working group. The Chief should start with the items that we listed previously, all of which we have repeatedly discussed with him. We also recommend that the Chief direct his designated point person (once he designates one) to submit a weekly report on the status of the Use of Force working group to him. The OIM would also appreciate the opportunity to review those reports and provide feedback as appropriate.
In relation to policy development, the Use of Force working group should work with the Committee to develop, finalize and/or issue the following force-related policies in the upcoming quarter: (i) Canine; (ii) Firearms; (iii) Sniper; and, (iv) the Special Operations Response Team.14 Finally, the Use of Force working group should coordinate with the Training Director about the need to provide training on any revised force-related policies in the near future.

13

See, e.g., OIM Second Quarterly Report of 2010 at 7-9; OIM Third Quarterly

Report of 2010 at 5-7; OIM Fourth Quarterly Report of 2010 at 6-8.

14

Prior to the publication of this Report, the OIM learned that the DOJ approved

the Canine Policy and Firearms Policy on April 26. The OIM expects the Police

Commissioner to issue these policies during the second quarter of 2011.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 21 of 64 Office of the Independent Monitor | 7

II. Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force (CD ¶¶ 32-41)
A. Status and Assessment
1. Policies and Directives
As noted above, the Department issued the Reportable Use of Force Policy, which sets forth Officers’ use of force reporting obligations, on March 30. The VIPD also implemented the RRR on which Officers will document all use of force events pursuant to the Reportable Use of Force Policy.
In order to assist VIPD personnel in understanding their use of force reporting obligations, the Committee developed a force flow chart detailing each step that an Officer must take after using force. The OIM provided the Committee with an example of such a flow chart as a starting point. While the flow chart is not required by the Consent Decree, the OIM believes that it could serve as a useful tool for the VIPD. Nonetheless, the Committee should not devote a disproportionate amount of time to the flow chart so long as more pressing matters are in need of attention.
In order to evaluate, document, and review use of force events, the VIPD has started entering force-related information into IAPro, the Department’s new RMS. As discussed below, IAPro is only functional in the St. Thomas District; a broken server prevented IAPro from operating in the St. Croix District during the first quarter.15 In the interim, the VIPD has implemented a manual tracking system in which all Zone Commanders have log books with sequentially numbered pages to record use of force events and citizen complaints.16 Once IAPro is functional in both Districts, the VIPD should still maintain the logbooks as a back-up measure.
During this quarter, the OIM reviewed logbooks at both Zones in the St. Croix District and was pleased to find that they were complete. For example, one Zone noted pending investigations in pencil, and then replaced the notation with ink when investigations were closed. Given the log book’s neatness and uniformity it appears that one person had

15

As previously reported, the Blue Team component of IAPro will enable Officers to

enter use of force information directly into IAPro. See, e.g., OIM Fourth

Quarterly Report of 2010 at 10.

16

VIPD February 2011 Status Report at 6.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 22 of 64
8 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
been assigned to keep it updated. In addition, the Police Commissioner’s Reporting Use of Force Directive (#0005-2010), which provides guidance regarding the logbook, was pasted inside the front cover.
2. Survey of Use of Force Incidents
For several quarters, certain VIPD personnel have excused the underreporting of use of force events by pointing to the lack of definitive policy guidance. Now that the VIPD has implemented the Use of Force Policy and Reportable Use of Force Policy and provided corresponding training on them, the OIM expects the VIPD’s use of force reporting practices to improve substantially. In order to assist the VIPD in this regard, the OIM provided VIPD personnel with a check sheet detailing precisely what the Consent Decree requires with respect to use of force reporting. The OIM will also use that check sheet to evaluate the adequacy of the VIPD’s use of force reporting practices in upcoming quarters. Given that the VIPD already has the check sheet and the Consent Decree, there should be no surprises.
Based on our discussions with VIPD personnel and review of several force investigations, the OIM also became concerned that the Department does not adequately document instances where individuals are arrested and then subsequently released without being charged. In those instances, VIPD personnel do not consistently complete arrest reports reflecting those arrests, raising the possibility that use of force events are going unreported.
After discussing this issue with the VIPD, our concerns have been assuaged to a certain extent. For example, according to a Commander in the St. Croix District, Officers are required to note that an individual is being released after being arrested in the Form 1-A or arrest report and to make a corresponding entry in the arrest blotter. Moreover, where an Officer has already obtained an arrest number from dispatch, a Supervisor must call dispatch, ask that the number be recalled and then document that process in the Form 1-A. The same Commander told the OIM that arrest reports are ordinarily prepared by the arresting Officer even when an individual is quickly turned over to a detective for questioning. The OIM plans to confirm these procedures in this and other Zones in upcoming quarters.
3. Supervisor Review of Uses of Force
On March 30, the Chief of the St. Croix District sent a memorandum titled “Use of Force and Citizen Complaint Investigations”

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 23 of 64 Office of the Independent Monitor | 9

to all St. Croix District Commanders to “provide some insight on the status of Use of Force Investigations and common problems which cause delays in closing these investigations in a timely manner.” In the memorandum, the Chief states that Command and Bureau staff have submitted thirty-five (35) citizen complaint investigations and thirty-four (34) use of force investigations to the St. Croix Office of the Chief since March 2009.

Based on his review of those investigations, the Chief identified recurring deficiencies that often result in investigation reports being returned to the relevant Commander for further investigation.17 Among other things, the Chief stated that Commanders were failing to do the following: (i) ensure that interview questions directly relate to the forcerelated investigation; (ii) follow-up on any inconsistent statements through re-interviewing of suspects, witnesses or Officers; (iii) interview all witnesses; (iv) video record all interviews; 18 (v) monitor that RRRs are submitted when 1As suggest that force was used; (vi) ensure that Officers’ narratives describe the type of force(s) used and include a description of the events leading up to force being used; (vii) photograph all injuries and ensure that a suspect, Officer, and/or witness receives timely medical attention (and obtain records of any such medical treatment); (viii) ensure that the investigating Supervisor was not directly involved in the use of force event; (ix) include in a supervisory narrative, among other things, an evaluation of the appropriateness of each type of force, an assessment of whether the conduct of the Officer was justified, and an assessment of whether the force employed was permitted by VIPD policy; and, (x) complete investigations in a timely manner to avoid running afoul of the statute of limitations. The Chief’s review is exactly the type of audit that we have repeatedly encouraged the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to undertake.19

17

While the OIM commends the Chief for returning incomplete and inadequate

supervisory investigations to the Zones, it is unclear how the Chief subsequently

follows-up with the Zones. Going forward, the Chief should document when he

returns an investigation to the Zones and what, if any, response he receives.

18

VIPD personnel have questioned whether the Consent Decree permits some

flexibility in how force investigations may be conducted based on the level of

force used (so long as all investigations receive Command review). These

discussions stem from Supervisors’ concern with the extent of investigation

required (e.g., video recording all interviews) regardless of the level of force used

and the burden on Officers’ time and Department resources to do such. The

OIM suggests that the VIPD and DOJ have a conversation about this topic as

soon as possible.

19

See, e.g., OIM Fourth Quarterly Report of 2010 at 17.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 24 of 64 10 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

The OIM’s review of force-related documentation from the St. Croix District this quarter revealed many of the same deficiencies that the Chief noted in his March 30 memorandum. Based on our review, we also noted several other areas in need of attention. First, there is no coordination or consistency between Commands in terms of how use of force events are investigated, nor is the level of communication between the Zones and IAB adequate. Thus, for example, the OIM identified instances where each Zone conducted separate investigations of the same use of force event, wasting the VIPD’s limited resources. Second, there appears to be little, if any, follow-up when use of force investigations are returned to the Zones for further investigation. This is particularly problematic given the truncated 50-day statute of limitations under the current collective bargaining agreement, during which investigations must be completed and any discipline meted out.
Additionally, the dearth of Supervisors continues to hinder the VIPD’s ability to properly investigate use of force events in both Districts.20 In response to our concerns (which we have raised on multiple occasions), the Chief of the St. Croix District assured the OIM that there would be a reallocation of Supervisors.21 In the interim, however, one Zone Commander has devised a plan for managing use of force investigations. Specifically, the Commander will give each Supervisor responsibility for handling all investigations over a 30-day period and will rotate between designated Supervisors.
Finally, the VIPD notes that the Committee continues to research use of force review boards in order to evaluate the feasibility of implementing such a body in the Virgin Islands. The OIM expects to receive additional details about the review board (e.g., membership, goals) in the next quarter, including an action plan detailing next steps.
B. Recommendations
In light of the recent force-related training programs, the OIM expects to see a significant uptick in the quality of the Department’s use of force investigations. Beginning next quarter, the OIM plans to focus on reviewing completed use of force investigations using the check sheet

20

OIM Fourth Quarterly Report of 2010 at 15.

21

Prior to publication of this Report, the OIM learned that there has been a

reallocation of Supervisors between the Zones in St. Croix.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 25 of 64 Office of the Independent Monitor | 11

that we provided to many VIPD personnel. In order to do so, we expect to review a single investigatory file either at IAB or in the Zone. It is not the OIM’s responsibility to piece together components of the investigatory record and we will not do so. In addition, the VIPD’s failure to conduct proper use of force investigations will prevent it from achieving substantial compliance with the Consent Decree.
Officers must also continue to receive in-service training concerning their force-related reporting and investigating responsibilities. Because the VIPD recently implemented new force-related policies, VIPD personnel should be given the opportunity to seek further clarification about their obligations. Roll Call and Commanders Call sessions, for example, are an appropriate venue for further force-related training. Finally, the OIM looks forward to reviewing the next version of the use of force flow chart.
III. Citizen Complaint Process (CD ¶¶ 42-58)
A. Public Information (CD ¶¶ 42-43) & Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints (CD ¶¶ 44-45)
1. Status and Assessment
The Chief of the St. Thomas District leads the Complaint Process working group. The Chief has designated a point person and two other VIPD personnel as members of the working group. On March 16, the Chief and his point person met with the Deputy Chief for St. John, the Director of IAB, and the Compliance Coordinator to discuss the status of the Department’s complaint process. We note, however, that at the end of this quarter, the Complaint Process working group had not yet developed an action plan.
While the Consent Decree does not require DOJ approval for complaint process-related policies, the VIPD has voluntarily sought technical assistance from the DOJ.22 The OIM commends the Department for taking this additional step. While the OIM understands that the VIPD’s recent focus has been on finalizing the Department’s revised force-related policies, the VIPD must now refocus its attention on finalizing its complaint process-related policies.23 It is particularly

22

See, e.g., OIM Fourth Quarterly Report of 2010 at 17-18.

23

For example, the OIM understands that the DOJ provided the VIPD with

comments on its draft complaint-related policies on April 8.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 26 of 64 12 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

important for the VIPD to finalize these policies as quickly as possible given the ongoing public information campaign, which has increased the number of complaints that the VIPD is receiving, particularly at IAB. The VIPD must monitor the impact that this campaign has on the workload of its personnel and provide adequate staffing and training.
As discussed in greater detail in Section V (Training), the VIPD trained Officers in late March and early April on accepting citizen complaints pursuant to the Processing Citizen Complaints Directive (#014-2010), which was issued in October 2010. The Committee and Management and Information Systems (“MIS”) are also developing a complaint process flow chart as a reference tool for Officers and Supervisors.
Among other things, the Directive requires Officers to carry compliment/complaint brochures and complaint forms in their vehicles at all times while on-duty and prohibits Officers from discouraging anyone from filing a complaint. The VIPD reports that patrol vehicles in Zones A and C in St. Thomas, including the Red Hook substation, have been equipped with these forms and brochures. The VIPD also advises that it will conduct inspections to confirm that Officers are abiding by the Directive, including carrying the required complaint process materials in their police vehicles. The OIM commends the VIPD’s initiative in this regard and looks forward to reviewing documentation relating to those inspections.
During this quarter, the VIPD also revised the complaint form and English language brochure based on input from the OIM, the Public Information Officer, and the Compliance Coordinator. For example, the revised complaint form needed to include identifying information about the Supervisor taking the complaint. The VIPD is also in the process of revising the Spanish and French language brochures to reflect the changes that were made to the English brochure.24 The VIPD plans to make its revised complaint materials available on its website.
With regard to the ongoing public information campaign, the VIPD reports that local radio stations will air thirteen announcements promoting the complaint process on a “soft rotation” through the end of December 2011. Television stations, including three local stations and three affiliates, will also air similar announcements 2-3 times per week

24

The VIPD also reports that it has identified two potential candidates to translate

the brochure into Patois.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 27 of 64
Office of the Independent Monitor | 13
during that time period. The VIPD has distributed these announcements to local government access channels and two radio shows hosted by retired Officers.
Finally, in order to make it easier for individuals to file complaints at the Zones, the Compliance Coordinator procured bulletin boards with magnetic letters, which will be installed in the Zones in both Districts; to date, one board has been installed at Zone A. These boards, among other things, will specify the name of the on-duty Shift Supervisor and Zone Commander along with other pertinent information. Each Shift Supervisor will be responsible for updating the board with their name when they come on-duty. According to the VIPD, the Police Commissioner was supposed to issue a memorandum in early April to explain the purpose of the board and provide additional guidance; to date, the OIM is unaware of whether the Police Commissioner issued this memorandum and would like a copy of it once it is issued. Next quarter, the OIM will visit each Zone in both Districts to confirm that the boards have been installed and are being used.
2. Recommendations
The OIM encourages the Committee to turn its attention to finalizing the Acceptance of Citizen Complaint Policy and Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. The Chief leading the Complaint Process working group and his working group members should be actively involved in finalizing these policies. The Chief should also communicate regularly with the Director of IAB, for example, to assess the workload impact that these policies will have on IAB staff and jointly develop a staffing plan that ensures that there are adequate resources to satisfy IAB’s obligation to investigate citizen complaints.
While the Department has begun to train Officers on the Directive, the Training Division will need to retrain Officers once the new policies are finalized. In order to facilitate those training programs, the Chief should be in regular contact with the Training Director about the status of those policies. The Chief and his working group must also develop an action plan for the Police Commissioner and OIM’s review during the next quarter.
B. Investigation of Complaints (CD ¶¶ 46-58)
1. Status and Assessment
The VIPD’s investigation of citizen and command complaints will ultimately be governed by the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 28 of 64
14 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Complaints Policy. As discussed above, the VIPD should incorporate any comments that it received from DOJ and submit a revised version for additional feedback. The OIM would also welcome the opportunity to review the next version of that Policy.
During this quarter, the OIM also suggested that the VIPD develop a policy to guide Supervisors and IAB agents in closing appropriate cases based on a preliminary investigation. Other police departments refer to this type of policy as a citizen complaint resolution process or supervisors’ resolution process. In order to appropriately limit the scope of such a policy, the OIM suggested the following limitations and guidelines: (i) restrictions on the type of allegations that can be closed by Supervisors after a preliminary investigation; (ii) tiered levels of investigation such that complaints against Officers who have repeatedly violated Department policies are ineligible for such process; (iii) procedures to ensure oversight by the Chief, Deputy Chief, and the IAB, empowering each to overrule the Supervisor; (iv) procedures to inform complainants about this alternative process, including their ability to accept/decline it, and the actions taken by the VIPD during this process, including disposition of complaints; and, (v) guidance on when IAB should re-open or continue any case “resolved” (i.e., closed) by a Supervisor. The OIM encourages the Chief and Committee to discuss the feasibility of such a policy. Among other things, it would allow VIPD personnel to focus more of their attention on credible complaints.
In addition to finalizing the complaint process-related policies referenced above, the VIPD must train its Supervisors to, among other things, apply the preponderance of the evidence standard (which the VIPD uses when investigating complaints) and to evaluate the credibility of witnesses. Neither of those training programs depends on the finalization of the complaint process-related policies. During this quarter, the VIPD trained Supervisors in both Districts on the preponderance of the evidence standard. Unfortunately, the OIM found the trainings in both Districts inadequate largely because the instructors did not have the legal background necessary to teach the subject matter. As a result of feedback from the OIM, the Director of IAB, members of the Complaint Process working group, and the Compliance Coordinator recommended that the Chief contact the Attorney General’s Office for further assistance training Supervisors on the preponderance of the evidence standard. The Attorney General’s Office ultimately directed an Assistant Attorney General to provide the preponderance of the evidence training (which the OIM attended and which was very well done).

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 29 of 64 Office of the Independent Monitor | 15

The Consent Decree also requires Officers to evaluate witness credibility using a non-exhaustive list of factors (which are set forth in the Consent Decree) when investigating complaints and use of force events.25 To the extent that the preponderance of the evidence standard training did not cover evaluating witness credibility, the Chief should work with the Training Division and the Attorney General’s Office to provide that training as soon as possible. We note that the Training Division first received an intra-departmental request to hold such a training program on March 12, 2010.26
Furthermore, the Consent Decree requires the VIPD to video record interviews relating to use of force and complaint investigations. To that end, the VIPD reports that web-based cameras have been installed in all Zones in both Districts. The Acting Administrator of MIS also ordered speakers during the first quarter to allow Officers to more readily playback interview segments. During this quarter, Supervisors (who will be responsible for conducting use of force and complaint interviews) received training on how to operate the web-based cameras on March 3 and 17; the lack of prior training led to some interviews not being video recorded. Given that some Supervisors missed the web-based camera trainings, the OIM will follow-up about whether those Supervisors subsequently made-up that training.
Finally, the Consent Decree also requires the VIPD to institute a centralized numbering and tracking system for all complaints. However, technical roadblocks have prevented the Department from feasibly implementing such a system. Recognizing its technical limitations, the VIPD has created separate databases for the St. Croix District and the St. Thomas District as an alternative numbering and tracking system. Although the databases are separate, they can both be accessed from either District.
2. Recommendations
The VIPD must finalize the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy this quarter. The Chief and his working group should also work with the Training Director to plan corresponding training programs.

25

CD ¶ 51.

26

OIM Second Quarterly Report of 2010 at 18.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 30 of 64 16 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

The Committee should explore developing a policy that would permit Supervisors and IAB agents to close certain complaints based on a preliminary investigation. While any such policy should be carefully constructed, it could help the VIPD allocate its limited personnel more efficiently. The Chief and his working group will need to work closely with the Committee to develop any such policy. Finally, it is imperative that VIPD personnel receive additional training on the preponderance of the evidence standard and evaluating witness credibility. The Chief and Training Division, with assistance from the Attorney General’s Office, need to coordinate this training and schedule a training program as soon as possible.

IV. Management and Supervision (CD ¶¶ 59-72)
A. Risk Management System (CD ¶¶ 59-68)
1. Status and Assessment
The Deputy Chief for St. Thomas leads the Management and Supervision working group. While this working group is just getting started, we note that it has made more progress than any of the other working groups in terms of laying the basic groundwork that is required. For example, the Deputy Chief has designated a point person and other VIPD personnel as members of the Management and Supervision working group. The working group also held four meetings during the first quarter.27 To date, the Management and Supervision working group is the only working group to submit an action plan to the OIM. That action plan identifies each relevant Consent Decree provision and describes the tasks that must be accomplished to satisfy them. The action plan will ultimately assign specific individuals responsibility for those tasks and set forth short, mid-, and long term deadlines by which certain tasks must be completed. It should be noted that this working group has largely built upon the work that the Director of IAB has initiated over many months.

The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to implement a RMS to identify potentially problematic behavior from VIPD personnel at an early

27

On January 27, the working group met to discuss the Early Intervention

Program and how various VIPD units should be involved in implementing that

program. On March 23, the working group met with the OIM to identify

objectives for the working group. On March 29 and 30, the working group met

to complete its work on a draft action plan, which it submitted to the OIM on

March 31.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 31 of 64 Office of the Independent Monitor | 17

(and hopefully remediable) stage. As we have previously reported, the VIPD chose to use IAPro as its RMS. During the first quarter, IAPro was functional in the St. Thomas District, but not in the St. Croix District. According to the Acting Administrator of MIS, a damaged server prevented IAPro from functioning in the St. Croix District.28
Given that IAPro is functional in the St. Thomas District, MIS intends to hold a Blue Team train-the-trainer program in the St. Thomas District during the second quarter of 2011 and then rely on that experience to conduct a separate training program in the St. Croix District at a later date. Based on our discussions with the Director of IAB, we understand that IAPro representatives plan to visit the Virgin Islands in July to help the VIPD correlate the data (force statistics, number of arrests, crime statistics, etc.) that IAPro will utilize. The IAPro representatives will also teach VIPD personnel about IAPro’s functionality. The OIM intends to participate in these meetings to better understand how the VIPD will use IAPro.
On March 22, the DOJ approved the VIPD’s data input plan, which identifies the data that will be entered into IAPro. According to the VIPD, personnel in both Districts are currently entering data from as early as 2009 into IAPro (the greater the amount of data, the more helpful IAPro will be in identifying potentially problematic behavior). Given the amount of data that needs to be entered, the Director of IAB has requested additional personnel to assist in this undertaking. The OIM will report on the Department’s response to the Director of IAB, if any, next quarter.
Pursuant to the Consent Decree Timetable, the VIPD’s RMS Protocol was due on April 15.29 The Committee and members of the Management and Supervision working group sought input from various VIPD units, as well as the OIM, on the RMS Protocol. The OIM commends the Director of IAB for taking the lead in developing the Protocol. The OIM is also aware of discussions that the Director of IAB has had with the DOJ and others about specific aspects of the Protocol,

28

The VIPD recently reported that MIS resolved the server issues on St. Croix.

Therefore, the OIM expects IAPro to be functional in the St. Croix District during

the second quarter of 2011.

29

Since submitting that draft version of the Protocol to the DOJ on April 15, the

VIPD resubmitted another iteration to the DOJ on May 24. The OIM will report

on the status of that Protocol in the next quarterly report.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 32 of 64 18 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

including the type of thresholds that the VIPD should use to determine intervention thresholds. The OIM supports the VIPD’s efforts to comply with the Consent Decree, and also to implement solutions that are feasible for the Department.

2. Recommendations
The OIM expects the Management and Supervision working group to continue to meet regularly and further revise its action plan. In addition, the working group must take an active role in the implementation of IAPro. The working group should continue to revise the RMS Protocol to reflect the DOJ’s comments and then resubmit it to the DOJ. The working group should also work with the Training Division on developing training programs related to IAPro.

The OIM looks forward to monitoring the VIPD’s meetings with representatives from IAPro in July. These meetings will hopefully resolve any outstanding questions and technical issues relating to IAPro.

B. Oversight (CD ¶ 69)
1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations
The VIPD continues to report that it has not yet prepared an audit protocol for the RMS.30 Given that IAPro is functioning in the St. Thomas District (and should be functional in the St. Croix District next quarter), the VIPD should begin working on a draft audit plan.
The VIPD also reports that it is considering creating an audit unit with responsibilities beyond IAPro. According to the VIPD, the unit would consist of a territory-wide commanding Officer in one District, and a team Supervisor (of the rank Sergeant or above) in the other District. Each District would also have three audit Officers charged with auditing their respective Districts. The OIM looks forward to learning about the proposed unit’s objectives in the upcoming quarter.
C. Discipline (CD ¶¶ 70-72)
1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations
During this quarter, the VIPD continued to make revisions to its Disciplinary Policy and Disciplinary Matrix. While the VIPD is required

30

VIPD February 2011 Status Report at 25; VIPD April 2011 Status Report at 22.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 33 of 64 Office of the Independent Monitor | 19

under the Consent Decree to submit its Disciplinary Matrix to the DOJ for approval, the VIPD has voluntarily chosen to seek feedback from the DOJ on its Disciplinary Policy (which the DOJ agreed to provide as part of its ongoing technical assistance). On April 5, at the start of the next quarter, the DOJ approved the Disciplinary Matrix and, on April 26, the DOJ provided comments on the Disciplinary Policy. As such, the OIM expects the VIPD to implement and train on the Matrix and Policy in the upcoming quarters. The OIM anticipates that those policies will increase the even-handed application of disciplinary sanctions. As previously reported, the OIM observed first-hand (and heard about anecdotally) the Department’s inconsistent and disparate application of disciplinary sanctions (for which there is no reasonable explanation).31
V. Training (CD ¶¶ 73-81)
A. Management Oversight (CD ¶¶ 73-77) and Curriculum (CD ¶¶ 78-81)
1. Status and Assessment
The newly appointed Training Director leads the Training working group.32 While the new Training Director has verbally provided the OIM with the names of his point person and working group members, the Director has not provided the OIM with written documentation of such. It is also unclear whether the working group has held any meetings because the Director has not provided the OIM with any meeting minutes. In addition, as far as the OIM is aware, the working group had not developed an action plan during the first quarter of 2011.
The Training Division held a series of important training programs at the end of March and beginning of April in both Districts. The first aspect of the training, which was led by the Policy Consultant (who is an attorney), focused on legal aspects of the use of force. Supervisors from various VIPD units attended the first two days of this week-long training program and learned about, among other things, liability for failing to adequately supervise subordinates. Officers from various VIPD units attended the remainder of the week-long training program and learned about, among other things, the Constitutional standards governing the

31

See, e.g., OIM Fourth of Quarterly Report of 2010 at 24.

32

The Police Commissioner appointed the former Chief of the St. Croix District as

the new Training Director in early 2011. Thus, the former Training Director is

now the Assistant Training Director.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 34 of 64 20 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

use of force, civil rights laws, managing and diffusing confrontations, and drafting use of force reports. The Policy Consultant also provided the Supervisors and Officers with a reference guide, titled Use of Force Report Writing Guide, to help VIPD Officers and Supervisors effectively describe and evaluate use of force events. The OIM recommends that VIPD personnel become well-acquainted with this Guide and that it be incorporated (with the author’s permission) into the future force-related training programs.
The second aspect of the training focused on the recently issued Use of Force Policy, Reportable Use of Force Policy, and the RRR. In addition, the training discussed the citizen complaint process. Again, Supervisors attended the first two days of this week-long training and Officers attended the remaining three days.33
For several months, the Training Division, under the leadership of the current Assistant Director of Training, previously reported that its lesson plans for the Use of Force Policy and other force-related policies were ready to be implemented once the underlying policies were approved by the DOJ. Nevertheless, the OIM strongly recommended that the Training Division conduct “test runs” for each lesson plan to gauge the effectiveness (and level of preparation) of the assigned instructors. Conducting “test runs” would also help instructors anticipate questions that they might be asked at the actual training.34 With respect to those “test runs,” the OIM encouraged senior VIPD personnel, including the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs, to attend and provide feedback. The OIM also recommended that the Training Division consult the Attorney General’s Office on the legal sufficiency of its proposed lesson plans.35 Finally, we

33

The Training Division invited sworn personnel from various Virgin Islands

agencies to participate in the training. For example, personnel from the

Transportation Services Agency, Port Authority, and Virgin Islands court system attended. Additionally, Recruits attended the training sessions with Officers on

St. Croix.

34

The VIPD also reports that the Commissioner sought a list of all instructors and

a copy of their current bona fides and training certifications pursuant to a

memorandum, dated February 7, to the Director of IAB, the former Director of

Training (now Assistant Director of Training), and the Acting Administrator of

MIS.

35

In the last report, the OIM reported that the former Training Director (now

Assistant Director of Training) sent a letter on December 9 to the Police Commissioner asking that an attorney be appointed to “review all legal training updates, training bulletins and decisions.” OIM Fourth Quarterly Report of 2010 at 27.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 35 of 64 Office of the Independent Monitor | 21

cautioned the Training Division that it should not rely on physical skills (martial arts, fire arms, etc.) instructors to be primarily responsible for teaching the legal dimensions of policies.

Unfortunately, the VIPD did not heed our recommendations.36 As a result, the policy-related training overseen by the current Assistant Director of Training that took place in the St. Thomas District during the week of March 21 was inadequate.37 Far from engaging the training participants, the instructors spent most of the training reading the policies out-loud. The instructors did not provide the participants with the opportunity to apply the policies or RRR to real-life, scenario-based situations. Similarly, the instructors failed to employ any table-top or role-playing exercises. The OIM provided the Training Division with extensive feedback on the St. Thomas District training. Although the St. Thomas based Training Division personnel, particularly the former Training Director (now Assistant Director of Training) did not appear to grasp our concerns (or agree with them), the new Training Director agreed that significant changes needed to be made before the St. Croix District training commenced.

The OIM is pleased to report that the St. Croix policy-related training, overseen by the current Director of Training, which took place during the week of April 4, was generally very good and a marked improvement from the prior training. For example, each instructor prepared a PowerPoint presentation that highlighted the objectives of the lesson plan and key provisions from relevant policies and directives. In addition to utilizing videos to discuss different scenarios, many instructors led their students through exercises in how to, for example, prepare a citizen complaint or RRR. Throughout the training, instructors also solicited feedback and encouraged group discussions. Finally, each instructor concluded their lessons with key takeaways from the training. As good as the instruction was on St. Croix, there is still room for improvement. The OIM gave specific feedback to each individual instructor at the end of each training day. We also subsequently provided feedback to the new Training Director and Police Commissioner.

36

While Committee members discussed the Use of Force Policy, Reportable Use of

Force Policy, and RRR with the training instructors in advance of the St. Thomas District training, these discussions did not provide adequate preparation for the

instructors.

37

Because the Use of Force Policy, Reportable Use of Force Policy, and RRR were

not issued by the Police Commission until March 30, instructors passed them

out during the training, but then collected them.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 36 of 64 22 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

During the training programs described above, the OIM reviewed attendance sheets and training program evaluation forms. The attendance sheets required participants to sign-in and out next to their typed name, resolving our previous concern about not being able to identify attendees’ signatures.38 The Training Division for the first time also required participants to fill out evaluations for each instructor. The OIM was pleased with this record-keeping and evaluation process. With respect to the evaluation forms, the Training Division should seek to address any concerns (and build on any positive comments) in the future. The OIM looks forward to reviewing those evaluation forms in the next quarter.
For those Officers who missed these training programs, the new Training Director told the OIM that the Training Division would notify the relevant Chief by letter. The Training Director’s expectation is that the Chief would then direct the Officer to make up the training (or review the video) or, depending on the circumstances, impose a disciplinary sanction. During the next quarter, the OIM will review training attendance records and examine how the Chiefs have responded to the Training Division’s deficiency letters (i.e., whether they have directed Officers to make up the training or have otherwise taken corrective action). The OIM also encourages the Training Director to proactively follow-up with the Chiefs on this issue and document those efforts.
The OIM was pleased to learn that the Training Director recently created an internal committee to help evaluate the efficacy of existing training programs (as the OIM previously suggested).39 This is a particularly important initiative in light of the inadequate training in the St. Thomas District described above. Thus far, the committee is composed of the following: the Training Director; the Training Manager; a Lieutenant; an IAB Agent; and, a (retired) Captain. The OIM will monitor the work of this committee in upcoming quarters. The OIM has also repeatedly recommended that the Training Division evaluate the

38

OIM Third Quarterly Report of 2010 at 47. It also is notable that during the St.

Croix District training, a Training Division Cadre observed that at least one

Supervisor left training early, failed to return, and another Supervisor signed out

for him, as well for his materials. The OIM commends the Cadre for his

attentiveness. The OIM intends to monitor in the next quarter whether the VIPD

took corrective action with regard to those Supervisors.

39

See, e.g., OIM Fourth Quarterly Report of 2010 at 27.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 37 of 64
Office of the Independent Monitor | 23
strengths and weaknesses of its training programs; this committee would be an appropriate body to conduct evaluations.40
Additionally, the VIPD reports that the Training Division organized other training programs during this quarter including: Uniform Crime Reporting (“UCR”) on January 19-20 for 14 Officers in the St. Thomas District;41 Law Enforcement Officer Flying Armed for 4 Officers in the St. Croix District on February 10 and for 12 Officers in the St. Thomas District on February 16; and, Asset Forfeiture for 43 Officers (on a nonreported date) in the St. Thomas District and for 36 Officers on February 16 in the St. Croix District.42
The OIM is also aware that the Training Division intends to hold other training programs in the upcoming months, including: SWAT, TASER, O.C., ASP Baton, Defensive Tactics, Tactical Operations, and Train-the-Trainer. The new Training Director informed the OIM that the Training Division aspires to hold training programs at least twice a month going forward. The OIM expects to be given advanced notice of these trainings. We note that the Training Manager for the St. Thomas District regularly updated the OIM about scheduled trainings during this quarter.
Finally, beginning this quarter, the Director of Training began working with MIS to develop a database for training records. The OIM looks forward to getting an update on this project in the next quarter.

40

OIM Third Quarterly Report of 2010 at 46; OIM Fourth Quarterly Report of 2010

at 26-27.

41

This two day training by an instructor from Law Enforcement Online and

sponsored by the FBI provided an overview of the UCR program reporting

system, the historical background of the UCR program, the hierarchy rule with

offense definitions, and the importance of accurately reporting statistical data.

More generally, the VIPD reported that this training instructed VIPD personnel

on how to capture specific details about reported offenses to enhance the

analytical value of reporting information to the FBI.

42

The VIPD also reported various training programs that it intends to hold. These

include: M4 Shotgun & CX Storm Armors; Cell-phone Technology; Forensic

Data Recovery Certification; Domestic Violence; CPR; Tactical Marine; Glock

Armors; .223 Amorer; Noise & Tint Meter; Intelligence Training; Expandable

Baton; Citizen Complaint Review; and, Investigating Use of Force. The OIM will

report on these trainings in upcoming quarterly reports.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 38 of 64
24 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
2. Recommendations
The Training Director must exert greater control over the Training Division as a whole and should ensure that the quality of training is equal in both Districts. Among other things, the Training Division should explore the feasibility of having St. Croix based instructors spend time on St. Thomas and vice-versa.
The Training Division must also retrain the St. Thomas District Officers and Supervisors on the Use of Force Policy, Reportable Use of Force Policy, the RRR, and citizen complaint process. Given the importance of this training, the Division should conduct another inservice program and should not solely rely on Roll Call and Commanders Call sessions. Moreover, in light of the quality of the St. Croix District training, one or more St. Croix based instructors should participate in the St. Thomas District retraining. At a minimum, the St. Thomas based instructors should review the video tape of the St. Croix District training in advance of the retraining program.
Without exception, all future lesson plans should be vetted by Training Division personnel and a cross section (of ranks) of high performing VIPD personnel with relevant expertise. This vetting is part of the training infrastructure that the OIM has encouraged the VIPD to build. In addition, all lesson plans with law-related content should be reviewed by legal counsel. The Training Division should receive from counsel documentation that lessons plan have been reviewed and deemed sufficient and maintain records of this review.
The OIM has asked the Training Division for the following documentation, on more than one occasion, for both Districts: (i) roster of staff and assignments; (ii) copies of sign-in sheets from all training sessions that began on March 14, including the constitutional training; (iii) all PowerPoints, lessons plans, and/or table-top exercises for the inservice trainings on March 21-25 and April 4-8; (iv) participant evaluations for each instructor for all sessions that began on March 14; (v) deficiency letters for those Officers who did not attend training and subsequent follow-up/documentation; and, (vi) Training Division evaluations for each instructor for all sessions that began on March 14.
With regard to the Training working group, the OIM has requested and will expect to receive as soon as possible: (i) list of working group members with their respective responsibilities; (ii) minutes from working group meetings held to date; and, (iii) a detailed action plan. The

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 39 of 64 Office of the Independent Monitor | 25

Training Division should provide all of the requested material (or explain why it cannot do so) as soon as possible.
Last, the OIM expects the Training Division to maintain and strengthen its developing relationship with the Peace Officer Standards and Training Council (“POST”). This is particularly important as the POST begins to formulate policy so that the Training Division can appropriately respond and tailor Department policies and programs to those policies. For example, the POST and Training Division must work together to develop policies and programs relating to the Department’s Field Training Officer (“FTO”) program. In past reports, the OIM has identified deficiencies with the FTO program, including that the VIPD has assigned probationary Officers to FTOs who were not certified because the Department lacks a sufficient number of certified FTOs and failed to train probationary officers on their responsibilities with regard to FTOs.43 It is imperative that the Department cure these deficiencies with the FTO program as soon as possible and coordination between the POST and Training Division will be necessary to accomplish this aim.
VI. Monitoring, Reporting, and Implementation (CD ¶¶ 82-102)
1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations
The VIPD has named a Compliance Coordinator and the Police Commissioner also designated a Compliance Manager for St. Croix in compliance with the Consent Decree.44
On April 7, the VIPD timely submitted its Eighth Quarterly Status Report to the DOJ and the OIM. In the last quarterly report, the OIM suggested that the Compliance Manager and the Compliance Coordinator intensify and document their efforts to receive updates from other VIPD personnel responsible for areas of Consent Decree compliance in order to include that information in the VIPD’s quarterly status reports and provide a fuller picture of the Department’s progress. In response, we noted that the Compliance Coordinator sent multiple emails to a significant number of VIPD personnel (copying the Police Commissioner, Assistant Police Commissioner, Counsel for the VIPD, Counsel for the

43

See, e.g., OIM Third Quarterly Report of 2010 at 46-47; OIM Fourth Quarterly

Report of 2010 at 28.

44

OIM First Quarterly Report of 2010 at 49; OIM Second Quarterly Report of 2010

at 45.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 40 of 64 26 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

Attorney General, and the Compliance Coordinator). In one such email, the Compliance Coordinator stated that he sent out two notices previously requesting information relevant to specific areas of the Consent Decree, but that he did not receive any responses.
The OIM finds it extremely disconcerting that no one responded to the Compliance Coordinator’s prior emails. We are also troubled that neither the Police Commissioner, nor the Assistant Police Commissioner intervened. The Police Commissioner and Assistant Police Commissioner should not stand on the side-lines while senior members of the VIPD ignore requests from the Compliance Coordinator.
While the VIPD submitted the Eighth Quarterly Status Report on time and made some of the modifications that we previously suggested, more information could have been provided. For example, a number of sections within the VIPD’s quarterly status report were effectively left blank, (“[n]o report was submitted this quarter by the Training Bureau specific to paragraph[s 74-78, 81]”), or restated language from past quarters. Going forward, the VIPD should provide detailed information about the status of its compliance efforts with respect to each and every Consent Decree requirement.
Status of Substantial Compliance
In order to be released from the Consent Decree, the VIPD must substantially comply with each of the Consent Decree’s requirements and remain in compliance for two years.45 As of March 31, 2011, the VIPD has substantially complied only with the following Consent Decree requirements:
• In January 2010, the Parties selected the Monitor (CD ¶¶ 82-86);
• In the Spring of 2010, the Police Commissioner appointed a Compliance Coordinator to serve as a liaison between the Parties and the Monitor (CD ¶ 88); and,
• Beginning in June 2009, the VIPD began issuing quarterly status reports delineating the steps taken by the VIPD to comply with the Consent Decree (CD ¶ 98).

45

CD ¶ 103.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 41 of 64
Office of the Independent Monitor | 27
Because the VIPD issued eight force-related policies this quarter, it is close to achieving substantial compliance with its obligation to review and revise its force-related policies. Nevertheless, the OIM understands that the VIPD is still in the process of reviewing and/or revising several other force-related policies (e.g., Sniper and Special Operations Response Team). The VIPD must receive DOJ approval for any outstanding forcerelated policies before it can substantially comply with the Consent Decree.
In addition, although the VIPD has made progress implementing the public information campaign about the citizen complaint process, the Department must finalize and then implement the related policies in order to substantially comply with those aspects of the Consent Decree. The OIM is also hopeful that the VIPD’s use of force reporting and investigation practices will come into substantial compliance over the next two quarters.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 42 of 64 28 [ WiUiam F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Conclusion
he VIPD must immediately recommit itself to achieving compliance with the Consent Decree and dramatically pick up the pace of its compliance efforts. At the current rate, the VIPD will not be able to substantially comply with each of the Consent Decree's requirements (and remain in substantial compliance for two years) before the Consent Decree expires on March 23, 2014. With a few notable exceptions, the Department's lack of urgency and accountability with respect to the Consent Decree must change immediately. As a first step, the VIPD's executive leadership team must make the Consent Decree process a top priority for the Department. Based on our observations, that has not been the case. In particular, the OIM expects the Consent Decree working group leaders to take a more active role by ensuring that their respective groups succeed. As of March 31, 2011, only three of the four working groups had selected their members and only one had developed an action plan. The Police Commissioner should hold the working group leaders accountable for the progress of their respective groups.
The VIPD has spent the last two years developing the tools and infrastructure necessary, as well as receiving extensive guidance from the DOJ and OIM, to comply with the Consent Decree. The time has come for the VIPD to execute.

June _ÿ, 2011
Principal Contributors Leah C. Aden, Esq. Ann Marie Doherty, Esq. Charles A. Gruber Dennis E. Nowicki Joshua D. Roth, Esq. Robert L. Stewart

William . ÿ'hngon and Steven M. Witzel iYÿ

"Independent Monitors

////

Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP //

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 43 of 64
Office of the Independent Monitor | A
Consent Decree Summit Addendum
In an effort to reinvigorate the VIPD’s commitment to the Consent Decree compliance process, the Police Commissioner convened a Consent Decree Summit on St. Thomas on January 34, 2011.
The OIM and the VIPD spent a significant amount of time during the last two weeks of December discussing mutual goals for the Summit and coordinating logistics. The Commissioner ultimately decided that the Summit would focus on the following goals: (1) ensuring that all participants understood their leadership roles in achieving substantial compliance with the Consent Decree; (2) assigning Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, and other senior VIPD personnel responsibility for key provisions of the Consent Decree (e.g., Use of Force and Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force; Citizen Complaint Process; Management and Supervision; and Training); (3) requiring these assigned Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, and senior VIPD personnel to lead working groups focused on these key Consent Decree provisions beyond the Summit; (4) requiring these assigned Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, and other senior VIPD personnel to work with their respective working groups to establish detailed plans of actions (setting interim timelines, meeting schedules, and quarterly objectives, etc.) to achieve substantial compliance with their assigned provisions; (5) advancing the status of the force-related draft policies that were submitted to the DOJ beginning on December 17; and, (6) generally defining a path to compliance. The Commissioner circulated a detailed agenda to the invited participants shortly before the Summit commenced.
In addition to representatives from the OIM, the following VIPD personnel (representing a cross-section of the Department, including its executive leadership team) attended the Summit: the Police Commissioner; the Assistant Police Commissioner; Counsel for the VIPD; Chief of St. Croix; Chief of St. Thomas/St. John; Deputy Chief of St. Thomas; Deputy Chief of St. John; the Compliance Coordinator; the Territorial Compliance Manager; the Director and Assistant Director of the IAB, as well as an IAB agent; the Director of Training, the Training Manager, and a Training Cadre; two police Captains; two Lieutenants; the Police Benevolent Association President; the new Director of Management Information Systems;

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 44 of 64 B | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

and the Director of the Planning and Research Bureau. In addition, the VIPD’s Policy Consultant attended the Summit.
In line with one of the Police Commissioner’s chief goals for the Summit, he appointed specific Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to oversee four working groups that correlate to the four substantive areas of the Consent Decree — (1) Use of Force Policies & Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force (St. Croix District Chief); (2) Citizen Complaint Process – (St. Thomas District Chief); (3) Management and Supervision (St. Thomas District Deputy Chief); and, (4) Training (St. Croix Former Chief).1 While the Police Commissioner recognized that those individuals could (and should) prudently delegate certain tasks to others, he stated that he would hold each of them ultimately responsible for the success of their respective working groups. In addition, the Police Commissioner stressed that their oversight responsibilities would continue until their working groups achieved substantial compliance. The Police Commissioner then divided the other participants into working groups.2
Each working group reflected a broad cross-section of the Summit participants and included representatives from the IAB, the Training Division, the Policies and Procedures Committee, and the OIM, as well as a number of Zone Commanders. The Policy Consultant moved between each group to observe their progress and offer technical assistance with regard to policies. For approximately a day-and-a-half, these working groups (1) developed detailed plans of action for achieving substantial compliance with their Consent Decree provisions and (2) revised policies relevant to their working group topic.
The Use of Force working group focused on force-related policies. Among other things, that working group reviewed many of the force-related policies that the VIPD submitted to the DOJ on

1

The Police Commissioner appointed the former Chief of the St. Croix District as

the new Training Director in early 2011. All references to the “Chiefs and

Deputy Chiefs” in this section include the former Chief of the St. Croix District.

2

While the Police Commissioner designated Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to lead four

working groups that correlate to the four substantive provisions of the Consent Decree, for Summit related purposes, the Police Commissioner collapsed the four working groups into two groups, Use of Force and Citizen Complaint, with personnel from Training and MIS dispersed between these two groups.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 45 of 64
Office of the Independent Monitor | C
December 17. In addition, the working group also reviewed and incorporated the DOJ’s comments on each policy. The discussions that took place at the Summit were reflected in the force-related policies that the VIPD resubmitted to the DOJ later in January.
The Complaint Process working group spent a substantial amount of time reworking the VIPD’s complaint policy. The working group ultimately decided to break the complaint policy into two pieces, one relating to how the VIPD accepts complaints and the other relating to how the VIPD investigates complaints. Those comments were reflected in the complaint process policies that the VIPD subsequently submitted to the DOJ.
Each working group also set interim deadlines related to, among other things, upcoming training. That training is contingent on receiving final approval of the relevant policies from the DOJ. Given that both working groups discussed training extensively, the Training Director and his staff spent time working with both groups.
Another important outcome of the Summit involved the consolidation of the VIPD’s policies into a single, user-friendly manual. Currently, the VIPD has a policies manual, procedures manual and general orders manual, as well as field manuals, field directives, and training bulletins. As a result, Officers often have difficulty locating particular policies. In addition, Officers are often confronted with contradictory policies in different sources. The development of a single policy manual represents a significant step forward for the VIPD.
Finally, the Summit provided an invaluable opportunity for the VIPD personnel to work side-by-side with the Policy Consultant, and representatives from the OIM. Moreover, VIPD personnel from the St. Thomas District and the St. Croix District had the opportunity to interact and learn from each others’ experiences.
Following the Summit, the Police Commissioner disseminated a memorandum, titled “Meeting Current Standards of Policing,” that memorialized the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs’ appointments and provided recommendations for specific actions that each group should take in the short and long-term to achieve substantial compliance with the Consent Decree. Along similar

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 46 of 64
D | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
lines, the OIM’s Police Practices Experts provided the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs with a memorandum outlining their respective responsibilities and a road map for how to lead their working groups. Each of the OIM’s four Police Practices Experts has a direct working relationship with a particular Chief or Deputy Chief.
In the upcoming quarter, the Police Practices Experts will be in regular contact with their respective Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs. In order to ensure that the Summit’s goals are realized, the OIM will monitor each working group closely.
Overall, the VIPD recognizes that extensive reform is needed department-wide and the level of activity generated by the Summit demonstrates that VIPD personnel are genuinely committed to the hard work that it will take to achieve institutional reform. The Department recognizes that Officers have a right to be trained on how to use force to protect themselves and others. Likewise, citizens have a right to be treated fairly and to expect the Department to review use of force events and take corrective actions when Officers improperly use force. Compliance with the Consent Decree is a means to afford Officers and citizens these rights, as well as for the VIPD to become a model for other departments in the Caribbean.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 47 of 64 Office of the Independent Monitor | i

Appendix A Summary of Consent Decree Requirements
Below is a summary of the requirements imposed by each substantive section of the Consent Decree. Because these summaries of the substantive requirements significantly lengthen our reports, we include them here in this Appendix to provide the reader with context concerning the VIPD’s progress in implementing the broad range of reforms required under each section of the Consent Decree.
VII. Use of Force Policies (CD ¶ 31)
A. Requirements
Under paragraph 31 of the Consent Decree, the VIPD is required to review and revise its use of force policies as necessary to:
• Define terms clearly, including establishing a definition of force that is consistent with the definition of force under the Consent Decree;1
• Incorporate a use of force model that teaches officers to use, as appropriate, strategies such as disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, or calling in specialized units to assist with a situation;
• Advise VIPD officers that, whenever possible, individuals should be allowed to submit voluntarily to arrest before force is used;
• Reinforce that the use of excessive force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and potential civil liability;
• Ensure that sufficient less lethal force alternatives are available to all VIPD officers; and

1

Under the Consent Decree, “[t]he term ‘force’ means any physical coercion used

to effect, influence or persuade an individual to comply with an order from an

officer. The term shall not include ordinary, unresisted handcuffing. The term

shall include the use of chemical irritant and the deployment of a canine and/or

pointing a firearm at or in the direction of a human being.” CD ¶ 21.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 48 of 64 ii | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

• Explicitly prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized.2
This provision requires that the VIPD implement its revised use of force policies immediately after the DOJ has reviewed and approved finalized versions of the policies.
VIII. Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force (CD ¶¶ 32-41)
A. General Use of Force Events (CD ¶¶ 32-38)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires that the VIPD document in writing all uses of force and develop a use of force reporting form on which officers are required to record each and every type of force used in an incident. The use of force reports must include: (1) a narrative description, prepared by a supervisor, of the events preceding the use of force; (2) a narrative description, prepared by the involved officer, of the event relating to the use of force incident; and, (3) audiotaped statements, as appropriate, from those officers.3
The Consent Decree requires officers to notify their supervisors following any use of force or allegation of excessive force. The supervisor must respond to the scene, examine the person who was subjected to the use of force for injury, interview him or her to determine the extent of any injuries, and ensure that the person receives medical attention, if necessary.
A supervisor must conduct a review and evaluation of each use of force by a VIPD officer. The Consent Decree contains the following requirements relating to these evaluations of uses of force:
• The supervisor must prepare a detailed narrative description of the incident that includes all of the facts and circumstances relevant to determining whether or not the involved officers’ conduct was justified.

2

The Consent Decree defines “deadly force” as “any use of force likely to cause

death or serious physical injury, including, but not limited to, the discharge of a

firearm.” CD ¶ 20.

3

The Consent Decree defines “supervisor” as a “sworn VIPD employee at the rank

of corporal or above (or anyone acting in those capacities) and non-sworn

personnel with oversight responsibility for other officers.” CD ¶ 27.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 49 of 64
Office of the Independent Monitor | iii
• The supervisor must evaluate the grounds for the use of force and determine whether the involved officers’ actions were consistent with VIPD policy.
• To filter out potential bias, reviews of use of force incidents may not be conducted by any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized action that led to a use of force or allegation of excessive force.
• Supervisors are required to interview all witnesses of a use of force, as well as all witnesses of any incident in which an injury results from a use of force. Supervisors must ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident, subject to any limitations imposed by any applicable provision of collective bargaining agreements or law.
• Supervisors are not permitted to ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that might, for example, suggest legal justifications for the officers’ conduct.
• Supervisors must consider all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence, as appropriate. Supervisors are required to make reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between statements provided by witnesses and make determinations with respect to the credibility of witnesses when feasible. VIPD is required to train all of its supervisors on methods and factors for evaluating the credibility of a witness.
• Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that use of force reports identify every officer who was involved in a use of force incident or was on the scene when the incident occurred. Supervisors must ensure that use of force reports reflect whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided to an injured person, and, if not, whether the person refused medical treatment. Supervisors also must ensure that use of force reports include contemporaneous photographs or video of all injuries resulting from the underlying incident. These images must be taken both before and after any treatment of the injuries, including the cleansing of wounds.
• Supervisors are required to evaluate the performance of all officers under their command who use force or were involved in

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 50 of 64 iv | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

an incident that resulted in a subject being injured due to a use of force by an officer.
• Finally, the Consent Decree requires a Deputy Chief to review and evaluate every use of force performance review prepared by a VIPD supervisor. The Deputy Chief’s review must include the identification of any deficiencies in the supervisors’ reviews and must require supervisors to correct any such deficiencies. The Consent Decree requires the Department to hold supervisors accountable for the quality of their use of force reviews, including subjecting a supervisor to appropriate corrective or disciplinary action in cases where the supervisor failed to conduct a timely and thorough review, or failed to recommend or implement appropriate corrective action with respect to a subject officer.
VIPD also must investigate all critical firearm discharges.4 These reviews must account for all shots fired and the locations of all officers who discharged their weapons. In connection with the investigation of all critical firearm discharges, VIPD is required to conduct, as appropriate, ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue and bullet trajectory tests.
B. Specific Force Policies (CD ¶¶ 39-41)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop a Use of Firearms Policy that is consistent with applicable law and current professional standards. This policy must:
• Prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition and inform officers that any such use may subject them to disciplinary action;
• Establish a single, uniform system for reporting all firearm discharges;
• Prohibit officers from obtaining service ammunition from any source other than official VIPD channels;

4

The Consent Decree defines the term “critical firearm discharge” as “each

discharge of a firearm by a VIPD officer with the exception of range and training

discharges and discharges at animals.” CD ¶ 22.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 51 of 64
Office of the Independent Monitor | v
• Specify the number of rounds VIPD officers are authorized to carry; and,
• Require that all discharges of firearms by officers, including unintentional discharges, whether on duty or off-duty at the time of the discharge, are reported and investigated.
The VIPD also must develop a revised policy regarding officers’ offduty conduct that:
• Provides that, absent exigent circumstances, off-duty officers must notify VIPD or the relevant local law enforcement agency before taking police action; and
• Requires that an officer who responds to an incident while offduty must submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests if it appears that the officer had consumed alcohol or was otherwise impaired at the time of the incident.
Finally, the VIPD is required to implement a policy that provides for an intermediate force device that falls between the use of chemical spray and the use of a firearm on the use of force continuum. This intermediate force device must be one that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The VIPD must incorporate the use of this intermediate force device into its use of force continuum and train officers in the device’s use on an annual basis.
IX. Citizen Complaint Process (CD ¶¶ 42-58)
A. Public Information (CD ¶¶ 42-43) & Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints (CD ¶¶ 44-45)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop and implement a program to inform members of the public that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any VIPD officer. The Consent Decree contains the following requirements with respect to this public information program:
• VIPD must develop and distribute complaint forms, fact sheets, informational posters, and public service announcements that describe its citizen complaint process.
• VIPD must make complaint forms and informational materials available at government facilities, including VIPD stations,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 52 of 64 vi | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

substations, mobile substations, and libraries. These forms and materials also must be available on the Internet and, upon request, with community groups and at community centers.
• Each VIPD station, substation, and mobile substation must permanently post a placard that describes the complaint process and includes relevant contact information, including telephone numbers. These placards must be displayed in English, Spanish, and, where necessary in light of the local community, in French or French Patois.
• VIPD officers are required to carry English, Spanish, French, and French Patois5 versions of complaint forms and informational brochures in their vehicles at all times while on duty.
• If a citizen objects to an officer’s conduct, the officer is required to inform the citizen of his or her right to make a complaint.
• Officers are prohibited from discouraging any person from making a complaint concerning an officer’s conduct.
The Consent Decree imposes the following requirements relating to the availability of means by which members of the public may lodge complaints against VIPD officers and the tracking of such complaints:
• VIPD must be able to receive complaints filed in writing or orally, in person or by mail, and by telephone (or TDD), facsimile, or electronic mail.
• The duty officer at the front desk of each District station shall be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints. At the intake stage, an officer taking a complaint is permitted to describe facts that relate to a complainant’s demeanor and physical conditions but may not express

5

The OIM notes that paragraph 43 of the Consent Decree does not expressly

require VIPD officers to carry French language complaint forms and

informational brochures in addition to French Patois. However, in light of the

third sentence in paragraph 43 (which requires French language placards

describing the complaint process), the OIM believes that this was an inadvertent

omission. For future printings of brochures and other similar promotional

information, the OIM suggests that the VIPD create versions in English,

Spanish, French, and French Patois to satisfy the intent of the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 53 of 64
Office of the Independent Monitor | vii
opinions regarding the complainant’s mental competency or veracity.
• Upon receipt, VIPD is required to assign each complaint a unique identifier number, which must be provided to the complainant.
• VIPD must track each complaint according to the type of misconduct alleged in the complaint – e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, and improper search.
• Copies of all allegations of misconduct against a VIPD officer that are filed with the Zone Commands shall be referred to the IAB within five business days.
B. Investigation of Complaints (CD ¶¶ 46-58)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree establishes numerous specific requirements relating to the investigation of complaints against VIPD officers, including the following:
• Complaints must be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. The VIPD is required to develop and implement appropriate training regarding application of the preponderance of the evidence standard in internal investigations of allegations of officer misconduct.
• VIPD must explicitly prohibit an officer from being involved in the investigation of a complaint or incident if the officer used force during the underlying incident, was involved in conduct that led to the injury of a person during the incident, or authorized the conduct that led to the reported incident.
• VIPD must investigate every citizen complaint and the resolution of each complaint shall be documented in writing.
• VIPD must develop a clear policy and procedure regarding the intake of complaints, including anonymous and confidential complaints, against VIPD officers.
• The Department must implement a centralized system for numbering and tracking all complaints.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 54 of 64
viii | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
• IAB is responsible for determining whether each individual investigation of a complaint will be assigned to a Zone, retained by IAB, or referred for possible criminal investigation.
• If IAB refers a complaint to one of the Zones for investigation, the Zone must immediately forward to IAB copies of all documents, findings, and recommendations so that IAB is able to track and monitor the investigation.
• The Police Commissioner must be notified of all complaints alleging excessive force or violation of a person’s Constitutional rights within twenty-four hours of VIPD’s receipt of the complaint.
The VIPD also is required to develop a single policy governing the investigation of misconduct complaints, regardless of whether the investigation of such complaints is conducted by IAB or a Zone command. This policy must:
• Provide guidance concerning factors for investigators to consider in evaluating the credibility of the complainant and other witnesses, examining and interrogating accused officers and other witnesses, identifying potential misconduct that is not specifically referred to in the complaint, and applying the preponderance of the evidence standard. VIPD also must train all officers who perform internal investigations on these issues.
• Require that VIPD investigators ensure that all officers present at the scene of the underlying incident provide a statement and that all interviews be recorded, as appropriate, on audio or video.
• Require that investigation findings include conclusions regarding whether:
 The police action was in compliance with policy, training, and legal standards, regardless of whether the complainant suffered harm;
 The incident involved misconduct by any officer;
 The use of different tactics could have, or should have, been employed;

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 55 of 64 Office of the Independent Monitor | ix

 The underlying incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling, or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and,
 The incident suggests that VIPD should revise its policy, training, or tactics.
• Establish that each allegation investigated must be resolved by a finding of either “unfounded,” “sustained,” “not sustained,” or “exonerated.”6
• Provide guidance to all investigators regarding procedures for handling allegations of potential criminal misconduct, including the referral of such allegations to the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office or other appropriate agency for possible criminal prosecution. The policy must establish the entity or individual responsible for making the determination as to whether a matter should be investigated criminally. The policy also must require the completion of VIPD’s administrative investigations of potentially criminal misconduct, regardless of the initiation or outcome of any criminal proceedings.
• Require that all relevant police activity, including each use of force, be investigated, even if the activity or force was not specifically complained about.
• Require that investigations evaluate any searches or seizures that occurred during the underlying incident.
• Prohibit investigators from closing an investigation solely because a complaint is withdrawn, the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of an injury, or the complainant will not provide additional statements or written statements. The policy shall require that, under such circumstances, investigators must continue the

6

Under the Consent Decree, a finding of “unfounded” means that there are

insufficient facts establishing that the alleged incident actually occurred. A

finding of “sustained” means that there is sufficient evidence to determine that

the alleged incident occurred and that the officer’s actions were improper. A

finding of “not sustained” means that there is insufficient evidence that the

alleged misconduct occurred. Finally, a finding of “exonerated” means that the

alleged conduct occurred but that the conduct did not violate VIPD policies,

procedures, or training. Each of these findings must be based on a

preponderance of the evidence. CD ¶ 57.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 56 of 64
x | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
investigation as necessary to determine whether the allegations can be resolved based on available information, evidence, and investigative techniques.
• Prohibit investigators from considering the fact that a complainant pleaded guilty to, or was found guilty of, an offense as evidence of whether or not an officer used a type of force or as a justification for the investigator to close the investigation.
The VIPD must keep complainants periodically informed of the status of the investigation of their complaints. Upon the completion of each investigation, the VIPD must notify the complainant of the outcome of the investigation, including an appropriate statement regarding whether any disciplinary action or non-disciplinary corrective action was taken against any officer.
Finally, the Consent Decree requires that unit commanders evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command in order to identify potential problems or training needs. Unit commanders must report any such issues to the appropriate VIPD entity in the form of a recommendation that appropriate action in response to the identified issues be taken.
X. Management and Supervision (CD ¶¶ 59-72)
A. Risk Management System (CD ¶¶ 59-68)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop and implement a Risk Management System (“RMS”) that includes a computerized relational database or a paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for the supervision and management of VIPD personnel. The VIPD is required to use this data regularly to promote respect for civil rights and the employment of best police practices, manage risks, and potential liability for the Department, and evaluate the performance of VIPD officers and personnel across all ranks, units, and shifts.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 57 of 64 Office of the Independent Monitor | xi

The Consent Decree specifically requires the VIPD to collect and record the following information in its new RMS:
• All uses of force;
• Canine bite ratios;7
• The number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers;
• All injuries to prisoners;
• All instances in which a VIPD officer used force and the subject was charged with resisting arrest, assault on a police officer, disorderly conduct, or obstruction of official or police business;
• All critical firearm discharges, whether they took place on duty or off-duty;
• All complaints against officers and the dispositions of those complaints;
• All criminal proceedings, civil or administrative claims, and civil lawsuits resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel;
• All vehicle pursuits;
• All incidents involving the pointing of a firearm;
• All disciplinary action taken against VIPD officers; and,
• For incidents included in the database, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (e.g., the officer’s name, badge number, shift, and supervisor) and member of the public (including race and ethnicity or national origin, if such information is available).
The VIPD has the option either to purchase the RMS “off the shelf” and customize the system to VIPD’s requirements or to develop and

7

A canine bite ratio relates to apprehensions in which a canine unit participated.

It is the ratio of incidents that involved the canine biting or otherwise coming

into physical contact with the suspect compared to the overall number of such

apprehensions in which a canine unit participated.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 58 of 64 xii | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

implement the RMS pursuant to a contracting schedule set forth in the Consent Decree.8
Within 120 days of the effective date of the Consent Decree, the VIPD is required to prepare a protocol for the use of the RMS, which must be submitted to DOJ for review and approval. Any proposed modifications to the RMS protocol also must be submitted to DOJ for review and approval prior to the implementation of the proposed modifications. The RMS protocol must contain:
• Provisions regarding data storage, data retrieval, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation, and audit;
• Requirements that the automated system be able to analyze data according to the following criteria:
 The number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit;
 The average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and,
 The identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit.
• Requirements relating to the generation of reports on a monthly basis that describe data contained in the RMS and identify patterns of conduct by individual officers and units;
• Requirements that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors initiate appropriate interventions with individual officers, supervisors, and units based on activity and pattern assessments derived from the information contained in the RMS and that VIPD have the following intervention options available:
 Discussions among Deputy Chiefs, managers, supervisors, and officers;
 Counseling;
 Training; and,

8

See CD ¶ 66.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 59 of 64
Office of the Independent Monitor | xiii
 Documented action plans and strategies designed to modify officer conduct and activity.
• A requirement that all interventions be documented in writing and entered into the RMS;
• A provision that actions taken as a result of information derived from the RMS be based on all relevant and appropriate information – including the nature of the officer’s assignment, crime trends, and crime problems – and not solely on the number or percentage of incidents in any category of information recorded in the RMS;
• A requirement that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors promptly review the RMS records of all officers who transfer into their sections or units;
• A requirement that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors be evaluated based on their ability to use RMS to enhance the effectiveness of their units and to reduce risks associated with officer conduct;
• Provisions that IAB shall manage and administer the RMS and that IAB shall conduct quarterly audits of RMS to ensure compliance with the RMS protocol; and,
• A requirement that appropriate managers conduct regular reviews, at least quarterly, of relevant RMS information to evaluate officer performance across the Virgin Islands. The purpose of such reviews is to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all VIPD units in order to identify significant patterns or series of incidents.
Within 120 days of the implementation of the RMS (or later with the agreement of DOJ), the VIPD must prepare, for the DOJ’s review and approval, a Data Input Plan for including appropriate fields and values for new and historical data entered into the RMS.
• The Data Input Plan must identify the data to be included in the RMS and the means for inputting the data, the specific fields of information to be included in the RMS, the historical time periods for which information will be inputted into the system, deadlines for inputting data, and the persons responsible for the input of data.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 60 of 64
xiv | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
• The Data Input Plan must provide for the input of historical data that is up to date and complete into the RMS.
• Once the RMS is operational, VIPD is required to enter information into the RMS in a timely, accurate, and complete manner and to maintain the RMS data in a secure and confidential manner.
The VIPD must maintain all personally identifiable information about individual officers that is contained in RMS for at least five years. The VIPD shall maintain information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis in the RMS indefinitely.
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD, even prior to the implementation of the RMS, to use existing databases and resources to the fullest extent possible to identify patterns of conduct by individual VIPD officers or groups of officers.
Following the initial implementation of the RMS, the VIPD may propose to add, subtract, or modify data tables and fields in the system, modify the types of documents entered into the RMS, or modify the standardized reports generated by the RMS. The VIPD is required to submit all such proposals to the DOJ for review and approval prior to implementing the proposed changes.
B. Oversight (CD ¶ 69)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop a protocol for conducting audits within the RMS, which must be followed by the VIPD personnel responsible for conducting audits. The protocol must establish a regular and fixed audit schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency and cover all VIPD Zones.
C. Discipline (CD ¶¶ 70-72)
1. Requirements
The VIPD is required to use a disciplinary matrix to take into account a subject officer’s violations of various rules, as opposed to considering only repeated violations of the same rule. The VIPD must revise its disciplinary matrix to increase penalties for uses of excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, and dishonesty. The revised disciplinary matrix, which must be reviewed and approved by DOJ, is required to provide the VIPD with the discretion to impose any

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 61 of 64
Office of the Independent Monitor | xv
appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes an officer’s misconduct reflects a lack of fitness for duty.
• Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD is not permitted to take mere non-disciplinary corrective action against an officer in cases in which the revised disciplinary matrix indicates that the imposition of discipline is appropriate.
• In cases in which disciplinary action is imposed on an officer, the VIPD is required to also consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action is necessary.
The VIPD’s policy must identify clear time periods by which each step — from the receipt of a complaint through the imposition of discipline, if any — of the complaint adjudication process should be completed. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions of these deadlines must not be granted without the Police Commissioner’s written approval and notice to the complainant. The policy must outline appropriate tolling provisions in the limited circumstances when an extension of these deadlines is necessary.
XI. Training (CD ¶¶ 73-81)
A. Management Oversight (CD ¶¶ 73-77)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to provide training to its officers that is consistent with VIPD policy, the law, and proper police practices. Accordingly, the Consent Decree requires that:
• VIPD review all use of force policies and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy;
 After completing its initial review of its force-related policies and training programs, VIPD must conduct regular reviews of its use of force training program at least semi-annually.
• VIPD must ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by training instructors; and,
• VIPD must make best efforts to train each work shift as a team in its use of force training.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 62 of 64
xvi | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Under the Consent Decree, VIPD’s Director of Training, either directly or through his or her designees, is responsible for:
• Ensuring the quality of all use of force training;
• Developing and implementing use of force training curricula;
• Selecting and training VIPD officer instructors;
• Developing, implementing, approving, and overseeing all inservice training;
• In conjunction with the District Chiefs, developing, implementing, approving, and overseeing a protocol for patrol division roll calls that is designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in law, policies, and procedures;
• Establishing procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and,
• Conducting regular training needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
The VIPD must keep complete and accurate records of force-related lesson plans and other training materials. These lesson plans must be maintained in a central, commonly accessible file and must be clearly dated.
The VIPD also must maintain training records for every VIPD officer. These records must reliably reflect the training that each officer has received. These records must include, at a minimum, the course description, duration, curriculum, and instructor for each training program in which each individual officer participated.
B. Curriculum (CD ¶¶ 78-81)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD’s Training Director to review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure that the training program complies with applicable laws and VIPD policy. Moreover, the Training Director must consult with the Virgin Island Attorney General’s Office concerning any additions, changes, or modifications regarding use of force training or policies to ensure compliance with applicable laws.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 63 of 64
Office of the Independent Monitor | xvii
The VIPD must provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on the use of force. This use of force training must address the following topics:
• VIPD’s use of force model;
• Proper use of force decision-making;
• VIPD’s use of force reporting requirements;
• The Fourth Amendment and other Constitutional requirements;
• Examples of scenarios faced by VIPD officers that illustrate proper use of force decision-making;
• De-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without using force;
• Instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a suspect, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying an arrest may be appropriate responses to a situation even when the use of force would be legally justified;
• Threat assessment; and,
• Appropriate training regarding conflict management.
The VIPD also is required to provide training to all officers regarding the citizen complaint process. VIPD must develop a protocol, to be used by all VIPD officers, that sets forth an appropriate process for handling and responding to complaints by members of the public. VIPD must train officers regarding this protocol.
• VIPD also is required to train all supervisors with respect to appropriate burdens of proof in conducting misconduct investigations. This training also must include a discussion of the factors investigators should consider in evaluating complainant or witness credibility.
Finally, the VIPD must provide training to all supervisors regarding leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices.
• This training must be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of the officer’s assumption of

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 28 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 64 of 64
xviii | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
supervisory responsibilities. This training also must be made a part of the annual in-service training of supervisors.
XII. Monitoring, Reporting, and Implementation (CD ¶¶ 82-102)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to appoint a full-time Compliance Coordinator to serve as a liaison among the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office, VIPD, the OIM, and DOJ. The Compliance Coordinator’s responsibilities include:
• Coordinating VIPD’s compliance and implementation activity relating to the Consent Decree;
• Facilitating the provision of data and documents and access to VIPD employees and materials to the Monitor and DOJ as needed;
• Ensuring the proper maintenance of relevant documents and records relating to the Consent Decree; and,
• Assisting the Police Commissioner and his designees in assigning compliance-related tasks to appropriate VIPD personnel.
In addition to fulfilling these functions, the VIPD must file with the Monitor and the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office, with a copy to DOJ, quarterly status reports describing the steps taken during the reporting period to comply with each provision of the Consent Decree.
Finally, the Virgin Islands and the VIPD are required to implement the provisions of the Consent Decree “as soon as reasonably practicable” and, in any event, no later than 150 days after the March 23, 2009 effective date of the Consent Decree.

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 1 of 78

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 2 of 78

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 3 of 78 Office of the Independent Monitor |
Independent Monitoring Team
Independent Monitors William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
Fried Frank Monitoring Team Leah C. Aden Joshua D. Roth
Police Practices Coordinator Chief Charles A. Gruber Elgin (Illinois) Police Department (retired)
Police Practices Experts Superintendent Ann Marie Doherty Boston (Massachusetts) Police Department (retired) Chief Dennis E. Nowicki Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Police Department (retired) Chief Robert L. Stewart Ormond Beach (Florida) Police Department (retired)

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 4 of 78

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 5 of 78
Office of the Independent Monitor | I
Executive Summary
This is the Second Quarterly Report of 2011 from the Office of the Independent Monitor (the “OIM” or the “Monitor”) for the Virgin Islands Police Department (the “VIPD” or the “Department”), covering the quarter ending on June 30, 2011.1
During this quarter, among other things, the OIM conducted three separate, week-long monitoring trips to the Virgin Islands. Two of those trips focused on monitoring VIPD-led training programs. One training program held in the St. Croix District focused on the use of intermediate force devices (specifically, TASER and O.C. Spray) in light of the Department’s issuance of both the Electronic Control Weapon (“ECW”) Policy and O.C. Spray Policy on March 30. The other training program focused on retraining Officers and Supervisors in the St. Thomas, St. John, and Water Island District (the “St. Thomas District”) on the complaint process directive, which the VIPD issued in October 2010, and the Use of Force Policy and Reportable Use of Force Policy, both of which the VIPD issued on March 30. The VIPD conducted this retraining after the OIM provided it with critical feedback about the original training, which took place during the First Quarter.2
During the Second Quarter, OIM representatives also continued their practice of meeting with VIPD personnel in the St. Thomas and St. Croix Districts to monitor the VIPD’s on-going efforts to comply with the Consent Decree,3 and to provide technical assistance as needed. For example, during each monitoring trip, OIM representatives met (or made every effort to meet) the Chiefs, Deputy Chief, and Training Director
1 This Report references a limited number of events that occurred after June 30 to provide context and shed light on significant efforts that the VIPD made outside of the quarter to satisfy its Consent Decree obligations.
2 OIM First Quarterly Report of 2011 at 21. 3 A summary of the Consent Decree requirements is excerpted at Appendix A. A copy
of the full text of the Consent Decree is available at: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/VIPD_CD_03-23-09.pdf.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 6 of 78
II | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
charged with overseeing the Consent Decree working groups—Use of Force (Chief of the St. Croix District), Citizen Complaint Process (Chief of the St. Thomas District), Management & Supervision (Deputy Chief of St. Thomas), and Training (Training Director)—which were formed at the Consent Decree Summit in January. We also spent a considerable amount of time meeting with members of the Consent Decree working groups and other VIPD personnel about the Consent Decree compliance process, including the Director and Assistant Director of the Internal Affairs Bureau (“IAB”), and the Compliance Coordinator.
Finally, the OIM reviewed, among other things, arrest reports, general incident reports (Form 1-As), Response to Resistance Reporting Forms (“RRRs”) (formerly known as Use of Force Reports), and related investigatory files. The OIM reviewed that documentation to track and analyze the extent to which the Department is adequately investigating use of force events.
As the OIM previously reported, the Police Commissioner first announced his intent to retire from the VIPD in December 2010.4 After a distinguished career, the Police Commissioner ultimately retired from the VIPD on August 15. The OIM appreciates the Police Commissioner’s long-standing dedication to the Consent Decree. Among other things, the Police Commissioner helped promote a tone of compliance, and created the Consent Decree working groups (discussed in detail below), which should have a lasting, positive impact on the Department’s Consent Decree compliance process.
The OIM understands that a search for a new Police Commissioner is underway, and that the Governor appointed the Assistant Police Commissioner as the Acting Police Commissioner on an interim basis. The OIM anticipates that the Acting Police Commissioner will move ahead on all current and future efforts to satisfy compliance with the Consent Decree; he should not simply wait for a new Police Commissioner to be appointed to lead those efforts. We sincerely hope
4 OIM Fourth Quarterly Report of 2010 at VIII.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 7 of 78
Office of the Independent Monitor | III
that a new Police Commissioner is appointed as soon as possible to provide leadership for the VIPD’s critical efforts to comply with the Consent Decree.
The OIM’s First Quarterly Report of 2011 was quite critical of the VIPD’s slow rate of progress and specifically called on the VIPD’s executive leadership team (Police Commissioner, Assistant Police Commissioner, Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, and Training Director) to recommit themselves (and thereby the Department) to complying with the Consent Decree.5 While we commend the Chief of the St. Croix District and the Training Director for taking a more active role in the Consent Decree compliance process, the rest of the executive leadership team also needs to increase their progress.
For example, with respect to the Consent Decree working groups, the Chief and Deputy Chief of the St. Thomas District need to become more actively involved in the work of their respective Complaint Process and Management & Supervision working groups. While we encouraged the working group leaders to delegate discrete tasks to “point persons”— which, after some delay, they did—they should not abdicate their responsibilities to those individuals. Among other things, working group leaders must continually reevaluate and communicate their working groups’ objectives, regularly attend working group meetings, review key policies relating to their areas of responsibility, and interact with other working groups and VIPD personnel, particularly regarding training, as necessary. As we have repeatedly stated, the OIM will hold the working group leaders (Chiefs, Deputy Chief, and Training Director) accountable for the leadership, and the success or failure of their respective working groups. The Acting Police Commissioner (who, unlike the OIM, has the power to direct and control the working group leaders) must also hold the working groups accountable.
Moreover, the Acting Police Commissioner should help the working group leaders overcome any roadblocks (either internal or external) that
5 OIM First Quarterly Report of 2011 at VII and 2.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 8 of 78 IV | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
they encounter. Unfortunately, we are aware of instances where the Police Commissioner and Assistant Police Commissioner could have easily resolved such roadblocks, but did not. For example, during the Second Quarter, the Chief of the St. Thomas District declined to disseminate certain force-related materials prepared by the Use of Force working group because they had not been approved by the Police Commissioner, which is apparently the ordinary procedure. While the Police Commissioner (or the Assistant Police Commissioner, as his designee) could have quickly resolved this situation by clarifying the required procedure, they inexplicably allowed it to go unresolved. As a result, those materials still have not been disseminated in the St. Thomas District, at least as far as the OIM is aware.
We are also concerned that the VIPD appears to be holding back and/or vetting Consent Decree related materials—including minutes from working group meetings—before providing them to the OIM. Under the Consent Decree, we are entitled to access any non-privileged “VIPD documents . . . that the Monitor reasonably deems necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor . . . .”6 As such, going forward, we expect the Department to provide any requested materials promptly.
Still, the OIM commends the Compliance Coordinator for his substantial efforts during the Second Quarter. The Compliance Coordinator has been steadily improving the quality and timeliness of the Department’s quarterly Status Reports over the past two quarters. In addition, the Compliance Coordinator has taken an active role in nearly every aspect of the Consent Decree compliance process.
Use of Force Policy Development
During the Second Quarter, the VIPD issued two additional forcerelated policies, the Canine Policy and Firearms Policy. Thus, through the end of the Second Quarter, the VIPD issued a total of ten new force-
6 Consent Decree (“CD”) ¶ 91.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 9 of 78 Office of the Independent Monitor | V
related policies, pursuant to the Consent Decree.7 We commend the Department, and in particular the Policies and Procedures Committee (the “Committee”), for this significant and transformative accomplishment.
Nevertheless, additional work remains to be done. For example, the VIPD is developing an Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy, which will permit the VIPD to investigate use of force events in proportion to the type of force used; currently, all types of force must be investigated using a “one size fits all” approach. Under this policy, more serious types of force, like firearms discharges, would be subject to more exhaustive investigative requirements than comparatively less serious types of force, like non-compliant handcuffing. Such a policy would allow VIPD personnel to focus their efforts more efficiently. The Department is also developing a policy to guide its Field Training Officer (“FTO”) Program. As discussed below, the FTO Program is a critical component of training new Officers. In addition to finalizing the policies referenced above, the Department should identify any additional forcerelated policies that the VIPD needs. For example, we understand that the Department is considering developing a Special Operations Team Policy and Sniper Policy.
The OIM expects the Department to be able to substantially comply with the Consent Decree’s policy development provisions within the next two quarters. However, to do so, it must continue to move “full speed ahead.” Once the Department finalizes all of its force-related policies, it must work to fully implement them.
7 As discussed in depth in the last quarterly report, the VIPD issued the following policies on March 30: (i) Use of Force; (ii) Reportable Use of Force; (iii) Impact Weapons; (iv) Electronic Control Weapon; (v) O.C. Spray; (vi) Vehicle Pursuit; (vii) Spike Strip; and, (viii) Off-Duty Official Action. The Department also issued the RRR for VIPD personnel to document use of force events pursuant to the Reportable Use of Force Policy. OIM First Quarterly Report of 2011 at 5.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 10 of 78
VI | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force
To evaluate whether Commanders are adequately investigating use of force events, the Use of Force working group audited use of force files from Zones in both Districts during the Second Quarter. We commend the Use of Force working group for proactively taking this step; such audits can help the Department identify issues before they become more significant.
Unfortunately, based on that audit, the Use of Force working group found material differences between the quality of use of force investigations across the Districts. While the Use of Force working group reported that Commanders in the St. Croix District were completing use of force investigations that complied with the Consent Decree’s requirements, it also reported that Commanders in the St. Thomas District generally were not. This difference in quality highlights the need for better communication and cooperation across the Districts.
Although the OIM has not yet independently confirmed the Use of Force working group’s findings, our review of investigations conducted in the Zones this quarter similarly revealed deficiencies. Specifically, the OIM’s review demonstrated, among other things, that Officers do not always notify Supervisors of force incidents and, when they do, Supervisors do not always respond, interview all involved VIPD personnel and witnesses, or preserve evidence. In contrast, the OIM observed a marked improvement in the quality of use of force investigations conducted by IAB in both Districts. Overall, IAB’s investigation files were well-organized and contained all of the documentation required by the Consent Decree.
The Use of Force working group also recently developed a “checklist” to help Supervisors conduct use of force investigations. The checklist, which sets forth investigative tasks that must be documented as part of a use of force investigation, should further improve the quality and uniformity of the Department’s investigations. The Department should disseminate the checklist to Supervisors in both Districts and provide related training without delay. In addition, the Use of Force working group disseminated an Arrest Directive in the St. Croix District

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 11 of 78
Office of the Independent Monitor | VII
during the Second Quarter which: 1) delineates the differences between an investigative detention and an arrest; 2) outlines the procedure that VIPD personnel must follow if they arrest an individual, but later determine that they do not have an adequate basis for the arrest; and, 3) re-emphasizes the need for VIPD personnel to complete an RRR (in addition to a Form 1-A or arrest report) whenever force is used. The Chief of the St. Thomas District should disseminate a similar directive in his District.
Finally, the OIM is concerned about the lack of Supervisors in both Districts, which almost certainly impacts the VIPD’s ability to conduct adequate use of force investigations. In fact, we recently learned that a significant number of Supervisors who have played important roles in the Department’s Consent Decree compliance process intend to retire during the next quarter. As such, the Department should immediately start the process of replenishing and bolstering its supervisory ranks. Without doing so, the VIPD’s ability to comply with the Consent Decree will become more difficult.
Public Information & Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints
Despite finalizing the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy—which concern the intake and investigation of complaints (both citizen and command), respectively—during the Second Quarter, the VIPD did not issue either policy until the Third Quarter on August 2. As such, during the Second Quarter, the Processing Citizen Complaints Directive (#0142010) (the “Directive”) continued to guide Officers and Supervisors on how to accept and investigate complaints.
As referenced above, the Training Division retrained Officers and Supervisors in the St. Thomas District about their respective obligations under the Directive in mid-June. During the Third Quarter, the Complaint Process working group must work with the Training Division to hold training programs in both Districts on the recently issued Citizen Complaints Policy and Investigation Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy. Because the Department implemented a public awareness campaign to promote the citizen complaint process in October 2010, the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 12 of 78
VIII | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Department must provide training on these policies as soon as possible so that Officers meet expectations created by the public awareness campaign when they respond to inquiries. In addition, the Department must provide all Officers and Supervisors with training on the preponderance of the evidence standard and evaluating witness credibility without further delay.
Under the Directive, all VIPD vehicles (whether marked or unmarked) are required to carry certain complaint process materials. In order to confirm compliance with that requirement, the OIM conducted an inspection of VIPD vehicles for those materials following in-service training on the citizen complaint process and use of force reporting. Of the nine vehicles inspected, six had the required materials. During the Second Quarter, the Complaint Process working group conducted a similar inspection. As discussed in greater detail below, according to the Complaint Process working group, all units that they inspected were in compliance. We commend the Complaint Process working group for its initiative, but recommend that it go further to ensure that the complaint process is functioning properly. For example, the Complaint Process working group should examine: 1) whether VIPD personnel are knowledgeable about the complaint process; 2) whether VIPD personnel respond properly to inquiries on how to lodge a complaint about police service; 3) whether completed complaint forms are being logged and investigated as required by the Directive; and, 4) whether complainants are being kept apprised of the status of their complaints.
Finally, in response to feedback from VIPD personnel and the OIM, the Department revised its complaint forms, brochures, and posters during the Second Quarter.
Risk Management
After a lengthy and frustrating delay, the VIPD reports that IAPro is now functional at the IAB in both Districts. IAPro is the Department’s new Risk Management System (“RMS”). Among other things, the Department will use IAPro to identify potentially problematic behavior from VIPD personnel at an early (and hopefully remediable) stage. During the Second Quarter, VIPD personnel began working with a vendor

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 13 of 78 Office of the Independent Monitor | IX
to install the Blue Team component of IAPro on Supervisors’ computers in both Districts.8 Among other things, Blue Team will eventually allow VIPD personnel to enter force-related reports directly into IAPro from the field. The OIM commends the Director of IAB for leading the charge on IAPro and Blue Team. We also acknowledge the efforts of the Acting Director of Management and Information Services, who played a key role in resolving long-standing technical issues.
The Management & Supervision working group focused much of its attention during the Second Quarter on the Department’s Data Input Plan, which the DOJ approved on March 22. As previously discussed, the Data Input Plan identifies information about VIPD personnel (including, but not limited to, uses of force, disciplinary issues, motor vehicle accidents, and sick days) that the Department will enter into IAPro to facilitate its risk management function. The Management & Supervision working group contacted the individuals (some of whom work outside the Department) who are ordinarily responsible for maintaining that information and worked to develop an efficient process to enter that information into IAPro. The OIM is hopeful that the Management & Supervision working group will resolve any remaining challenges to collecting and identifying information during the next quarter. The Department also reports that the Training Division is currently developing a training program relating to the Data Input Plan.
Another missing piece in the RMS is the Department’s RMS Protocol, which sets forth various thresholds for supervisory review. For example, if an Officer receives more than X number of complaints within Y period of time, IAPro will alert the Officer’s Supervisor to this potential issue; X and Y will be set forth in the RMS Protocol based on Department norms and generally accepted police practices. The DOJ provided the Department with comments on a draft version of the RMS Protocol on
8 At the end of this quarter, we learned that Officers and Supervisors could not access Blue Team from many locations in both Districts. The OIM will report on this issue in the next quarter.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 14 of 78
X | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
June 14. As such, we expect the Department to finalize the RMS Protocol in the upcoming quarter.
Training
We commend the Training Division for its recent uptick in activity, and significantly improving the quality of its record keeping. During the Second Quarter, the Training Division held training programs focused on the ECW Policy (which includes, among other tools, the TASER) and the O.C. Spray Policy. The Training Division also conducted eight hours of in-service FTO instruction in both Districts. Finally, as noted above, the Training Division also retrained VIPD personnel in the St. Thomas District on the Citizen Complaints Directive, Use of Force Policy, Reportable Use of Force Policy, and the RRR this quarter.
Representatives from the OIM observed the Training Division’s instruction on the ECW Policy and O.C. Spray Policy and were disappointed. Although the Training Division adequately explained the mechanics of operating each tool, it failed to provide sufficient guidance about the scenarios in which such tools should or should not be used. In addition, while the instructors explained that RRRs must be completed every time those tools are deployed, they did not adequately explain how to do so. The Training Division could have avoided these deficiencies by more thoroughly vetting these training programs, and it should strive to do so for all training programs in the future.
The Training Division has done a good job over the past two quarters keeping the OIM up to date about upcoming training programs. To that end, the Training Division recently disseminated a training schedule through September. Notably, that schedule does not include training programs relating to a number of recently issued policies, including the Vehicle Pursuit Policy, Canine Policy, and Firearms Policy. The Training Division must provide training for each of those forcerelated policies as soon as possible. As we have repeatedly stressed, the Training Division should start the process of developing training programs for policies well before the Department issues them. To

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 15 of 78 Office of the Independent Monitor | XI
facilitate that process, the Training Division should be in regular contact with the Committee and each working group.
According to the Training Division’s schedule, a number of important training programs (including programs relating to the Department’s FTO program) are listed as tentative and/or “awaiting contract finalization.” The VIPD should seek to finalize these programs as soon as possible. Based on our discussions with VIPD personnel, we understand that the Department has had difficulty securing final approval for several contracts from the Virgin Islands Department of Property and Procurement (“Property and Procurement”). While we understand the importance of following procurement procedures, we cannot overstate the importance of these training programs. We hope that the VIPD and Property and Procurement can quickly move past the current gridlock. In order to facilitate that process, we implore the Acting Police Commissioner (and, if need be, the Attorney General or Governor’s Office) to take a more active role in helping to shepherd any outstanding contracts through Property and Procurement.
Status of Substantial Compliance
In order to be released from the Consent Decree, the VIPD must substantially comply with each of the Consent Decree’s provisions and remain in compliance for two years.9 The Consent Decree Timetable, which was jointly filed with the United States District Court for the Virgin Islands by the VIPD and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in November 2010, sets forth dates by which the VIPD must substantially comply with each Consent Decree provision. For example, under the Consent Decree Timetable, the VIPD should have substantially complied with ¶¶ 32-58, 70, and 72 by May 31 and ¶¶ 60, 61, and 73-81 by June 30. As explained below, with very few exceptions, the VIPD has failed to satisfy its obligations under the Consent Decree Timetable.
9 CD ¶ 103.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 16 of 78 XII | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
At the end of the Second Quarter of 2011, the VIPD has only complied with the following Consent Decree provisions (a chart summarizing the VIPD’s progress towards substantial compliance is at the end of this Executive Summary):
 In January 2010, the parties to the Consent Decree selected the Monitor (CD ¶¶ 82-86);
 In the Spring of 2010, the Police Commissioner appointed a Compliance Coordinator to serve as a liaison between the parties to the Consent Decree and the Monitor (CD ¶ 88); and,
 Beginning in June 2009, the VIPD began issuing quarterly status reports delineating the steps taken by the VIPD to comply with the Consent Decree (CD ¶ 98).
As mentioned above, although the VIPD has already issued ten force-related policies, it has not yet fully implemented them as required by the Consent Decree.10 In addition, we understand that the Department is still contemplating several additional force-related policies.11 As such, the Department has not yet complied with ¶¶ 31-41, which require the VIPD to review, revise, and implement all of its forcerelated policies.
Similarly, while the VIPD’s citizen complaint process is well underway, the Department must, among other things, train Department personnel on the recently issued Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy. The
10 As defined in the Consent Decree, “implement” refers to the “development or putting into place of a policy or procedure, including the appropriate training of personnel.” CD ¶ 30.
11 While the VIPD may develop additional force-related policies in the future (beyond those that are currently under development or required by the Consent Decree), those policies will not restart the two year substantial compliance period.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 17 of 78
Office of the Independent Monitor | XIII
Department must also demonstrate that the complaint process is functioning properly in order to substantially comply with ¶¶ 42-58.12
Conclusion
While we noted some improvement during the Second Quarter, the Department is still very far from satisfying its obligations under the Consent Decree. Moreover, the Department is plainly in danger of not being able to reach and maintain substantial compliance for the two years required before the Consent Decree expires on March 23, 2014. While the Chief of the St. Croix District and the Training Director (among others)13 demonstrated an increased sense of commitment to the Consent Decree compliance process this quarter, we are still waiting for the entire Department’s executive leadership team to work cohesively and diligently toward the Consent Decree’s goals. In particular, we would like to see the Acting Police Commissioner take a visible and direct role in holding the working group leaders (and the rest of the Department) accountable for coming into compliance with the Consent Decree. In addition, while the Department has put (or is beginning to put) a number of important building blocks into place—including, but not limited to, issuing ten force-related policies and beginning to train on several of them, bringing IAPro into operation in both Districts, and implementing aspects of the citizen complaint process—the VIPD must put all of those pieces together in a more coordinated manner to move closer to substantial compliance. To that end, the working groups should work together more closely. For example, the Training and Use of Force working groups must develop training programs relating to each of the Department’s revised forcerelated policies.
12 The OIM will evaluate the impact of the Department’s issuance of the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy (which occurred on August 2) on substantial compliance in the Third Quarterly Report of 2011.
13 For example, the Director and Assistant Director of IAB, the Compliance Coordinator, and the Training Cadre for St. Croix have long shown a commitment to compliance with the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 18 of 78
XIV | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
During this Quarter, the OIM was disappointed to learn that important materials (including draft policies and directives) from the Use of Force working group were not disseminated in the St. Thomas District because of procedural obstacles. Although the Police Commissioner (or the Assistant Police Commissioner, as his designee) could have quickly resolved the situation, they did not act promptly. As a result, the St. Thomas District lacks these materials, which is particularly unfortunate since the Use of Force working group found that the St. Thomas District lags behind the St. Croix District in conducting adequate use of force investigations. The Acting Police Commissioner must eliminate any obstacles that thwart cooperation and communication between the Districts. As we have repeatedly stated, the VIPD—despite being administratively and geographically divided into two Districts—is a single police agency, and it must function as such to satisfy the Consent Decree.
Although we are disappointed to see the Police Commissioner retire, the OIM looks forward to working closely with the Acting Police Commissioner and eventually the new Police Commissioner. In the interim, however, we trust that the Acting Police Commissioner will fully commit himself to the Consent Decree compliance process. Among other things, the Acting Police Commissioner should immediately address: 1) any obstacles that are preventing the working groups (particularly the Use of Force working group) from disseminating Consent Decree-related materials Department-wide; and 2) the current impasse between Property and Procurement and the VIPD relating to several vital training programs.
This is a critical time for the VIPD. Unless the Department rapidly increases its Consent Decree compliance efforts, it is very unlikely that the Department will be able to substantially comply with the Consent Decree within the required five-year time period. Unless extended, the Consent Decree expires on March 23, 2014, which means that the VIPD must achieve substantial compliance by March 23, 2012. Although time is quickly running out, there are still opportunities for the Department to get back on track and satisfy its obligations under the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 19 of 78 Office of the Independent Monitor | XV

Deadlines for Substantial Compliance Under the Consent Decree
The substantial compliance deadlines refer to the dates established by the Consent Decree Timetable that the VIPD and DOJ jointly submitted to the U.S. District Court for
the Virgin Islands on November 24, 2010.
In order to be released from the Consent Decree, the VIPD must substantially comply with each of the Consent Decree’s provisions, and remain in compliance for two years
before the Consent Decree expires on March 23, 2014.

CD

Description

Deadlines for Substantial Compliance Under the Consent Decree

Satisfied/Not Satisfied

31

Use of Force Policies:

within 30 days of DOJ Not Satisfied – While the

Use of Force; Vehicle

final written approval VIPD issued the Use of

Pursuit; Spike Strip;

Force Policy, Vehicle

Canine; SORT/SWAT;

Pursuit Policy, and Spike

Sniper; FTO; Investigation and Review of Use of Force

Strip Policy on March 30, 2011, as well as the Canine Policy on May 3, 2011, it has not

implemented these

policies.14 In addition, the

VIPD has not yet issued

the SORT/SWAT; Sniper;

FTO; Investigation and

Review of Use of Force

policies.

14 As defined in the Consent Decree, “implement” refers to the “development or putting into place of a policy or procedure, including the appropriate training of personnel.” CD ¶ 30.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 20 of 78 XVI | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

CD 32-38

Description
Evaluation, Documentation, & Review of Use of Force

Reportable Use of Force Policy

Deadlines for Substantial Compliance Under the Consent Decree
May 31, 2011

Satisfied/Not Satisfied
Not Satisfied – While the VIPD issued the Reportable Use of Force Policy on March 30, 2011, it has not implemented the policy. In addition, the VIPD has not satisfied the Consent Decree requirement that it evaluate, document, and review all uses of force.

39

Evaluation,

May 31, 2011

Documentation, &

Review of Use of Force

Firearms Policy

40

Evaluation,

May 31, 2011

Documentation, &

Review of Use of Force

Off-Duty Official Action

41

Evaluation,

May 31, 2011

Documentation, &

Review of Use of Force

Intermediate Force Device(s)

42-45

Citizen Complaint Process
Public Information & Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints

May 31, 2011

Not Satisfied – While the VIPD issued the Firearms Policy on May 3, 2011, it has not implemented the policy. Not Satisfied – While the VIPD issued the Off-Duty Official Action Policy on March 30, 2011, it has not implemented the policy. Not Satisfied
Not Satisfied

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 21 of 78 Office of the Independent Monitor | XVII

CD

Description

46-58

Citizen Complaint Process
Investigation of Complaints

59-68

Management and Supervision
Risk Management System

69

Management and

Supervision

Oversight

70-72

Management and Supervision
Discipline

73-77 Training Management Oversight

78-81 Training Curriculum

Deadlines for Substantial Compliance Under the Consent Decree
May 31, 2011, except September 15 for ¶ 49

Satisfied/Not Satisfied Not Satisfied

September 15, 2011, except June 30, 2011 for ¶¶ 60-61 & May 31, 2011 for ¶ 62

Not Satisfied

September 15, 2011 Not Satisfied

May 31, 2011

Not Satisfied

June 30, 2011 June 30, 2011

Not Satisfied Not Satisfied

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 22 of 78

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 23 of 78 Office of the Independent Monitor
Table of Contents Page
Introduction ........................................................................................... 1 Compliance Assessment.........................................................................5 I. Use of Force Policies (CD ¶ 31) & Specific Use of Force
Policies (CD ¶¶ 39-41)...................................................................5 A. Status and Assessment .......................................................5 B. Recommendations ...............................................................7 II. Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force (CD ¶¶ 32-38)......................................................................8 A. Status and Assessment .......................................................8
1. Policies and Directives ...............................................8 2. Survey of Use of Force Incidents .............................. 10 3. Supervisor Review of Uses of Force........................... 13 B. Recommendations ............................................................. 15 III. Citizen Complaint Process (CD ¶¶ 42-58) .................................... 16 A. Public Information (CD ¶¶ 42-43) & Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints (CD ¶¶ 44-45) .................. 16 1. Status and Assessment............................................ 16 2. Recommendations.................................................... 20 B. Investigation of Complaints (CD ¶¶ 46-58)......................... 20 1. Status and Assessment............................................ 20 2. Recommendations.................................................... 22 IV. Management & Supervision (CD ¶¶ 59-72).................................. 22 A. Risk Management System (CD ¶¶ 59-68) ........................... 22

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 24 of 78 William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Page
1. Status and Assessment ........................................... 22 2. Recommendations ................................................... 25 B. Oversight (CD ¶ 69) .......................................................... 26 1. Status, Assessment, and
Recommendations ................................................... 26 C. Discipline (CD ¶¶ 70-72) ................................................... 26
1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations ................................................... 26
V. Training (CD ¶¶ 73-81)............................................................... 27 A. Management Oversight (CD ¶¶ 73-77) and Curriculum (CD ¶¶ 78-81) ................................................ 27 1. Status and Assessment ........................................... 27 2. Recommendations ................................................... 31
VI. Monitoring, Reporting, and Implementation (CD ¶¶ 82-102) .......................................................................... 32 1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations ................................................... 32 2. Status of Substantial Compliance............................ 33
Conclusion .......................................................................................... 35 Appendix A, Summary of Consent Decree Requirements ......................... i

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 25 of 78
Office of the Independent Monitor | 1
Introduction
This is the Second Quarterly Report of 2011 from the Office of the Independent Monitor (the “OIM” or the “Monitor”) for the Virgin Islands Police Department (the “VIPD” or the “Department”), covering the quarter ending on June 30, 2011.1 The OIM was established in January 20102 to monitor compliance by the Territory of the Virgin Islands (the “Virgin Islands”) and the VIPD with the Consent Decree entered by the United States District Court for the Virgin Islands (the “Court”) on March 23, 2009. The Monitor is required by the Consent Decree to “issue quarterly written, public reports detailing the Territory of the Virgin Islands’ compliance with and implementation of each substantive provision” of the Consent Decree.3
The Consent Decree reflects the agreement of the Virgin Islands, the VIPD, and the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) (collectively, the “Parties”) to resolve a lawsuit brought by the United States alleging that the Virgin Islands and the VIPD violated 42 U.S.C. § 14141 by engaging “in a pattern or practice of excessive force by Officers of the Virgin Islands Police Department and by the failure to adequately train, supervise, investigate, and discipline Officers.”4
The Parties entered into the Consent Decree “to promote police integrity and prevent conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges,
1 This Report references a limited number of events that occurred after June 30 to provide context and shed light on significant efforts that the VIPD made outside of the quarter to satisfy its Consent Decree obligations.
2 After an initial procurement process, the Territory of the Virgin Islands and the VIPD contracted for the services of a monitoring team led by Michael R. Bromwich, a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP (“Fried Frank”). In June 2010, the Independent and Deputy Independent Monitors joined President Obama’s administration. After interviews and further review, the Parties appointed William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel, partners in the New York City office of Fried Frank and former Assistant United States Attorneys in the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, as the Independent Monitors, effective August 13, 2010. Messrs. Johnson and Witzel continue to work with the police practices experts that were hired as part of the original OIM team.
3 Consent Decree (“CD”) ¶ 96. This Quarterly Report, along with the OIM’s prior reports, is available on the internet at http://www.policemonitor.org/VI/VIindex.html.
4 CD ¶ 6; see also Complaint, United States v. The Territory of the Virgin Islands, No. 3:08-CV-00158-CVG-GWB (D.V.I.).

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 26 of 78
2 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.”5 The 104 paragraphs of the Consent Decree contain a broad range of substantive requirements for reform in areas such as the revision of the VIPD’s force-related policies; the training of Officers to properly use force in accordance with constitutional requirements, VIPD policy, and existing best practices in policing; the reporting and investigation of use of force events; the receipt and investigation of complaints alleging misconduct by Officers; the development of systems for managing and supervising Officers; and, the discipline of Officers found to have engaged in misconduct.
On October 1, 2010, the Court—which is charged with enforcing the VIPD’s obligations under the Consent Decree—ordered the Parties to jointly propose a timetable by which the VIPD would substantially comply with each substantive provision in the Consent Decree. The Court was concerned about the VIPD’s slow rate of progress and saw the timetable as a vehicle to help the Department move forward more quickly. The Parties subsequently filed a timetable on November 24, 2010 which set forth specific dates by which the VIPD would substantially comply with each substantive provision in the Consent Decree (the “Consent Decree Timetable”). The Consent Decree Timetable also created shorter-term deadlines requiring, among other things, the VIPD to submit force-related policies to the DOJ for approval.
In order to reinvigorate the VIPD’s Consent Decree compliance process and meet its obligations under the Consent Decree Timetable, the Police Commissioner convened a Consent Decree Summit on St. Thomas on January 3 and 4, 2011 (the “Summit”).6 At the Summit, the Police Commissioner appointed senior VIPD personnel to lead and ultimately be held accountable for different aspects of the Consent Decree—Use of Force (Chief of the St. Croix District), Citizen Complaint Process (Chief of the St. Thomas District), Management & Supervision (Deputy Chief of St. Thomas), and Training (Training Director).7 The
5 CD ¶ 3. 6 The OIM discussed the Summit in the Fourth Quarterly Report of 2010 and the
First Quarterly Report of 2011. For more information about the Summit, including objectives and participants, see the Consent Decree Summit Addendum at the end of those Reports. 7 The current Chief of the St. Croix District was the Deputy Chief for St. Croix when the Police Commissioner appointed him to lead the Use of Force working group. Similarly, the current Training Director was the Chief of the St. Croix District when he was appointed to lead the Training working group.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 27 of 78
Office of the Independent Monitor | 3
Police Commissioner explained that each working group leader was responsible for: (i) designating a point person and recruiting other working group members; (ii) drafting an action plan; (iii) interacting with other VIPD personnel on interrelated Consent Decree issues; and, (iv) monitoring the working group’s progress by attending and participating in as many meetings as schedules permit, but no less than twice a month.8
As the OIM previously reported, the Police Commissioner first announced his intent to retire from the VIPD in December 2010.9 After a distinguished career, the Police Commissioner ultimately retired from the VIPD on August 15. The OIM appreciates the Police Commissioner’s long-standing dedication to the Consent Decree. Among other things, the Police Commissioner helped promote a tone of compliance, and created the Consent Decree working groups (discussed in detail below), which should have a lasting, positive impact on the Department’s Consent Decree compliance process.
The OIM understands that a search for a new Police Commissioner is underway, and that the Governor appointed the Assistant Police Commissioner as the Acting Police Commissioner on an interim basis. The OIM anticipates that the Acting Police Commissioner will move ahead on all current and future efforts to satisfy compliance with the Consent Decree; he should not simply wait for a new Police Commissioner to be appointed to lead those efforts. We sincerely hope that a new Police Commissioner is appointed as soon as possible to provide leadership for the VIPD’s critical efforts to comply with the Consent Decree.
The Compliance Assessment section of this Report, which follows, details the OIM’s findings and observations based on our monitoring activities during the quarter ending on June 30. This section covers the five main aspects of the Consent Decree: (1) Use of Force Policies & Specific Use of Force Policies; (2) Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force; (3) Citizen Complaint Process; (4) Management and Supervision; and, (5) Training. In light of the vital role that the working
8 Memorandum from the Police Commissioner to various VIPD personnel, titled “Meeting Current Standards of Policing,” dated January 19, 2011. The OIM’s Police Practices Experts also provided the working group leaders with a memorandum outlining their respective responsibilities. Each of the OIM’s four Police Practices Experts is assigned to work with a particular working group leader.
9 OIM Fourth Quarterly Report of 2010 at VIII.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 28 of 78 4 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
groups now play in the Department’s Consent Decree compliance process, the Compliance Assessment section also provides a detailed update about the progress of each working group. Finally, the Compliance Assessment section includes recommended next-steps relating to each provision in the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 29 of 78
Office of the Independent Monitor | 5
Compliance Assessment
In this section of the Report, we describe the VIPD’s compliance efforts with respect to each of the substantive provisions of the Consent Decree,10 as well as the OIM’s monitoring activities during this quarter. The organization of this section of the Report parallels the organization of the Consent Decree. Specifically, we provide a status and assessment discussion that describes and analyzes the VIPD’s progress toward achieving substantial compliance with the Consent Decree’s requirements.11 As part of this discussion, we provide an update about the progress of each of the working groups leading these efforts. Then, we include recommendations to assist the VIPD in achieving full and timely implementation of the Consent Decree’s requirements.12 A chart summarizing the VIPD’s progress towards substantial compliance is included at the end of the Executive Summary.
I. Use of Force Policies (CD ¶ 31) & Specific Use of Force Policies (CD ¶¶ 39-41)
A. Status and Assessment
As noted above, the Chief of the St. Croix District leads the Use of Force working group. The Chief made good progress during the Second Quarter organizing his working group. For example, the Chief appointed Department personnel from both Districts to his working group, designated a “point person” to spearhead certain tasks, and began holding regular working group meetings. The Use of Force working group also developed a draft action plan during the Second Quarter. While the draft action plan is still under development, it should ultimately identify relevant Consent Decree provisions, describe the tasks that must be completed to satisfy each provision, assign tasks to specific individuals, and set short-, mid-, and long-term deadlines relating to each provision. In addition, the Use of Force working group has started taking a more active role in the development of force-related policies. For
10 A summary of the Consent Decree requirements is excerpted at Appendix A. A copy of the full text of the Consent Decree is available at: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/VIPD_CD_03-23-09.pdf.
11 The Consent Decree provides that “[t]he Monitor shall issue quarterly written, public reports detailing the Territory of the Virgin Islands’ compliance with and implementation of each substantive provision of [the] Agreement.” CD ¶ 96.
12 CD ¶ 85.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 30 of 78
6 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
example, at a May 29 meeting, working group members reviewed a draft version of the Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy (which is discussed below), and forwarded its comments to the Policies and Procedures Committee (the “Committee”) for consideration.13
During the Second Quarter, the VIPD issued two additional forcerelated policies, the Canine Policy and Firearms Policy. Thus, through the end of the Second Quarter, the VIPD issued a total of ten forcerelated policies: (i) Use of Force; (ii) Reportable Use of Force; (iii) Impact Weapons; (iv) Electronic Control Weapon (“ECW”);14 (v) O.C. Spray; (vi) Vehicle Pursuit; (vii) Spike Strip; (viii) Off-Duty Official Action; (ix) Canine; and, (x) Firearms. In addition, the Department also previously implemented the Response to Resistance Reporting Form (“RRR”) (formerly known as the Use of Force Report) for VIPD personnel to document use of force events pursuant to the Reportable Use of Force Policy. We commend the Department, and in particular the Committee, for this significant and transformative accomplishment. However, the Department should recognize that this is just the beginning. The next step involves implementing those policies. Among other things, the Department must continue to train VIPD personnel on these policies and evaluate compliance across the Department. The Committee, Use of Force working group, and Training Division all have a roll to play in this next step.
While the Department has made substantial progress on the policy development front, additional work remains to be done. For example, the Department is developing an Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy, which will permit the VIPD to investigate use of force events in proportion to the type of force used.15 The policy creates four separate use of force levels (from 1 to 4, with 1 being the most severe), and dictates what Supervisors must do to investigate use of force events at each level. The impetus for this policy was the feeling among many VIPD personnel that the existing Use of Force Policy imposes too great a
13 The Committee is charged with developing, reviewing, and revising the Department’s policies, and has six members: the Deputy Chief of St. John (chairperson); the Director of the Internal Affairs Bureau (“IAB”); a police Captain; a police Sergeant; the Training Supervisor for the St. Thomas District; and, the Training Cadre for the St. Croix District. VIPD July 2010 Status Report at 3.
14 The TASER is one example of an ECW. 15 During the Third Quarter, the Department submitted this policy to the DOJ on July
21 and the DOJ provided comments on the policy on August 11. We will provide an update about this policy in the next Report.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 31 of 78
Office of the Independent Monitor | 7
burden on Supervisors by requiring “all inclusive” force reviews for comparatively “minor” force incidents. VIPD personnel were particularly vocal about the unnecessary burden associated with audio or videotaping statements from witnesses and VIPD personnel relating to comparatively low-level uses of force, such as non-compliant handcuffing. The OIM is hopeful that this policy will mitigate many of those concerns and ultimately lead to greater compliance. The Department is also developing a policy to guide its Field Training Officer (“FTO”) Program. As discussed below, the FTO Program is a critical component of training new Officers.
In addition to finalizing the policies referenced above, the Department should identify any additional force-related policies that are needed. For example, we understand that the Department is considering developing a Special Operations Team Policy and Sniper Policy.
With respect to force-related policies, at the end of the Second Quarter, the VIPD is not in substantial compliance with the following Consent Decree provisions: ¶¶ 31 and 39-41. In addition to finalizing its outstanding force-related policies (as discussed above), the VIPD must implement all of its force-related policies (which includes, among other things, providing adequate training and ensuring that VIPD personnel understand and comply with each policy) in order to achieve substantial compliance.
B. Recommendations
With respect to further policy development, the Use of Force working group should continue working with the Committee to develop and/or finalize any outstanding force-related policies, including: (i) Sniper; (ii) Special Operations; (iii) Investigation and Review of Use of Force; and, (iv) FTO. The Department should also determine whether any additional force-related policies are needed. While the OIM stands ready to assist the VIPD in that process, VIPD personnel are best situated to evaluate the needs of their own agency.
In light of the significant number of recently issued policies, the Department should seek to create a consolidated and user-friendly manual to serve as a reference tool for VIPD personnel. It is critical that VIPD personnel be able to readily access the Department’s current policies. Unfortunately, the Department’s policies are currently spread across several different sources, including various manuals, field directives, and training bulletins. Moreover, many of those sources contain policies that conflict with each other and are out-of-date. The

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 32 of 78
8 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
development of a single policy manual would represent a significant step forward for the VIPD.
The Use of Force working group should also work with the Training Director to ensure that all VIPD personnel have been trained on the Department’s recently issued force-related policies. As discussed below (see infra Section V, Training), the Department has not yet trained VIPD personnel on the following issued policies: 1) Vehicle Pursuit; 2) Canine; 3) Off-Duty Official Action; and, 4) Firearms. The Use of Force working group should also coordinate with the Training Director to develop training programs for any force-related policies that are still under development in order to be able to implement them as soon as they are approved by the DOJ.
II. Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force (CD ¶¶ 32-38)
A. Status and Assessment
1. Policies and Directives
At the end of the last quarter, on March 30, the Department issued the Reportable Use of Force Policy, which sets forth use of force reporting obligations for VIPD personnel. Some within the Department had previously pointed to the absence of such a policy to excuse the VIPD’s underreporting of use of force events. Going forward, the OIM expects to see a sharp increase in the number of use of force events that are being reported.
During the Second Quarter, VIPD personnel also began using the RRR to document use of force events pursuant to the Reportable Use of Force Policy. As discussed in the First Quarterly Report of 2011, the Department trained VIPD personnel in both Districts on the Reportable Use of Force Policy and RRR in March (St. Thomas District) and April (St. Croix District);16 in response to negative feedback from the OIM, the Department retrained VIPD personnel in the St. Thomas District from June 13 – 17.17
In order to improve the quality and consistency of the Department’s use of force investigations, the Use of Force working group created a “checklist” to guide Supervisors in conducting investigations;
16 OIM First Quarterly Report of 2011 at 19-22. 17 See infra Section V, Training.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 33 of 78
Office of the Independent Monitor | 9
that checklist was based on an earlier iteration created by the OIM’s Police Practices Experts. The checklist should also help Supervisors (and Chiefs/Deputy Chiefs) efficiently determine whether RRRs are complete, and whether additional information and/or investigative steps are required. In addition, the checklist directs Supervisors to ensure that VIPD personnel are, among other things, documenting use of force events in the Use of Force log books (which are maintained at each Zone) and completing arrest and/or Form 1-As, as necessary. The Use of Force working group disseminated the checklist to Commanders in the St. Croix District on May 9. Since that time, the Use of Force working group has further refined the initial checklist in response to feedback from VIPD personnel, the Policy Consultant, and the OIM.18 The Chief of the St. Thomas District should consider disseminating the checklist to Commanders in his Zones. While certain policies/directives may be designed with a particular District or Zone in mind, the checklist (along with most force-related guides and tools) should be disseminated territory-wide to ensure consistency in expectations and practices, and compliance with the Consent Decree.
In the First Quarterly Report of 2011, we discussed our concern that the Department was arresting and subsequently releasing individuals without adequately documenting the arrest or whether any force was used.19 In response, the Use of Force working group disseminated an Arrest Directive on June 7, which: 1) delineates the differences between an investigative detention and an arrest; 2) outlines the procedure that VIPD personnel must follow if they arrest an individual, but later determine that they do not have an adequate basis for the arrest; and, 3) re-emphasizes the need for VIPD personnel to complete an RRR (in addition to a Form 1-A or arrest report) whenever force is used. For the reasons described above, the Chief of the St. Thomas District should also consider disseminating the Arrest Directive in his District.
The Chief of the St. Croix District also issued a directive concerning the use of security rings (which are used to secure suspects by handcuffing them to a fixed point) in the St. Croix District during the Second Quarter. The directive requires VIPD personnel to secure
18 The VIPD engaged a Policy Consultant in October 2010 to help the Department revise its force-related policies, specifically, and improve its policy writing infrastructure, generally. The OIM has stressed how critical it is for the Department to develop its internal capacity to independently draft and revise policies.
19 OIM First Quarterly Report of 2011 at 8.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 34 of 78
10 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
prisoners with security rings when a holding cell is not available or when there are multiple prisoners being held simultaneously in the same cell. The impetus for the directive was a June 21 incident in which an uncooperative and violent prisoner, who had already tried to escape, severely damaged the cell where he was being held. The use of security rings could have helped prevent the situation described above because the prisoner’s range of movement would have been restricted. Nevertheless, the Chief of the St. Croix District must ensure that VIPD personnel in his District abide by the directive. Among other considerations, the security rings should not be used indiscriminately or to punish prisoners. For the reasons discussed above, the Chief of the St. Thomas District should evaluate whether security rings could play a helpful role in his District. Also, if security rings are to be used in both Districts, a department-wide directive should be crafted to circumscribe the manner in which they are to be used.
2. Survey of Use of Force Incidents
The OIM previously developed a “checklist” detailing precisely what the Consent Decree requires with respect to use of force reporting.20 We subsequently provided a copy of that checklist to the VIPD and explained that we would be using it to evaluate the Department’s use of force reporting practices.
The OIM observed a marked improvement during the Second Quarter in the quality of use of force investigations conducted by IAB in both Districts. IAB’s investigation files were well-organized and generally contained all of the documentation required by the Consent Decree.21 The same cannot yet be said about the investigations conducted in the Zones (or units).
The Consent Decree and Reportable Use of Force Policy require Officers to notify a Supervisor following any use of force. Among other things, Supervisors must also respond to the scene, examine the subject for injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain, and ensure that the subject receives timely medical attention if necessary. According to the OIM’s review of RRRs and force investigation files completed at the
20 OIM First Quarterly Report of 2011 at 8. 21 A “complete” investigation file generally consists of the following: Form 1-A; arrest
report; (signed) RRR; video or audio statement and photos; supervisor’s investigative report with an analysis of the facts, evidence identified, and findings; documentation that all relevant individual’s in the Department’s chain of command reviewed and approved the completed investigation file; and, disposition letter.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 35 of 78
Office of the Independent Monitor | 11
Zone (or unit) level, too often an Officer did not promptly notify a Supervisor of a force incident. When an Officer did notify a Supervisor, the Supervisor commonly failed to respond to the scene to conduct an investigation. As a result, Supervisors often failed to identify and interview witnesses, and preserve evidence.
For example, the OIM reviewed a case involving an allegation that Officers illegally searched a subject and beat him. The subject filed a complaint at IAB. Though all involved Officers prepared RRRs, the file lacked documentation that any of the involved Officers notified a Supervisor following the incident. The file also did not indicate that a Supervisor was present at the scene or at the Zone when the Officers brought in the arrestee. As a result, the Supervisor lost the opportunity to collect and preserve evidence, which could have been important to the Supervisor’s investigative findings. Further, based on the OIM’s review of the file, when an IAB investigator received the case several days later, the file did not include photos of the arrestee at the time of booking, or witness statements.
In addition to deficiencies involving supervisory notification and response, with regard to witnesses, the OIM has observed that Supervisors commonly fail to canvass for witnesses following a use of force event. None of the investigative files that we reviewed this quarter documented that witness canvasses occurred. Even when the files indicated that witnesses existed, often a Supervisor had not interviewed them. For example, in one case that the OIM reviewed, the Form 1-A indicated that there were several witnesses associated with the incident; however, the file lacked any documentation that a Supervisor interviewed these witnesses. In another case, the investigating Sergeant failed to interview a subject who took a car from an acquaintance without permission and allegedly drove toward two responding Officers. Here, the Officers drew and pointed their weapons at the subject/car. This incident required that the involved Officers complete RRRs and a Supervisor conduct a force investigation. Based on the investigative file, the OIM observed that the investigating Sergeant failed to interview the subject, who was not arrested, or the car owner. While the Sergeant reported that he did not have contact information for these individuals, the OIM saw the car owner’s name and address on the Form 1-A, and the subject’s name on the RRR.
In addition, with regard to the preservation of evidence, the OIM notes that available evidence is not always collected and analyzed. In one case, a Zone level use of force investigation file indicated that store security cameras recorded a force incident. Yet, the OIM did not locate

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 36 of 78
12 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
any documentation in the file that a Supervisor obtained the videotape of the incident.
A more disturbing finding from the OIM’s review of Zone level forceinvestigations is the frequency with which Officers use force against a subject and justify the use of force based on the subject’s actions, but do not arrest the subject.22 As an example, the OIM reviewed a case that involved an Officer who fired two rounds at a subject. The Officer claimed that the subject initially pointed a gun at him before firing in return at the subject; both rounds missed the target. Though the subject was subsequently apprehended, he was not arrested. The file revealed that when Officers searched him and the surrounding area, they did not find a weapon. The file lacked an explanation for why the Officer released the subject without charging him. The shooting was deemed justified by the investigating Supervisor.
Other deficiencies that the OIM found in its review of Zone level investigations this quarter include: 1) RRRs that do not identify all present VIPD personnel or files that lack statements from those individuals;23 2) investigating Supervisors who ask leading questions; and, 3) Command level personnel who return files to investigating units for further work, but then fail to confirm that those units performed the additional investigative steps.
Despite these deficiencies, the OIM did review a number of complete files. For example, the OIM reviewed a file in which a Supervisor employed a conciliatory process to handle a minor misunderstanding between a complainant and an Officer. Here, the complainant alleged that an Officer smiled at her as his vehicle passed close to her as she was walking. The investigating Supervisor assembled
22 The OIM previously reported on the issue of “no arrests” or “unarrests” in the First Quarterly Report of 2011 at 8. Also, as mentioned supra, the Chief of the St. Croix District issued an Arrest Directive this quarter. Based on the OIM’s findings, it is imperative that the VIPD disseminate this directive territory-wide and that Supervisors review arrest procedures with Officers during Roll Calls and Commanders’ Calls.
23 Based on our review, Supervisors commonly do not identify or take statements from VIPD personnel who are at the scene of an incident, but who did not witness the force incident. However, based on the OIM’s understanding of the Reportable Use of Force Policy, RRRs should identify all VIPD personnel who were on the scene at the time of a force incident. Moreover, a complete file should contain statements from any such individuals, particularly negative accounts of the involved VIPD personnel’s actions. The OIM also reviewed several cases where Command personnel who participated in the force incident did not give a statement.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 37 of 78
Office of the Independent Monitor | 13
the complainant, Officer, and a witness for a videotaped meeting and had each explain their actions, observations, and intentions. The Supervisor subsequently exonerated the Officer and, based on our review of the file, the complainant appeared to be satisfied with the outcome. The process described above is commonly referred to as a dispute resolution or conciliatory hearing. It is an accepted police practice for handling minor allegations or misunderstandings. 24
3. Supervisor Review of Uses of Force
At the end of the First Quarter, the Chief of the St. Croix District sent a memorandum to all Commanders in the St. Croix District that identified recurring deficiencies that often result in investigation reports being returned to the relevant Commander for further investigation.25 The Chief of the St. Croix District subsequently assigned a member of the Use of Force working group to audit use of force investigation files at the Zones in both Districts. Unfortunately, based on that audit, the Use of Force working group found material differences between the quality of use of force investigations across the Districts.
While the Use of Force working group reported that Commanders in the St. Croix District were completing use of force investigations that complied with the Consent Decree’s requirements, it also reported that Commanders in the St. Thomas District generally were not. This difference in quality highlights the need for better communication and cooperation across the Districts. Although the OIM has not yet independently confirmed the Use of Force working group’s findings, we intend to do so during the next quarter. The OIM commends the Use of Force working group for undertaking this audit. If the Department ultimately decides to implement an audit unit,26 that unit could also assume responsibility for auditing the Department’s use of force files.
In response to the Use of Force working group’s audit, the Chief of the St. Croix District directed his “point person” to meet with Commanders and Supervisors from the St. Thomas District to discuss the Consent Decree’s use of force reporting requirements; those discussions took place from June 13-17. The Use of Force working group reports that it will continue to meet with VIPD personnel in both
24 The OIM discussed the scope of a complaint resolution or supervisors’ resolution process in the First Quarterly Report of 2011 at 14.
25 OIM First Quarterly Report of 2011 at 8-9. 26 Id. at 18.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 38 of 78
14 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Districts to improve the Department’s use of force reporting practices and make them more uniform across the Districts.
The IAB Director also conducted an audit of use of force files located at the Chief’s Office in the St. Thomas District. As a result, on June 20, the Director of IAB sent a memorandum to the Chief noting that he identified 11 case files that lacked two key documents, an investigative report and disposition letter. The VIPD reports that a similar review in the St. Croix District is underway, but was not completed during the Second Quarter.
As discussed below (see infra Section IV, Management and Supervision), the Department continues entering force-related information into IAPro to facilitate the collection, review, and evaluation of use of force events. While IAPro has been operational in the St. Thomas District for several quarters, it just recently came online in the St. Croix District.27 In light of prior technical impediments, the VIPD implemented a manual tracking system in which all Zone Commanders received log books with sequentially numbered pages to record use of force events and citizen complaints.28 On April 6, the Chief of the St. Croix District disseminated a directive in his District requiring all Commanders to regularly inspect log books to ensure that all forcerelated events and citizen complaints are being accurately logged. The OIM encourages the Chief of the St. Croix District to share a copy of this directive with the Chief of the St. Thomas District. We also reiterate our prior recommendation that the VIPD retain the log books described above as a back-up measure in the event that IAPro becomes inaccessible.
Finally, given that Supervisors play a critical role in investigating use of force events, the OIM has been concerned for several quarters that the Department’s corps of first-line Supervisors (Corporals and Sergeants) may be stretched too thin. In order to evaluate the magnitude of this problem, the OIM has repeatedly requested the Department’s organizational chart, active-duty roster, and current list of assignments for both Districts. Without providing any explanation, the VIPD has consistently declined to provide that information. The OIM also recently learned that a number of first-line Supervisors will be retiring within the next two quarters, exacerbating this problem. Therefore, it is imperative
27 As previously reported, the Blue Team component of IAPro will enable Officers to enter use of force information directly into IAPro. See, e.g., OIM Fourth Quarterly Report of 2010 at 10.
28 VIPD February 2011 Status Report at 6.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 39 of 78
Office of the Independent Monitor | 15
that the Department promptly develop a plan to hire/retain additional first-line Supervisors (from within the VIPD or otherwise). In addition to hiring/retaining additional first-line Supervisors, the Department must also provide those individuals with adequate management training, which has been sorely lacking.29
B. Recommendations
Because the Use of Force Policy and Reportable Use of Force Policy are critical aspects of the Department’s Consent Decree compliance process, the VIPD should continue to emphasize the requirements of both policies through regular in-service training programs, such as Roll Calls and Commanders’ Calls. In addition to providing periodic “refreshers,” in-service training should be utilized to address common problems/deficiencies that Supervisors identify in the course of reviewing RRRs and interacting with Officers. To that end, we encourage the Use of Force working group and Director of IAB (or his designee) to continue their practice of auditing use of force files in both Districts in order to identify and remedy any issues.
We encourage the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to ensure that when they identify investigative deficiencies that they demand action from the responsible Supervisor, require the Supervisor to complete the additional investigative steps by a date certain, and hold him/her accountable if he/she fails to adequately follow up. As mentioned above, during this quarter, we observed that the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs gave more attention to force investigations, particularly on St. Croix. Yet, we also observed that when the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs found deficiencies in the investigation that warranted further action, and returned the file to the investigating Supervisor, there was no follow up.
The OIM also encourages the Chief of St. Croix District to share the following directives with the Chief of the St. Thomas District, and for the Chief of the St. Thomas District to consider implementing them in his District: 1) Arrest; 2) Security Ring; and, 3) Logbook. With respect to most force-related issues, there is no reason to have different practices in each District. In fact, the current lack of uniform practices across the Districts makes it more difficult for the Department as a whole to achieve
29 One available source of competent management training is the FBI National Academy. Tuition is free for this program, though transportation and incidental costs while attending are the Department’s responsibility. We recommend that the VIPD consider sending additional Supervisors to this program.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 40 of 78
16 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
substantial compliance. We implore the Acting Police Commissioner to set uniform standards (as already exist for force-related policies) for both Districts.
For example, during the Second Quarter, the Chief of the St. Thomas District declined to disseminate certain force-related materials prepared by the Use of Force working group because they had not been approved by the Police Commissioner, which is apparently the ordinary procedure. While the Police Commissioner (or the Assistant Police Commissioner, as his designee) could have quickly resolved this situation by clarifying the required procedure, he inexplicably allowed it to go unresolved. As a result, those materials still have not been disseminated in the St. Thomas District, at least as far as the OIM is aware. The Acting Police Commissioner should also make it easier for the Use of Force working group (and any other working group) to disseminate materials in both Districts.
Finally, as we have repeatedly requested, the Department should also provide the OIM with its organizational chart, active-duty roster, and current list of assignments for both Districts. We also encourage the VIPD to assess and identify the appropriate number of Supervisors that it requires to efficiently deliver police services and reach substantial compliance with the Consent Decree.
Although the Department has made progress by issuing and beginning to train on the Use of Force Policy and Reportable Use of Policy, it is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶¶ 32-38 of the Consent Decree, which, among other things, require the VIPD to evaluate, document, and review all uses of force. In light of the forcerelated training programs that have taken place over the past two quarters, the OIM is hopeful that the VIPD will be able to substantially comply with these provisions within the next two quarters.
III. Citizen Complaint Process (CD ¶¶ 42-58)
A. Public Information (CD ¶¶ 42-43) & Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints (CD ¶¶ 44-45)
1. Status and Assessment
As noted above, the Chief of the St. Thomas District leads the Complaint Process working group. During the Second Quarter, the Chief of the St. Thomas District appointed working group members, designated a “point person,” and developed an action plan. The Complaint Process working group also began holding regular meetings.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 41 of 78
Office of the Independent Monitor | 17
While the Consent Decree does not require DOJ approval for complaint process-related policies, we commend the VIPD for voluntarily seeking technical assistance from the DOJ on these policies.30 We understand that the DOJ provided the VIPD with comments on draft versions of the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy on April 8. While the Department ultimately issued these policies after the end of the Second Quarter, on August 2, that process took much too long (even considering the Department’s focus on finalizing a number of force-related policies at that time). During that nearly four-month period, the Department was actively promoting the citizen complaint process through a public information campaign, despite the fact that the Department was not yet fully equipped to receive and investigate citizen complaints.
Until the Department issued the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy, the complaint process was governed by the Processing Citizen Complaints Directive (#014-2010) (the “Directive”), which was issued in October 2010.31 On April 13, the Chief of the St. Thomas District disseminated Directive #2011-4, which reemphasized the Directive’s requirements. Among other things, the Directive required VIPD personnel to carry compliment/complaint brochures and complaint forms in their vehicles at all times while on-duty, and prohibited VIPD personnel from discouraging anyone from filing a complaint.
In response to feedback from VIPD personnel and the OIM, the Department revised its complaint forms, brochures, and posters during the Second Quarter. These revisions included: (i) inserting a complaint/compliment hotline number (1.800.391.7376); (ii) minimizing the size of the warning regarding the filing of false complaints; and, (iii) adding language explaining that VIPD personnel were available to assist individuals in completing complaint forms. In addition, the Department changed the heading on its complaint brochure from “Residents Rights” to “Your Rights, Report Wrongful Conduct” to highlight that the complaint process is available to residents and nonresidents.
The VIPD subsequently procured six thousand English language copies of the revised complaint form and brochure and one hundred
30 See, e.g., OIM First Quarterly Report at 11-12. 31 Id. at 19; see also infra § V (Training).

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 42 of 78
18 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
copies of the revised poster, which were then disseminated departmentwide and in the local community. According to the Complaint Process working group, all Zones in both Districts received these materials during the Second Quarter. The VIPD has also posted the revised complaint materials on its website.32
Under both the Directive and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy, VIPD personnel are required to carry complaint/compliment brochures and forms in their vehicles while onduty. To help VIPD personnel comply with that requirement, the Compliance Coordinator procured clear bags, which will be placed in all marked and unmarked VIPD vehicles, to store those materials. During the Second Quarter, the Complaint Process working group conducted inspections to confirm that VIPD personnel were carrying the required complaint process materials in their vehicles. For example, the Citizen Complaint working group reports that it inspected the following units in the St. Thomas District and found that they were in compliance with the Directive: 1) the Bike Unit; 2) Zone C; and, 3) the Red Hook Command.33 The OIM commends the Complaint Process working group’s initiative and looks forward to reviewing documentation relating to these inspections.
The OIM also conducted an inspection of VIPD vehicles to check whether they were equipped with the required complaint process materials. Of the nine vehicles inspected, six contained the required materials. Notably, VIPD personnel mistakenly believed that only patrol units were required to carry these materials; in fact, this requirement applies to all VIPD vehicles (both marked and unmarked, patrol or otherwise). The Commanding Officer who is charged with equipping the Department’s vehicles with the required complaint process materials assured the OIM that all VIPD vehicles would have the required materials going forward. The OIM will conduct additional inspections of VIPD vehicles and facilities in the next quarter to test compliance. In addition, the OIM will question VIPD personnel to ensure that they understand the complaint process and do not engage in behavior that would discourage anyone from filing a complaint.
The VIPD also reports that it identified an individual to translate the revised English version of the complaint/compliment brochure into Spanish. Likewise, the VIPD has identified an individual to translate the
32 See, http://www.vipd.gov.vi/Consent_Decree.aspx. 33 VIPD July 2011 Status Report at 11.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 43 of 78
Office of the Independent Monitor | 19
brochure into Patois. As soon as these translations are complete, the VIPD will bulk print and distribute these materials department-wide and in the local community.34 While the Consent Decree requires VIPD vehicles to be equipped with English, Spanish, and Patois language versions of the required complaint process materials, the Zone Commander who serves as the “point person” for the Complaint Process working group stated that VIPD vehicles were only currently equipped with English language materials. According to the Zone Commander, Spanish, and Patios materials are anticipated sometime in August.
With regard to the VIPD’s ongoing public information campaign, the VIPD reports that radio and television stations in both Districts continue to air public service announcements to promote the Department’s citizen complaint process. According to the VIPD, there has been a significant increase in the number of complaints that residents have filed since the Department began promoting the citizen complaint process in October 2010.
Finally, in order to make it easier for individuals to file complaints at the Zones, the VIPD previously reported that the Compliance Coordinator procured bulletin boards, which must be prominently displayed in each Zone in both Districts, to identify the Commander and on-duty Shift Supervisor. According to the VIPD, Shift Supervisors are responsible for updating the board with their name when their shift begins. The VIPD previously reported that it planned to issue additional guidance regarding the bulletin boards; however, the OIM never received any such documentation. The OIM visited several Zones in both Districts during the Second Quarter to monitor whether the bulletin boards were being used. Although the bulletin boards have been installed in all of the Zones that we visited, they were not all being kept up to date. For example, the board in Zone A in the St. Thomas District did not have the name of the on-duty Shift Supervisor posted when we visited.
Although the VIPD has made significant progress with aspects of the citizen complaint process, it is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶¶ 42-45 of the Consent Decree. As explained in the Recommendations section below, among other things, the VIPD must provide training on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy, which were both finalized on August 2.
34 Id.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 44 of 78
20 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
2. Recommendations
The VIPD’s complaint process was previously hampered by the absence of definitive policy guidance. That issue is now moot in light of the recently issued Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. Despite having previously trained VIPD personnel on the then in-effect Directive, the Department must provide additional training on these policies. The Complaint Process working group’s action plan acknowledges the need for training on the new policies and also expressed the intent to vet these training programs before the Department offers them to VIPD personnel. To that end, the Complaint Process working group should work with the Training Director to start training on these policies. The Complaint Process working group should also work with the Director of IAB to assess the workload impact that these policies will have on IAB staff, who accept the bulk of complaints at their offices, and to allocate personnel accordingly.
The Complaint Process working group should also continue to confirm whether VIPD vehicles are equipped with the required complaint process materials and that the Zones are properly utilizing the bulletin boards described above. Similarly, once training on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy have been completed, the Complaint Process working group should periodically test whether VIPD personnel understand the complaint process and are responsive and courteous to individuals seeking to file complaints. As we have previously emphasized, any such inspections should be well-documented (when and where did the inspection take place, what were the results, etc.).
Finally, we understand that the Director of IAB periodically compiles statistics relating to the complaint process. The OIM encourages the Complaint Process working group to help the Director of IAB compile and review that information as needed. In addition to providing a good overview of the Department’s complaint process, that information will help the Department identify emerging trends and respond appropriately.
B. Investigation of Complaints (CD ¶¶ 46-58)
1. Status and Assessment
As discussed above, the VIPD’s investigation of citizen and command complaints is now governed by the Investigating Misconduct

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 45 of 78
Office of the Independent Monitor | 21
and Citizen Complaints Policy. The OIM cannot overstate the importance of promptly beginning to train on that policy.
In an effort to help the VIPD efficiently resolve certain comparatively less serious complaints, the OIM previously encouraged the Department to consider a policy that would permit Supervisors and IAB Agents to resolve those cases based on a preliminary investigation.35 Such a policy would allow VIPD personnel to focus their attention on complaints of a more serious nature. Because the Department recently issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy (but has not yet trained on it), this is an ideal time to implement such a policy. The Complaint Process working group should evaluate the Department’s interest in implementing such a policy as soon as possible.
The OIM also reiterates the need for the VIPD to train Supervisors on the preponderance of the evidence standard (which the VIPD uses when investigating complaints) and on evaluating the credibility of witnesses.36 The OIM previously reported that the VIPD’s training on the preponderance of the evidence standard fell short; specifically, that the instructors lacked the necessary legal background.37 Unfortunately, the VIPD has been slow to respond to the OIM’s concerns. For example, during the Second Quarter, the Training Division identified an attorney to conduct the preponderance of the evidence training in the St. Croix District, but has not yet identified an attorney to conduct a similar training in the St. Thomas District. Moreover, with respect to determining the credibility of witnesses, we note that the Training Division first received an intra-departmental request to hold such a training program on March 12, 2010.38 The Complaint Process working
35 OIM First Quarterly Report of 2011 at 13-14. To appropriately limit the scope of such a policy, the OIM suggested the following limitations and guidelines: (i) restrictions on the type of allegations that can be closed by Supervisors after a preliminary investigation; (ii) tiered levels of investigation such that complaints against VIPD personnel who have repeatedly violated Department policies are ineligible for this process; (iii) procedures to ensure oversight by the Chief, Deputy Chief, and the IAB, empowering each to overrule the Supervisor; (iv) procedures to inform complainants about this alternative process, including their ability to accept/decline it, and the actions taken by the VIPD during this process, including disposition of complaints; and, (v) guidance on when IAB should re-open or continue any case “resolved” (i.e., closed) by a Supervisor.
36 The Consent Decree requires Officers to evaluate witness credibility using a nonexhaustive list of factors (which are set forth in the Consent Decree) when investigating complaints and use of force events. CD ¶ 51.
37 OIM First Quarterly Report of 2011 at 15. 38 OIM Second Quarterly Report of 2010 at 18.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 46 of 78
22 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
group should work with the Training Director to ensure that VIPD personnel are trained on both standards during the next quarter.
Finally, the Consent Decree requires the VIPD to institute a centralized numbering and tracking system for all complaints. However, technical roadblocks have prevented the Department from being able to feasibly implement a unitary system across both Districts. As a result, the VIPD created separate databases (each with a distinct numbering system to track complaints) for the St. Croix and St. Thomas Districts. Although the databases are separate, they can both be accessed from either District. During the Second Quarter, the DOJ and VIPD discussed whether such a system satisfied the Consent Decree’s requirement for a “centralized” numbering and tracking system. The DOJ ultimately determined (during the Third Quarter of 2011) that this alternative system complied with the Consent Decree. The OIM will discuss this further in the next Report.
At the end of the Second Quarter, the VIPD is not in substantial compliance with ¶¶ 46-58 of the Consent Decree concerning the investigation of complaints.
2. Recommendations
The VIPD must provide training programs concerning the following policies/standards during the next quarter: 1) Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy; 2) Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy; 3) preponderance of the evidence standard; and, 4) evaluating the credibility of witnesses. As we have repeatedly emphasized, the Department will not be able to achieve substantial compliance until it provides those training programs.
The Complaint Process working group (in consultation with the Committee) should also consider developing a policy that would permit Supervisors and IAB Agents to close certain complaints based on a preliminary investigation. Such a policy could help ease the administrative burdens associated with comprehensively investigating comparatively less-serious complaints.
IV. Management & Supervision (CD ¶¶ 59-72)
A. Risk Management System (CD ¶¶ 59-68)
1. Status and Assessment
As explained above, the Deputy Chief for St. Thomas leads the Management & Supervision working group. We previously commended

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 47 of 78
Office of the Independent Monitor | 23
the Management & Supervision working group for getting off to a strong start.39 For example, by the end of the First Quarter, the Deputy Chief for St. Thomas designated a “point person” and other VIPD personnel as members of the Management & Supervision working group, held four meetings, and submitted a draft action plan to the OIM. The Management & Supervision working group continued to meet during the Second Quarter, and further refine its action plan.
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to implement a RMS to identify potentially problematic behavior from VIPD personnel at an early (and hopefully remediable) stage. The VIPD chose IAPro as its RMS, and has been working to bring it online for several quarters. After a series of lengthy and frustrating delays, the VIPD reports that IAPro is now functional in the IAB offices in both Districts.40 The OIM commends the Director of IAB and the Acting Director of MIS—who was only appointed to that role in January—for helping to bring this project much further along. Going forward, the OIM encourages the Deputy Chief of St. Thomas (and other members of the Management & Supervision working group) to take a more active role in supervising the implementation of IAPro.
The VIPD also reports that it is working with the IAPro vendor to install the Blue Team component of IAPro on all Supervisors’ computers in both Districts.41 Blue Team will allow VIPD personnel to enter forcerelated information into IAPro while in the field. Once that information is uploaded into IAPro, it will be accessible to Supervisors and IAB personnel. Blue Team installation, as well as a related train-the-trainer program, took place in July in the St. Thomas District; a parallel training will take place in the St. Croix District thereafter. The OIM will report on those training programs (as well as the VIPD’s overall progress implementing Blue Team) in the next quarter.
The Management & Supervision working group focused much of its attention during the Second Quarter on the Department’s Data Input Plan. Although the DOJ approved the VIPD’s Data Input Plan on March
39 VIPD First Quarterly Report of 2011 at 16. 40 The OIM recently learned that the Department may need to increase the storage
capacity of its servers to accommodate IAPro. We will report on this development in the next quarter. 41 At the end of this quarter, we learned that Officers and Supervisors could not access Blue Team from many locations in both Districts. The OIM will report on this issue next quarter.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 48 of 78
24 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
22, the Department has not yet disseminated the plan department-wide; we encourage the VIPD to do so during the next quarter. As previously discussed, the Data Input Plan identifies information about VIPD personnel (including, but not limited to, uses of force, disciplinary issues, motor vehicle accidents, and sick days) that the Department will enter into IAPro to facilitate its risk management function. The Management & Supervision working group contacted the individuals (some of whom work outside the Department) who are ordinarily responsible for maintaining that information and worked with them to develop an efficient process to enter that information into IAPro.
The OIM recently became aware of an issue that could make it difficult for the Department to link certain documentation to particular VIPD personnel. Based on our monitoring, we understand that VIPD personnel have three distinct numerical identifiers—badge number, employee number, and a third number, which is assigned by the Virgin Islands Territorial Emergency Management Agency. In reviewing Form 1As and RRRs, the OIM observed that VIPD personnel rarely enter multiple identifiers. While the badge number is the most commonly used identifier, the Districts do not consistently issue and record badge numbers. As such, the Department may not be able to connect badge numbers to the corresponding individuals. The Management & Supervision working group should take this issue into consideration as the Department implements the Data Input Plan. In addition, the Acting Police Commissioner should require the Chiefs to ensure that badge assignments are consistently documented in their respective Districts.
IAB is in the process of entering information from as early as 2009 for the St. Thomas District into IAPro; presently, IAB is only entering new information for the St. Croix District (though IAB intends to and the OIM encourages them to also enter historic records for St. Croix when feasible). Because IAPro seeks to identify potentially problematic conduct based on established norms, IAPro functions best when it has a wealth of information to analyze. Unfortunately, despite making multiple requests for additional personnel, IAB does not have the resources (while also carrying out its other functions) to complete this process on a reasonable time-line. The Director and Assistant Director of IAB previously hired an intern to assist with entering historic information into IAPro. The OIM applauds that type of creative problem solving, and invites the Management & Supervision working group to develop other solutions.
Another missing piece in the RMS is the Department’s RMS Protocol, which sets forth various thresholds for supervisory review. For

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 49 of 78
Office of the Independent Monitor | 25
example, if an Officer receives more than X number of complaints within Y period of time, IAPro will alert the Officer’s Supervisor to the potential issue; X any Y will be set forth in the RMS Protocol based on Department norms and generally accepted police practices. The DOJ provided the Department with comments on a draft version of the RMS Protocol on June 14. As such, we expect the Department to finalize the RMS protocol in the upcoming quarter.
In order to educate VIPD personnel about the Department’s new RMS, the Director of IAB invited Samuel Walker, Ph.D., a highly regarded criminologist and expert on early intervention programs (“EIPs”), to make a series of presentations in the St. Thomas and St. Croix Districts during the Second Quarter. The day-long presentations were conducted on May 16, 2011 on St. Thomas and May 17, 2011 on St. Croix. Approximately 60-70 VIPD personnel attended each session. Dr. Walker gave a historic overview of EIPs and discussed how other departments have benefited from the implementation of EIPs.
Unfortunately, many participants seemed disinterested in the presentation. Instead, many participants used Dr. Walker’s presentation (and the question and answer session that followed) to focus on the VIPD’s new complaint-related policies—specifically, issues relating to the filing of false complaints. As the OIM has emphasized on prior occasions, the VIPD needs to move past its disproportionate concern with false complaints (which are illegal) and embrace the complaint process. The VIPD should schedule additional information sessions to further educate VIPD personnel about the Department’s EIP.
Given that the Department just began to bring IAPro online (and is still in the process of implementing the Data Input Plan and finalizing the RMS Protocol, among other things), it is not surprising that the Department has not yet substantially complied with ¶¶ 59-68 of the Consent Decree.
2. Recommendations
The Management & Supervision working group must take a more active role in the implementation of the Department’s RMS; while the Director and Assistant Director of IAB and the Acting Director of MIS have done a laudable job, they need others to contribute their time and energy as well. Among other things, the Management & Supervision working group should: 1) identify personnel to assist with entering historic information into IAPro; 2) work with the Training Director to develop training relating to the Data Input Plan, RMS and Blue Team;

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 50 of 78
26 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
and, 3) finalize the Department’s RMS Protocol. We expect the Department to issue the finalized RMS Protocol during the next quarter.
B. Oversight (CD ¶ 69)
1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations
The VIPD reports that the Committee is currently reviewing a draft version of the audit protocol for the RMS. As such, the VIPD has not yet substantially complied with ¶ 69 of the Consent Decree. The VIPD understandably delayed working on the audit protocol until it finalized the Data Input Plan and RMS Protocol. Now that those items are complete/nearly complete, the Department should focus its attention on finalizing the audit protocol.
The VIPD previously reported that it was considering creating an audit unit to evaluate the effectiveness of internal controls across the Department. According to the VIPD, the unit would consist of a territorywide commanding Officer in one District and a team Supervisor (of the rank Sergeant or above) in the other District. Each District would also have three audit Officers charged with auditing their respective Districts. The VIPD did not provide an update about this plan in its July 2011 Status Report. As such, the VIPD should provide a status update in its next Status Report.
C. Discipline (CD ¶¶ 70-72)
1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations
During the First Quarter, the DOJ approved the Disciplinary Matrix, which provides disciplinary guidelines for different types of misconduct.42 On April 26, the DOJ provided the VIPD with comments on its Disciplinary Policy, which works in conjunction with the Disciplinary Matrix.43
During the Second Quarter, the VIPD indicated that it intends to resubmit a revised version of the Disciplinary Policy to the DOJ in the near future. The OIM encourages the VIPD to finalize the Disciplinary Policy during the next quarter because, in conjunction with the
42 OIM First Quarterly Report of 2011 at 19. 43 While the Consent Decree does not require DOJ approval for the Disciplinary Policy,
the VIPD voluntarily submitted it to the DOJ for its review, and the DOJ agreed to provide technical assistance.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 51 of 78
Office of the Independent Monitor | 27
Disciplinary Matrix, it should help foster the more even-handed application of disciplinary sanctions. As previously reported, the OIM has observed first-hand (and heard about anecdotally) the Department’s inconsistent and disparate application of disciplinary sanctions (for which there is no reasonable explanation).44 Moreover, given the importance of the Disciplinary Policy and Matrix, it is important that the Training Division develop corresponding training programs promptly.
In addition, the VIPD reports that the Committee intends to hold a meeting with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs, as well as the Police Benevolent Association and Law Enforcement Supervisors’ Union, in both Districts to discuss the Disciplinary Policy and Matrix in upcoming quarters. The VIPD should set firm dates for these meetings and provide the OIM with updates as soon as they take place.
At the end of the Second Quarter, the VIPD is not in substantial compliance with ¶¶ 70-72 of the Consent Decree.
V. Training (CD ¶¶ 73-81)
A. Management Oversight (CD ¶¶ 73-77) and Curriculum (CD ¶¶ 78-81)
1. Status and Assessment
As explained above, the Training Director leads the Training working group. Notwithstanding the recent uptick in activity by the Training Division, the Training working group continues to lag behind the other working groups. By the Second Quarter, the Training working group still has not provided the OIM with documentation relating to its meetings (such as minutes or agenda) or an action plan. There is no excuse for the Training working group’s lack of progress in this regard.
Nevertheless, the Training Division conducted a number of training programs during the Second Quarter. For example, the Training Division held training programs on the ECW and O.C. Spray Policies during the weeks of May 23 and 30. Representatives from the OIM observed both training programs. Although the instructors adequately explained the mechanics of operating each tool and, with respect to the TASER, emphasized the need to make sure that medical care is administered to the subject after each use, the instructors failed to provide sufficient guidance about the scenarios in which such tools should or should not
44 See, e.g., OIM Fourth of Quarterly Report of 2010 at 24.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 52 of 78
28 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
be used. In addition, while the instructors explained that RRRs must be completed following the use of such tools, they did not adequately explain how to do so. The Training Division could have avoided these deficiencies by more thoroughly vetting the training programs. As we have repeatedly emphasized, the Training Division should carefully vet all training programs.
The VIPD also reports that it conducted eight hours of in-service FTO training in both Districts in June. In advance of those training programs, the Director of Training sent a memorandum to the Chiefs in both Districts requesting that they permit their Supervisors and Commanders to attend. The VIPD did not report on whether the Chiefs responded to this memorandum. Moreover, we are concerned that the Training Director does not appear to have the authority to directly order VIPD personnel to attend training programs. We suggest that the Acting Police Commissioner allow the Training Director to directly order VIPD personnel to attend required training programs (after the Training Director has consulted with the Chiefs). This would be a more streamlined process and engender greater supervisory accountability.
With respect to the FTO Program, the OIM seeks more information about how FTOs are selected and trained. To that end, the VIPD should provide the OIM with copies of any lesson plans or other materials that were used to train the current FTOs. The VIPD should also provide the OIM with a roster all of current FTOs (with their service records and disciplinary histories attached).
Finally, the Training Division retrained 156 Supervisors and Officers and 30 Recruits on the Citizen Complaints Directive, Use of Force Policy, Reportable Use of Force Policy, and RRR from June 13-17 on St. Thomas. The VIPD provided this retraining in response to feedback from the OIM that the initial training (which took place on St. Thomas in late March) was inadequate.45 The OIM is pleased to report that the retraining was a marked improvement from the prior training.46 Notably, however, the Training Division primarily relied on the instructors who led the same training on St. Croix in early April. Going
45 OIM First Quarterly Report of 2011 at 20-21. 46 With regard to the retraining, the OIM notes that the Training Division did not
provide the participants with copies of the policies that were being trained on. As previously stated, it is imperative for VIPD personnel to have access to all Department policies. As such, the Department should disseminate those policies promptly.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 53 of 78
Office of the Independent Monitor | 29
forward, the Training Division needs to develop greater capacity in both Districts. To that end, the Training Division should encourage St. Croixbased instructors to spend time on St. Thomas and vice-versa. The Training Division (like the VIPD as a whole) must begin functioning more cohesively across the Districts.
On April 20, the Training Director sent a memorandum to the Police Commissioner regarding the Officers and Supervisors who had unexcused absences from the force-related and complaint process trainings in March and April. To the OIM’s knowledge, the Training Director has not received a response to this memorandum (despite sending it to the Police Commissioner more than three months ago). The OIM is interested in receiving additional documentation about these “no shows” including any potential disciplinary actions meted out to any Officers and/or Supervisors by the Department for their noncompliance. We note that the Training Director has rescheduled these “no shows” for retraining.
The Training Division has done a good job over the past two quarters keeping the OIM up to date about upcoming training programs. To that end, the Training Division recently disseminated a training schedule through September. Upcoming training programs include: inservice (40 hours); C.P.R.; Glock Armors; .223 Armors; Noise & Tint Meter; Tactical Marine; FTO train-the-trainer certification; in-service FTO; basic and advanced SWAT; defensive tactics; expandable baton/O.C. Spray; Spike Strip; Citizen Complaint Review; and, Investigating Use of Force. Notably, that schedule does not include training programs relating to a number of recently issued policies, including the Vehicle Pursuit Policy, Canine Policy, and Firearms Policy.47 The Training Division must provide training for each of those force-related policies as soon as possible. As we have repeatedly stressed, the Training Division should start the process of developing training programs for policies well before the Department issues them. To facilitate that process, the Training Division should be in regular contact with the Committee and working groups.
47 The VIPD reports that its Firearms Simulation and Training System in both Districts are outdated. The Department has obtained a quote from a vendor to replace these machines. To the extent that these machines impede the Training Division from training on the Firearms Policy, we recommend that the VIPD replace them promptly.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 54 of 78
30 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
We are pleased to learn that the Training Director has met with an attorney in the Attorney General’s Office in St. Croix to consult on various legal issues that are relevant to force-related training. The OIM has repeatedly recommended that the Training Division consult an attorney because many training materials have law-related content that should be reviewed and approved by a qualified attorney. Furthermore, the Department should ensure that all law-related training is delivered by an attorney. The Training Division’s past practice of using physical skills instructors or former university psychology lecturers to teach legal aspects of policing is ill-advised and will not be deemed compliant.
The Training Division recently gauged interest in holding defensive spray, defensive tactics, and expandable baton instructor certification programs by disseminating a department-wide announcement on June 1 and requesting feedback by June 30. Given that it is critical for VIPD instructors to be certified on those tools, the Department should direct instructors to attend those programs if too few step forward voluntarily.
The Training Division has identified vendors to lead a number of the training programs described above. Unfortunately, the VIPD has not been able to make final arrangements with these vendors because of resistance from the Virgin Islands Department of Property and Procurement (“Property and Procurement”)—the unit responsible for approving contracts between the VIPD and third-parties. The Training Division submitted a memorandum, dated June 8, to the Police Commissioner notifying him about this resistance. As far as the OIM is aware, the Police Commissioner did not respond during the Second Quarter. Nevertheless, the OIM is hopeful that the Acting Police Commissioner will be able help obtain approval for these outstanding contracts expeditiously.
The Training Division has also made substantial strides documenting various aspects of its training program during the Second Quarter. For example, the Training Division developed an evaluation form, titled “Training Division Course Evaluation,” for VIPD personnel to evaluate training programs that they attend. The VIPD reports that Officers and Supervisors completed evaluation forms following the recent training programs on the Use of Force Policy, Reportable Use of Force Policy, and Citizen Complaints Process Directive in March, April and June on both Districts. Although the Training Division provided the OIM with many records associated with its training activities this quarter (sign-in sheets, copies of PowerPoint presentations, etc.), it did not provide these evaluations. As such, the OIM requests copies of these evaluations. Similarly, the VIPD reports that the Director of Training is

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 55 of 78
Office of the Independent Monitor | 31
working with MIS to develop a database of training records. In the interim, the Training Division is updating its file system in both Districts so that records are color-coded.
Finally, the VIPD has started taking a more active role in the Peace Officer Standards and Training Council (“POST”).48 The VIPD reports that POST is working to establish, among other things, minimum training standards for Virgin Islands Peace Officers and minimum annual re-recertification requirements for instructors. In addition, POST is working with the University of the Virgin Islands (“UVI”) and UVI’s Community Engagement and Lifelong Learning Center to review lesson plans and instructor qualifications. We commend the VIPD’s effort to reinvigorate the POST.
2. Recommendations
The OIM continues to emphasize the importance of vetting training programs prior to their implementation. Without exception, every lesson plan should be vetted by Training Division personnel and a cross section (of ranks) of high performing VIPD personnel with relevant expertise. This vetting is part of the training infrastructure that the OIM has encouraged the VIPD to build. Since the OIM has received a schedule of the Training Division’s upcoming programs through September, the OIM is hopeful that the VIPD is making plans to vet each of these programs before they are held to avoid the need to conduct retraining.
The OIM also encourages the Training Division to work with the Complaint Process working group to implement training programs for the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct & Citizens Complaints Policy, which were both issued on August 2. Likewise, the Training Division should work with the Use of Force working group to implement training programs for the Vehicle Pursuit Policy, Canine Policy, and Firearms Policy, all of which have been issued. More generally, the Training Division should remain in close contact with each of the working groups to develop training programs for
48 POST is comprised of the following voting members: the Police Commissioner; the Attorney General or his designee; the Fire Service Director; the Chiefs of the St. Thomas and St. Croix Districts; Director of Enforcement from the Department of Planning and Natural Resources; a representative from the Bureau of Corrections; and, the presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The non-voting members of POST include: the Director of Training; representatives from V.I. law enforcement agencies; and, representatives from law enforcement unions. VIPD June 2009 Status Report at 28.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 56 of 78
32 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
policies/directives that are still under development or that the Department has recently issued. The Training Division should pay particular attention to the development of the FTO Policy, which should be finalized in the next two quarters, given the significant role that it should play.
The Acting Police Commissioner should also work with Property and Procurement to resolve any issues relating to the outstanding contracts with the Training Division’s vendors. If needed, the Acting Police Commissioner should seek additional assistance from the Attorney General or Governor’s Office. These training programs are crucial, and administrative obstacles should not prevent them from taking place.
Finally, the OIM expects the Training Division to maintain and strengthen its relationship with the POST.
Despite making significant progress during the Second Quarter, the VIPD has not yet substantially complied with ¶¶ 73-81 of the Consent Decree. In addition to holding training programs for a number of recently issued policies, the Training Division, among other things, must work closely with the Use of Force, Complaint Process, and Management & Supervision working groups to advance policies that are in the pipeline. Moreover, the Training Division must more carefully vet all training programs to avoid the need to conduct retrainings.
VI. Monitoring, Reporting, and Implementation (CD ¶¶ 82-102)
1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations
On July 7, the VIPD submitted its Ninth Quarterly Status Report to the DOJ and OIM. For the second straight quarter, the VIPD provided its report to the DOJ and OIM on time. The Ninth Quarterly Status Report contained a more detailed description of the VIPD’s efforts to move towards substantial compliance, as compared to prior status reports. The OIM also commends the Compliance Coordinator for his efforts to collect updates from VIPD personnel, who are responsible for areas of Consent Decree compliance. As we have repeatedly stated, it is in the VIPD’s interest to share as much information with the OIM as possible because we can only report on information that we learn through our own monitoring activities or the VIPD’s quarterly status reports.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 57 of 78
Office of the Independent Monitor | 33
2. Status of Substantial Compliance
In order to be released from the Consent Decree, the VIPD must substantially comply with each of the Consent Decree’s provisions and remain in compliance for two years.49 The Consent Decree Timetable, which was jointly filed with the United States District Court for the Virgin Islands by the VIPD and the DOJ in November 2010, sets forth dates by which the VIPD must substantially comply with each Consent Decree provision. For example, under the Consent Decree Timetable, the VIPD should have substantially complied with ¶¶ 32-58, 70, and 72 by May 31 and ¶¶ 60, 61, and 73-81 by June 30. As explained below, with very few exceptions, the VIPD has failed to satisfy its obligations under the Consent Decree Timetable.
At the end of the Second Quarter of 2011, the VIPD has only complied with the following Consent Decree provisions (a chart summarizing the VIPD’s progress towards substantial compliance is at the end of the Executive Summary):
 In January 2010, the Parties to the Consent Decree selected the Monitor (CD ¶¶ 82-86);
 In the Spring of 2010, the Police Commissioner appointed a Compliance Coordinator to serve as a liaison between the Parties to the Consent Decree and the Monitor (CD ¶ 88); and,
 Beginning in June 2009, the VIPD began issuing quarterly status reports delineating the steps taken by the VIPD to comply with the Consent Decree (CD ¶ 98).
As mentioned above, although the VIPD has already issued ten force-related policies, it has not yet fully implemented them as required by the Consent Decree.50 In addition, we understand that the Department is still contemplating several additional force-related policies.51 As such, the Department has not yet complied with ¶¶ 31-41,
49 CD ¶ 103. 50 As defined in the Consent Decree, “implement” refers to the “development or putting
into place of a policy or procedure, including the appropriate training of personnel.” CD ¶ 30. 51 While the VIPD may develop additional force-related policies in the future (beyond those that are currently under development or required by the Consent Decree), those policies will not restart the two year substantial compliance period.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 58 of 78 34 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
which requires the VIPD to review, revise, and implement all of its forcerelated policies.
Similarly, while the VIPD’s citizen complaint process is well underway, the Department must, among other things, train Department personnel on the recently issued Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy. The Department must also demonstrate that the complaint process is functioning properly in order to substantially comply with ¶¶ 42-58.52
52 The OIM will evaluate the impact of the Department’s issuance of the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy (which occurred on August 2) on substantial compliance in the Third Quarterly Report of 2011.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 59 of 78
Office of the Independent Monitor | 35
Conclusion
While we noted some improvement during the Second Quarter, the Department is still very far from satisfying its obligations under the Consent Decree. Moreover, the Department is plainly in danger of not being able to reach and maintain substantial compliance for the two years required before the Consent Decree expires on March 23, 2014. While the Chief of the St. Croix District and the Training Director (among others)53 demonstrated an increased sense of commitment to the Consent Decree compliance process this quarter, we are still waiting for the entire Department’s executive leadership team to work cohesively and diligently toward the Consent Decree’s goals. In particular, we would like to see the Acting Police Commissioner take a visible and direct role in holding the working group leaders (and the rest of the Department) accountable for coming into compliance with the Consent Decree. In addition, while the Department has put (or is beginning to put) a number of important building blocks into place— including, but not limited to, issuing ten force-related policies and beginning to train on several of them, bringing IAPro into operation in both Districts, and implementing aspects of the citizen complaint process—the VIPD must put all of those pieces together in a more coordinated manner to move closer to substantial compliance. To that end, the working groups should work together more closely. For example, the Training and Use of Force working groups must develop training programs relating to each of the Department’s revised forcerelated policies.
During this Quarter, the OIM was disappointed to learn that important materials (including draft policies and directives) from the Use of Force working group were not disseminated in the St. Thomas District because of certain procedural obstacles. Although the Police Commissioner (or the Assistant Police Commissioner, as his designee) could have quickly resolved the situation, they did not act promptly. As a result, the St. Thomas District lacks these materials, which is particularly unfortunate since the Use of Force working group found that the St. Thomas District lags behind the St. Croix District in conducting adequate use of force investigations. The Acting Police Commissioner must eliminate any obstacles that thwart cooperation and
53 For example, the Director and Assistant Director of IAB, the Compliance Coordinator, and the Training Cadre for St. Croix have long shown a commitment to compliance with the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 60 of 78

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 61 of 78
Office of the Independent Monitor | i
Appendix A Summary of Consent Decree Requirements
Below is a summary of the requirements imposed by each substantive section of the Consent Decree. Because these summaries of the substantive requirements significantly lengthen our reports, we include them here in this Appendix to provide the reader with context concerning the VIPD’s progress in implementing the broad range of reforms required under each section of the Consent Decree.
I. Use of Force Policies (CD ¶ 31)
A. Requirements
Under paragraph 31 of the Consent Decree, the VIPD is required to review and revise its use of force policies as necessary to:
 Define terms clearly, including establishing a definition of force that is consistent with the definition of force under the Consent Decree;1
 Incorporate a use of force model that teaches officers to use, as appropriate, strategies such as disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, or calling in specialized units to assist with a situation;
 Advise VIPD officers that, whenever possible, individuals should be allowed to submit voluntarily to arrest before force is used;
 Reinforce that the use of excessive force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and potential civil liability;
 Ensure that sufficient less lethal force alternatives are available to all VIPD officers; and,
 Explicitly prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized.2
1 Under the Consent Decree, “[t]he term ‘force’ means any physical coercion used to effect, influence or persuade an individual to comply with an order from an officer. The term shall not include ordinary, unresisted handcuffing. The term shall include the use of chemical irritant and the deployment of a canine and/or pointing a firearm at or in the direction of a human being.” CD ¶ 21.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 62 of 78
This provision requires that the VIPD implement its revised use of force policies immediately after the DOJ has reviewed and approved finalized versions of the policies.
II. Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force (CD ¶¶ 32-41)
A. General Use of Force Events (CD ¶¶ 32-38)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires that the VIPD document in writing all uses of force and develop a use of force reporting form on which officers are required to record each and every type of force used in an incident. The use of force reports must include: (1) a narrative description, prepared by a supervisor, of the events preceding the use of force; (2) a narrative description, prepared by the involved officer, of the event relating to the use of force incident; and, (3) audiotaped statements, as appropriate, from those officers.3
The Consent Decree requires officers to notify their supervisors following any use of force or allegation of excessive force. The supervisor must respond to the scene, examine the person who was subjected to the use of force for injury, interview him or her to determine the extent of any injuries, and ensure that the person receives medical attention, if necessary.
A supervisor must conduct a review and evaluation of each use of force by a VIPD officer. The Consent Decree contains the following requirements relating to these evaluations of uses of force:
 The supervisor must prepare a detailed narrative description of the incident that includes all of the facts and circumstances relevant to determining whether or not the involved officers’ conduct was justified.
Footnote continued from previous page 2 The Consent Decree defines “deadly force” as “any use of force likely to cause death
or serious physical injury, including, but not limited to, the discharge of a firearm.” CD ¶ 20. 3 The Consent Decree defines “supervisor” as a “sworn VIPD employee at the rank of corporal or above (or anyone acting in those capacities) and non-sworn personnel with oversight responsibility for other officers.” CD ¶ 27.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 63 of 78
 The supervisor must evaluate the grounds for the use of force and determine whether the involved officers’ actions were consistent with VIPD policy.
 To filter out potential bias, reviews of use of force incidents may not be conducted by any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized action that led to a use of force or allegation of excessive force.
 Supervisors are required to interview all witnesses of a use of force, as well as all witnesses of any incident in which an injury results from a use of force. Supervisors must ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident, subject to any limitations imposed by any applicable provision of collective bargaining agreements or law.
 Supervisors are not permitted to ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that might, for example, suggest legal justifications for the officers’ conduct.
 Supervisors must consider all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence, as appropriate. Supervisors are required to make reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between statements provided by witnesses and make determinations with respect to the credibility of witnesses when feasible. VIPD is required to train all of its supervisors on methods and factors for evaluating the credibility of a witness.
 Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that use of force reports identify every officer who was involved in a use of force incident or was on the scene when the incident occurred. Supervisors must ensure that use of force reports reflect whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided to an injured person, and, if not, whether the person refused medical treatment. Supervisors also must ensure that use of force reports include contemporaneous photographs or video of all injuries resulting from the underlying incident. These images must be taken both before and after any treatment of the injuries, including the cleansing of wounds.
 Supervisors are required to evaluate the performance of all officers under their command who use force or were involved in

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 64 of 78
an incident that resulted in a subject being injured due to a use of force by an officer.
 Finally, the Consent Decree requires a Deputy Chief to review and evaluate every use of force performance review prepared by a VIPD supervisor. The Deputy Chief’s review must include the identification of any deficiencies in the supervisors’ reviews and must require supervisors to correct any such deficiencies. The Consent Decree requires the Department to hold supervisors accountable for the quality of their use of force reviews, including subjecting a supervisor to appropriate corrective or disciplinary action in cases where the supervisor failed to conduct a timely and thorough review, or failed to recommend or implement appropriate corrective action with respect to a subject officer.
VIPD also must investigate all critical firearm discharges.4 These reviews must account for all shots fired and the locations of all officers who discharged their weapons. In connection with the investigation of all critical firearm discharges, VIPD is required to conduct, as appropriate, ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue and bullet trajectory tests.
B. Specific Force Policies (CD ¶¶ 39-41)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop a Use of Firearms Policy that is consistent with applicable law and current professional standards. This policy must:
 Prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition and inform officers that any such use may subject them to disciplinary action;
 Establish a single, uniform system for reporting all firearm discharges;
 Prohibit officers from obtaining service ammunition from any source other than official VIPD channels;
4 The Consent Decree defines the term “critical firearm discharge” as “each discharge of a firearm by a VIPD officer with the exception of range and training discharges and discharges at animals.” CD ¶ 22.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 65 of 78
 Specify the number of rounds VIPD officers are authorized to carry; and,
 Require that all discharges of firearms by officers, including unintentional discharges, whether on duty or off-duty at the time of the discharge, are reported and investigated.
The VIPD also must develop a revised policy regarding officers’ offduty conduct that:
 Provides that, absent exigent circumstances, off-duty officers must notify VIPD or the relevant local law enforcement agency before taking police action; and
 Requires that an officer who responds to an incident while offduty must submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests if it appears that the officer had consumed alcohol or was otherwise impaired at the time of the incident.
Finally, the VIPD is required to implement a policy that provides for an intermediate force device that falls between the use of chemical spray and the use of a firearm on the use of force continuum. This intermediate force device must be one that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The VIPD must incorporate the use of this intermediate force device into its use of force continuum and train officers in the device’s use on an annual basis.
III. Citizen Complaint Process (CD ¶¶ 42-58)
A. Public Information (CD ¶¶ 42-43) & Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints (CD ¶¶ 44-45)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop and implement a program to inform members of the public that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any VIPD officer. The Consent Decree contains the following requirements with respect to this public information program:
 VIPD must develop and distribute complaint forms, fact sheets, informational posters, and public service announcements that describe its citizen complaint process.
 VIPD must make complaint forms and informational materials available at government facilities, including VIPD stations,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 66 of 78
substations, mobile substations, and libraries. These forms and materials also must be available on the Internet and, upon request, with community groups and at community centers.
 Each VIPD station, substation, and mobile substation must permanently post a placard that describes the complaint process and includes relevant contact information, including telephone numbers. These placards must be displayed in English, Spanish, and, where necessary in light of the local community, in French or French Patois.
 VIPD officers are required to carry English, Spanish, French, and French Patois5 versions of complaint forms and informational brochures in their vehicles at all times while on duty.
 If a citizen objects to an officer’s conduct, the officer is required to inform the citizen of his or her right to make a complaint.
 Officers are prohibited from discouraging any person from making a complaint concerning an officer’s conduct.
The Consent Decree imposes the following requirements relating to the availability of means by which members of the public may lodge complaints against VIPD officers and the tracking of such complaints:
 VIPD must be able to receive complaints filed in writing or orally, in person or by mail, and by telephone (or TDD), facsimile, or electronic mail.
 The duty officer at the front desk of each District station shall be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints. At the intake stage, an officer taking a complaint is permitted to describe facts that relate to a complainant’s demeanor and physical conditions but may not express
5 The OIM notes that paragraph 43 of the Consent Decree does not expressly require VIPD officers to carry French language complaint forms and informational brochures in addition to French Patois. However, in light of the third sentence in paragraph 43 (which requires French language placards describing the complaint process), the OIM believes that this was an inadvertent omission. For future printings of brochures and other similar promotional information, the OIM suggests that the VIPD create versions in English, Spanish, French, and French Patois to satisfy the intent of the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 67 of 78
opinions regarding the complainant’s mental competency or veracity.
 Upon receipt, VIPD is required to assign each complaint a unique identifier number, which must be provided to the complainant.
 VIPD must track each complaint according to the type of misconduct alleged in the complaint – e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, and improper search.
 Copies of all allegations of misconduct against a VIPD officer that are filed with the Zone Commands shall be referred to the IAB within five business days.
B. Investigation of Complaints (CD ¶¶ 46-58)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree establishes numerous specific requirements relating to the investigation of complaints against VIPD officers, including the following:
 Complaints must be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. The VIPD is required to develop and implement appropriate training regarding application of the preponderance of the evidence standard in internal investigations of allegations of officer misconduct.
 VIPD must explicitly prohibit an officer from being involved in the investigation of a complaint or incident if the officer used force during the underlying incident, was involved in conduct that led to the injury of a person during the incident, or authorized the conduct that led to the reported incident.
 VIPD must investigate every citizen complaint and the resolution of each complaint shall be documented in writing.
 VIPD must develop a clear policy and procedure regarding the intake of complaints, including anonymous and confidential complaints, against VIPD officers.
 The Department must implement a centralized system for numbering and tracking all complaints.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 68 of 78
 IAB is responsible for determining whether each individual investigation of a complaint will be assigned to a Zone, retained by IAB, or referred for possible criminal investigation.
 If IAB refers a complaint to one of the Zones for investigation, the Zone must immediately forward to IAB copies of all documents, findings, and recommendations so that IAB is able to track and monitor the investigation.
 The Police Commissioner must be notified of all complaints alleging excessive force or violation of a person’s Constitutional rights within twenty-four hours of VIPD’s receipt of the complaint.
The VIPD also is required to develop a single policy governing the investigation of misconduct complaints, regardless of whether the investigation of such complaints is conducted by IAB or a Zone command. This policy must:
 Provide guidance concerning factors for investigators to consider in evaluating the credibility of the complainant and other witnesses, examining and interrogating accused officers and other witnesses, identifying potential misconduct that is not specifically referred to in the complaint, and applying the preponderance of the evidence standard. VIPD also must train all officers who perform internal investigations on these issues.
 Require that VIPD investigators ensure that all officers present at the scene of the underlying incident provide a statement and that all interviews be recorded, as appropriate, on audio or video.
 Require that investigation findings include conclusions regarding whether:
 The police action was in compliance with policy, training, and legal standards, regardless of whether the complainant suffered harm;
 The incident involved misconduct by any officer;
 The use of different tactics could have, or should have, been employed;

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 69 of 78
 The underlying incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling, or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and,
 The incident suggests that VIPD should revise its policy, training, or tactics.
 Establish that each allegation investigated must be resolved by a finding of either “unfounded,” “sustained,” “not sustained,” or “exonerated.”6
 Provide guidance to all investigators regarding procedures for handling allegations of potential criminal misconduct, including the referral of such allegations to the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office or other appropriate agency for possible criminal prosecution. The policy must establish the entity or individual responsible for making the determination as to whether a matter should be investigated criminally. The policy also must require the completion of VIPD’s administrative investigations of potentially criminal misconduct, regardless of the initiation or outcome of any criminal proceedings.
 Require that all relevant police activity, including each use of force, be investigated, even if the activity or force was not specifically complained about.
 Require that investigations evaluate any searches or seizures that occurred during the underlying incident.
 Prohibit investigators from closing an investigation solely because a complaint is withdrawn, the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of an injury, or the complainant will not provide additional statements or written statements. The policy shall require that, under such circumstances, investigators must continue the investigation as necessary to determine whether the allegations
6 Under the Consent Decree, a finding of “unfounded” means that there are insufficient facts establishing that the alleged incident actually occurred. A finding of “sustained” means that there is sufficient evidence to determine that the alleged incident occurred and that the officer’s actions were improper. A finding of “not sustained” means that there is insufficient evidence that the alleged misconduct occurred. Finally, a finding of “exonerated” means that the alleged conduct occurred but that the conduct did not violate VIPD policies, procedures, or training. Each of these findings must be based on a preponderance of the evidence. CD ¶ 57.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 70 of 78
can be resolved based on available information, evidence, and investigative techniques.
 Prohibit investigators from considering the fact that a complainant pleaded guilty to, or was found guilty of, an offense as evidence of whether or not an officer used a type of force or as a justification for the investigator to close the investigation.
The VIPD must keep complainants periodically informed of the status of the investigation of their complaints. Upon the completion of each investigation, the VIPD must notify the complainant of the outcome of the investigation, including an appropriate statement regarding whether any disciplinary action or non-disciplinary corrective action was taken against any officer.
Finally, the Consent Decree requires that unit commanders evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command in order to identify potential problems or training needs. Unit commanders must report any such issues to the appropriate VIPD entity in the form of a recommendation that appropriate action in response to the identified issues be taken.
IV. Management and Supervision (CD ¶¶ 59-72)
A. Risk Management System (CD ¶¶ 59-68)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop and implement a Risk Management System (“RMS”) that includes a computerized relational database or a paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for the supervision and management of VIPD personnel. The VIPD is required to use this data regularly to promote respect for civil rights and the employment of best police practices, manage risks, and potential liability for the Department, and evaluate the performance of VIPD officers and personnel across all ranks, units, and shifts.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 71 of 78
The Consent Decree specifically requires the VIPD to collect and record the following information in its new RMS:
 All uses of force;  Canine bite ratios;7  The number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers;  All injuries to prisoners;  All instances in which a VIPD officer used force and the subject
was charged with resisting arrest, assault on a police officer, disorderly conduct, or obstruction of official or police business;  All critical firearm discharges, whether they took place on duty or off-duty;  All complaints against officers and the dispositions of those complaints;  All criminal proceedings, civil or administrative claims, and civil lawsuits resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel;  All vehicle pursuits;  All incidents involving the pointing of a firearm;  All disciplinary action taken against VIPD officers; and,  For incidents included in the database, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (e.g., the officer’s name, badge number, shift, and supervisor) and member of the public (including race and ethnicity or national origin, if such information is available). The VIPD has the option either to purchase the RMS “off the shelf” and customize the system to VIPD’s requirements or to develop and
7 A canine bite ratio relates to apprehensions in which a canine unit participated. It is the ratio of incidents that involved the canine biting or otherwise coming into physical contact with the suspect compared to the overall number of such apprehensions in which a canine unit participated.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 72 of 78
implement the RMS pursuant to a contracting schedule set forth in the Consent Decree.8
Within 120 days of the effective date of the Consent Decree, the VIPD is required to prepare a protocol for the use of the RMS, which must be submitted to DOJ for review and approval. Any proposed modifications to the RMS protocol also must be submitted to DOJ for review and approval prior to the implementation of the proposed modifications. The RMS protocol must contain:
 Provisions regarding data storage, data retrieval, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation, and audit;
 Requirements that the automated system be able to analyze data according to the following criteria:
 The number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit;
 The average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and,
 The identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit.
 Requirements relating to the generation of reports on a monthly basis that describe data contained in the RMS and identify patterns of conduct by individual officers and units;
 Requirements that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors initiate appropriate interventions with individual officers, supervisors, and units based on activity and pattern assessments derived from the information contained in the RMS and that VIPD have the following intervention options available:
 Discussions among Deputy Chiefs, managers, supervisors, and officers;
 Counseling;
 Training; and,
8 See CD ¶ 66.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 73 of 78
 Documented action plans and strategies designed to modify officer conduct and activity.
 A requirement that all interventions be documented in writing and entered into the RMS;
 A provision that actions taken as a result of information derived from the RMS be based on all relevant and appropriate information – including the nature of the officer’s assignment, crime trends, and crime problems – and not solely on the number or percentage of incidents in any category of information recorded in the RMS;
 A requirement that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors promptly review the RMS records of all officers who transfer into their sections or units;
 A requirement that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors be evaluated based on their ability to use RMS to enhance the effectiveness of their units and to reduce risks associated with officer conduct;
 Provisions that IAB shall manage and administer the RMS and that IAB shall conduct quarterly audits of RMS to ensure compliance with the RMS protocol; and,
 A requirement that appropriate managers conduct regular reviews, at least quarterly, of relevant RMS information to evaluate officer performance across the Virgin Islands. The purpose of such reviews is to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all VIPD units in order to identify significant patterns or series of incidents.
Within 120 days of the implementation of the RMS (or later with the agreement of DOJ), the VIPD must prepare, for the DOJ’s review and approval, a Data Input Plan for including appropriate fields and values for new and historical data entered into the RMS.
 The Data Input Plan must identify the data to be included in the RMS and the means for inputting the data, the specific fields of information to be included in the RMS, the historical time periods for which information will be inputted into the system, deadlines for inputting data, and the persons responsible for the input of data.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 74 of 78
 The Data Input Plan must provide for the input of historical data that is up to date and complete into the RMS.
 Once the RMS is operational, VIPD is required to enter information into the RMS in a timely, accurate, and complete manner and to maintain the RMS data in a secure and confidential manner.
The VIPD must maintain all personally identifiable information about individual officers that is contained in RMS for at least five years. The VIPD shall maintain information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis in the RMS indefinitely.
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD, even prior to the implementation of the RMS, to use existing databases and resources to the fullest extent possible to identify patterns of conduct by individual VIPD officers or groups of officers.
Following the initial implementation of the RMS, the VIPD may propose to add, subtract, or modify data tables and fields in the system, modify the types of documents entered into the RMS, or modify the standardized reports generated by the RMS. The VIPD is required to submit all such proposals to the DOJ for review and approval prior to implementing the proposed changes.
B. Oversight (CD ¶ 69)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop a protocol for conducting audits within the RMS, which must be followed by the VIPD personnel responsible for conducting audits. The protocol must establish a regular and fixed audit schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency and cover all VIPD Zones.
C. Discipline (CD ¶¶ 70-72)
1. Requirements
The VIPD is required to use a disciplinary matrix to take into account a subject officer’s violations of various rules, as opposed to considering only repeated violations of the same rule. The VIPD must revise its disciplinary matrix to increase penalties for uses of excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, and dishonesty. The revised disciplinary matrix, which must be reviewed and approved by DOJ, is required to provide the VIPD with the discretion to impose any

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 75 of 78
appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes an officer’s misconduct reflects a lack of fitness for duty.
 Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD is not permitted to take mere non-disciplinary corrective action against an officer in cases in which the revised disciplinary matrix indicates that the imposition of discipline is appropriate.
 In cases in which disciplinary action is imposed on an officer, the VIPD is required to also consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action is necessary.
The VIPD’s policy must identify clear time periods by which each step — from the receipt of a complaint through the imposition of discipline, if any — of the complaint adjudication process should be completed. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions of these deadlines must not be granted without the Police Commissioner’s written approval and notice to the complainant. The policy must outline appropriate tolling provisions in the limited circumstances when an extension of these deadlines is necessary.
V. Training (CD ¶¶ 73-81)
A. Management Oversight (CD ¶¶ 73-77)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to provide training to its officers that is consistent with VIPD policy, the law, and proper police practices. Accordingly, the Consent Decree requires that:
 VIPD review all use of force policies and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy;
 After completing its initial review of its force-related policies and training programs, VIPD must conduct regular reviews of its use of force training program at least semi-annually.
 VIPD must ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by training instructors; and,
 VIPD must make best efforts to train each work shift as a team in its use of force training.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 76 of 78
Under the Consent Decree, VIPD’s Director of Training, either directly or through his or her designees, is responsible for:
 Ensuring the quality of all use of force training;
 Developing and implementing use of force training curricula;
 Selecting and training VIPD officer instructors;
 Developing, implementing, approving, and overseeing all inservice training;
 In conjunction with the District Chiefs, developing, implementing, approving, and overseeing a protocol for patrol division roll calls that is designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in law, policies, and procedures;
 Establishing procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and,
 Conducting regular training needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
The VIPD must keep complete and accurate records of force-related lesson plans and other training materials. These lesson plans must be maintained in a central, commonly accessible file and must be clearly dated.
The VIPD also must maintain training records for every VIPD officer. These records must reliably reflect the training that each officer has received. These records must include, at a minimum, the course description, duration, curriculum, and instructor for each training program in which each individual officer participated.
B. Curriculum (CD ¶¶ 78-81)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD’s Training Director to review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure that the training program complies with applicable laws and VIPD policy. Moreover, the Training Director must consult with the Virgin Island Attorney General’s Office concerning any additions, changes, or modifications regarding use of force training or policies to ensure compliance with applicable laws.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 77 of 78
The VIPD must provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on the use of force. This use of force training must address the following topics:
 VIPD’s use of force model;
 Proper use of force decision-making;
 VIPD’s use of force reporting requirements;
 The Fourth Amendment and other Constitutional requirements;
 Examples of scenarios faced by VIPD officers that illustrate proper use of force decision-making;
 De-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without using force;
 Instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a suspect, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying an arrest may be appropriate responses to a situation even when the use of force would be legally justified;
 Threat assessment; and,
 Appropriate training regarding conflict management.
The VIPD also is required to provide training to all officers regarding the citizen complaint process. VIPD must develop a protocol, to be used by all VIPD officers, that sets forth an appropriate process for handling and responding to complaints by members of the public. VIPD must train officers regarding this protocol.
 VIPD also is required to train all supervisors with respect to appropriate burdens of proof in conducting misconduct investigations. This training also must include a discussion of the factors investigators should consider in evaluating complainant or witness credibility.
Finally, the VIPD must provide training to all supervisors regarding leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices.
 This training must be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of the officer’s assumption of

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 29 Filed: 08/31/11 Page 78 of 78
supervisory responsibilities. This training also must be made a part of the annual in-service training of supervisors.
VI. Monitoring, Reporting, and Implementation (CD ¶¶ 82-102)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to appoint a full-time Compliance Coordinator to serve as a liaison among the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office, VIPD, the OIM, and DOJ. The Compliance Coordinator’s responsibilities include:
 Coordinating VIPD’s compliance and implementation activity relating to the Consent Decree;
 Facilitating the provision of data and documents and access to VIPD employees and materials to the Monitor and DOJ as needed;
 Ensuring the proper maintenance of relevant documents and records relating to the Consent Decree; and,
 Assisting the Police Commissioner and his designees in assigning compliance-related tasks to appropriate VIPD personnel.
In addition to fulfilling these functions, the VIPD must file with the Monitor and the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office, with a copy to DOJ, quarterly status reports describing the steps taken during the reporting period to comply with each provision of the Consent Decree.
Finally, the Virgin Islands and the VIPD are required to implement the provisions of the Consent Decree “as soon as reasonably practicable” and, in any event, no later than 150 days after the March 23, 2009 effective date of the Consent Decree.

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 1 of 94

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 2 of 94

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 3 of 94 Office of the Independent Monitor |
Independent Monitoring Team
Independent Monitors William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
Fried Frank Monitoring Team Leah C. Aden Elizabeth P. Kozlowski Joshua D. Roth
Police Practices Coordinator Chief Charles A. Gruber Elgin (Illinois) Police Department (retired)
Police Practices Experts Superintendent Ann Marie Doherty Boston (Massachusetts) Police Department (retired) Chief Dennis E. Nowicki Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Police Department (retired) Chief Robert L. Stewart Ormond Beach (Florida) Police Department (retired)

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 4 of 94

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 5 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | I
Executive Summary
This is the Third Quarterly Report of 2011 from the Office of the Independent Monitor (the ―OIM‖ or the ―Monitor‖) for the Virgin Islands Police Department (the ―VIPD‖ or the ―Department‖), covering the quarter ending on September 30, 2011.1
During this quarter, among other things, the OIM conducted two separate week-long monitoring trips to the Virgin Islands.2 The monitoring trips (and work done remotely over the quarter) allowed the OIM representatives to remain in close communication with the Chiefs, Deputy Chief, and Training Director charged with overseeing the Consent Decree working groups — Use of Force (Chief of the St. Croix District), Citizen Complaint Process (Chief of the St. Thomas District), Management & Supervision (Deputy Chief of St. Thomas), and Training (Training Director). The OIM representatives and working group leaders discussed the progress of the working groups, policy development, deficiencies with force investigation reviews, and solutions to technological and bureaucratic impediments. The OIM representatives also continued to work with other members of the Consent Decree working groups and other VIPD personnel, including the Director and Assistant Director of the Internal Affairs Bureau (―IAB‖), the Acting
1 This Report references a limited number of events that occurred after September 30 to provide context and shed light on significant efforts that the VIPD made outside of the quarter to satisfy its Consent Decree obligations. The OIM had hoped to publish this Report on November 30. Under the Consent Decree, the Territory of the Virgin Islands (the ―Territory‖ or the ―Virgin Islands‖), the VIPD, and the United States Department of Justice (the ―DOJ‖) (collectively, the ―Parties‖) have ten business days to comment on the OIM‘s draft report. We provided a draft version of this Report to the Parties on November 14. The DOJ provided its comments on November 29. The VIPD and the Territory requested an extension because they were reviewing the OIM‘s Substantial Compliance Thresholds Chart (which is discussed further below). The VIPD and the Territory provided their comments on December 19.
2 The OIM planned two additional monitoring trips during the Third Quarter, but severe weather (including Hurricane Irene) interfered with those plans.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 6 of 94 II | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Director of Management and Information Systems (―MIS‖), and the Compliance Coordinator.
The OIM continued to review arrest reports, general incident reports (Form 1-As), Response to Resistance Reporting Forms (―RRRs‖) (formerly known as Use of Force Reports), and related investigatory files. The ongoing review of these files allows the OIM to track and analyze the adequacy of the Department‘s use of force reporting and investigating practices.
As we previously reported, after Police Commissioner Novelle Francis retired from the VIPD on August 15, Governor de Jongh appointed Assistant Police Commissioner Raymond Hyndman as the Acting Police Commissioner. During the Fourth Quarter, on November 7, the Governor, subject to Senate confirmation, nominated Henry White Jr. to serve as the new Police Commissioner. Pending Senate confirmation, Mr. White will serve as the Acting Police Commissioner, effective November 7. At the press conference announcing his appointment, Mr. White publicly stated that he intends to make the mandates of the Consent Decree a top priority from the start of his tenure. The OIM looks forward to working with the new Police Commissioner as the VIPD continues its efforts to achieve substantial compliance with the Consent Decree.
During this interim period, Acting Police Commissioner Hyndman will serve as an assistant commissioner until a commissioner is confirmed.3 Acting Police Commissioner Hyndman led the Department‘s efforts to satisfy compliance with the Consent Decree over this quarter, and the OIM has been pleased with his leadership. For example, in September, the Acting Police Commissioner directed Department personnel to provide the OIM with greater access to documentation relating to the Department‘s Consent Decree compliance efforts, including, but not limited to, working group committee minutes and
3 Unless otherwise noted, for purposes of this report, Acting Police Commissioner refers to Raymond Hyndman.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 7 of 94 Office of the Independent Monitor | III
progress updates. The OIM previously expressed concern that the VIPD held back Consent Decree related materials before providing them to the OIM.4 The OIM appreciates the Acting Police Commissioner‘s renewed commitment to transparency. The OIM relies, in part, on these materials to assess the steps that the VIPD takes to comply with the Consent Decree.
The Acting Commissioner also designated an audit unit to evaluate the effectiveness of internal controls across the Department. The audit unit will be composed of a cross-section of VIPD personnel, including the Assistant Director of IAB, Director of Human Resources, Payroll Supervisor, Compliance Coordinator and Compliance Manager. During this quarter, the OIM provided the Acting Commissioner with suggestions about how the audit team could begin to move forward. Such suggestions include designating a chairperson and developing a protocol to guide the audit team‘s activities. The new Commissioner should ensure that this unit starts the important work of developing its protocol during the Fourth Quarter.
The Acting Police Commissioner has also directed the Training Division to focus exclusively on Consent Decree related training going forward. The OIM waited during the Third Quarter for the Acting Police Commissioner, in conjunction with the Attorney General‘s Office, to intervene and resolve the current impasse between the Property and Procurement Division (―Property and Procurement‖) and the VIPD that prohibits vital training programs from proceeding. But the Training Division is concerned that the Department‘s relationship with potential vendors is damaged because the Training Division has repeatedly cancelled or postponed programs because it has been unable to secure contracts for several important vendors. The new Commissioner and Attorney General (and, if need be, the Governor) must develop a ―fast track‖ approval process for Consent Decree related training programs, a process that was purportedly attempted with no success during this
4 See, e.g., OIM Second Quarterly Report of 2011 at IV.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 8 of 94
IV | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
quarter.5 Moreover, a ―fast track‖ approval process must be implemented expeditiously in order to keep VIPD on course for achieving substantial compliance with the Consent Decree.
At the end of the Third Quarter, ten VIPD Supervisors (in the ranks of Corporal, Sergeant, Lieutenant and Captain) retired. Under the Consent Decree, Supervisors play a critical role in investigating use of force events and, for several quarters, the OIM had already been concerned that the Department‘s corps of Supervisors (from Corporals through Captains) was stretched too thin. The VIPD reports that it has received approval to start promoting personnel to supervisory positions, but that the main obstacles to beginning that process are budgetary restraints.6 Nevertheless, the VIPD and the Territory (both of which are parties to the Consent Decree) must devote sufficient resources to satisfying their obligations under the Consent Decree, including the provision of an appropriate number of Supervisors.
Given the critical role that Supervisors play in various provisions in the Consent Decree, it is imperative that the Department promote personnel as soon as possible and provide them with all associated management and Consent Decree training that will enable them to perform their new responsibilities; simply promoting individuals to these positions without providing the required training will not suffice.7 The
5 Paragraph 14 of the Consent Decree, requires the Territory of the Virgin Islands to ―provid[e] necessary support and resources to the VIPD and Police Commissioner to enable each of them to fulfill their obligations under this Agreement.‖ The Consent Decree therefore requires that the Territory ensure a process for approving contracts, consistent with the Territory‘s purchasing requirements, and procuring payment for training programs to respond to Consent Decree requirements.
6 Specifically, near the start of the Fourth Quarter, the OIM learned that the VIPD expects to promote 12 personnel to supervisory positions in the St. Croix District (including 1 Captain, 4-5 Lieutenants, and 6-7 Sergeants) and 5 Lieutenants to supervisory positions in the St. Thomas/St. John District. The OIM anticipates providing further detail about these promotions in the next report.
7 Pursuant to paragraph ¶ 81 of the Consent Decree, the VIPD must provide newly promoted Supervisors with training related to leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices, Footnote continued

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 9 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | V
promotion and training of these new Supervisors should be one of the highest priorities for the Department during the next quarter.
The OIM looks forward to an update in the next report about how many individuals the Department has promoted and to what ranks. During monitoring in the next quarter, the OIM also expects to review all training curricula/lesson plans that the Training Division has developed to prepare these newly promoted Supervisors for their responsibilities.
As in previous quarters, the OIM continued to call for the VIPD‘s executive leadership team (Assistant Police Commissioner, Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, and Training Director) to fully commit to bringing the Department into compliance with the Consent Decree.8 During the Third Quarter, the Chief of the St. Croix District, Director and Assistant Director of IAB, Training Director, and Compliance Coordinator (St. Thomas) continued to be actively engaged in the Consent Decree compliance process. The Acting Director of MIS also became an active participant and helped the Department to overcome some of the technological impediments that have hampered the Department‘s compliance efforts. Still, the OIM is disappointed that other members of the executive leadership team, specifically the Chief and Deputy Chief of the St. Thomas District, who lead the Complaint Process and Management and Supervision working groups respectively, have not increased their participation. In addition, the role that the Compliance Manager (St. Croix) plays in the Department‘s compliance efforts has become increasingly unclear to the OIM, though we are aware that he regularly participates in Committee meetings.9 Hopefully, the
Footnote continued from previous page within 90 days of being promoted. In addition to the annual training requirement for all VIPD personnel (including Supervisors), the VIPD must also provide Supervisors with training on appropriate burdens of proof and factors to consider when evaluating witness and complainant credibility.
8 See, e.g., OIM First Quarterly Report of 2011 at VII and 2; OIM Second Quarterly Report of 2011 at III.
9 The former Police Commissioner designated a lieutenant based on the St. Croix District as Compliance Manager on June 3, 2010. This position, unlike that of the Footnote continued

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 10 of 94
VI | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Compliance Manager will take on more responsibilities as a member of the newly designated audit unit.
After the January Summit, the former Police Commissioner directed each working group leader to delegate discrete tasks to ―point persons‖—which, by the Third Quarter, has been accomplished. Now, among other things, working group leaders must continually reevaluate and communicate their working groups‘ objectives in their action plans, regularly attend working group meetings, review key policies relating to their areas of responsibility, and interact with other working groups and VIPD personnel (e.g., the Training, Human Resources and Payroll Divisions). In addition, working group leaders are expected to provide the Acting Commissioner with weekly updates about the status of their groups. As we have repeatedly stated, the working group leaders (Chiefs, Deputy Chief, and Training Director) are ultimately accountable for the leadership and the success (or failure) of their respective working groups.
At the end of the Third Quarter, the OIM is discouraged with the current versions of the working group‘s action plans. The OIM has encouraged each working group to develop a plan that identifies specific action steps necessary to reach compliance for each of the Consent Decree provisions related to their area of focus. While some working groups have made progress with their development, most action plans lack specific detail about each action being taken by a designated
Footnote continued from previous page Compliance Coordinator, who is based on St. Thomas, is not mandated by the Consent Decree. According to the Commissioner‘s June 3 memorandum, the Compliance Manager is responsible for ―overseeing/insuring [sic] compliance and coordinating all efforts regarding the Consent Decree.‖ The Compliance Coordinator, on the other hand, is responsible, under ¶ 88 of the Consent Decree, for: (1) coordinating VIPD‘s compliance with and implementation of Consent Decree provisions; (2) providing data and documents (e.g., VIPD‘s quarterly status reports, working group action plans, meeting minutes, draft policies, etc.); (3) coordinating meetings between the OIM and VIPD personnel; (4) maintaining relevant documents and records relating to the Consent Decree; and (5) assisting the Police Commissioner and his designees in assigning compliance-related tasks to appropriate VIPD personnel.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 11 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | VII
working group member by a date certain to achieve substantial compliance with each provision relevant to their respective working group. These action plans should be continuously revised to reflect progress made on specific provisions and obstacles that are encountered. This analysis will impact whether short, mid and long-term deadlines can be met, and, if not, the action plan should identify proposed solutions. The plans‘ deficiencies are an unfortunate indicator of some of the working groups‘ overall slow progress. Since working groups purportedly meet weekly with the Acting Commissioner to provide him with status updates about their respective working groups, there is no excuse for these plans to be inadequate. Although the OIM has yet to see an action plan with this level of detail and forethought, as discussed infra, there are important exceptions to the overall lack of progress of the working groups (e.g., recent activity by the Use of Force Working group).
Use of Force Policy Development
During the Third Quarter, the VIPD issued one additional forcerelated policy, the Field Training and Evaluation Program Policy, a critical component of training new Officers as part of the Department‘s Field Training Officer (―FTO‖) Program. In sum, the VIPD has issued a total of ten new force-related policies through the end of the Third Quarter.10 The Policies and Procedures Committee (―Committee‖) continues to spearhead the Department‘s efforts to develop its policies, and the OIM once again commends them for their efforts. Since the Use
10 In addition to the recently issued Field Training and Evaluation Program Policy, the VIPD had already issued the following policies: (i) Use of Force; (ii) Reportable Use of Force; (iii) Impact Weapons; (iv) Electronic Control Weapon; (v) O.C. Spray; (vi) Vehicle Pursuit; (vii) Spike Strip; (viii) Off-Duty Official Action; and (ix) Firearms. The Department also issued the RRR for VIPD personnel to document use of force events pursuant to the Reportable Use of Force Policy. OIM First Quarterly Report of 2011 at 5. While the VIPD previously issued the Canine Policy on May 3, it is now revising that policy and will have to resubmit it to the DOJ for approval. In addition, at the start of the Fourth Quarter, the OIM learned that the Department issued the Security Rings Directive on October 20. The OIM will report on the status and implementation of the Canine Policy and Security Directive in the next report.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 12 of 94 VIII | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
of Force working group and the Training Division must help implement force-related policies, we acknowledge the role that they have taken over the past two quarters in developing force-related policies.
Specifically, through this quarter the Use of Force working group, in coordination with the Committee, has helped develop other forcerelated policies including an Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy, Sniper Policy, SRT & Hostage Policy,11 and Arrest Policy. The Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy, as mentioned in the last report, is an important policy that will allow the VIPD to investigate use of force events in proportion to the type of force used.12 Under this policy, more serious types of force, like firearms discharges, would be subject to more exhaustive investigative requirements than comparatively less serious types of force, like non-compliant handcuffing or damage to property. Such a policy would allow VIPD personnel to focus their efforts more efficiently. Before the policy can be issued, however, the VIPD, Territory and DOJ, must modify the Consent Decree so that not all reportable use of force incidents require the same level of investigation. The OIM is hopeful that the modification of the Consent Decree language and finalization of the policy will occur in the Fourth Quarter.
During the next quarter, the VIPD must finalize all force-related policies that it currently is developing as soon as practicable.13 Once the policies are issued, the VIPD must then implement the policies by training VIPD personnel and ensuring that the policies are carried out in daily policing activities.
11 The DOJ approved the SRT & Hostage Policy during the Fourth Quarter. 12 Currently, all types of force must be investigated using a ―one size fits all‖ approach. 13 For example, as discussed infra, the VIPD is also developing a Post Shooting
Incident Procedures Policy, Officer Involved Shooting Investigation Procedures Policy, and Canine Policy.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 13 of 94 Office of the Independent Monitor | IX
Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force
During the Third Quarter, the Use of Force working group revised its ―checklist.‖ Supervisors use the ―checklist‖ as a guide when conducting investigations, assessing the completeness of RRRs, determining whether further investigation is required, and ensuring that VIPD personnel are documenting use of force events and completing arrest and/or Form 1-As. Even though Supervisors on St. Croix are using the checklist, Supervisors on St. Thomas are not. During the Fourth Quarter, we expect to see these checklists in force investigation files in the Zones on the St. Thomas District, or to be provided with a reasonable explanation for why the Chief of the St. Thomas District has not required its use by his subordinates.
The Use of Force working group also conducted an audit of the use of force investigations at the Zone level on St. Thomas. The audit uncovered that VIPD personnel were documenting use of force incidents (albeit using outdated forms – not RRRs), but Supervisors were not in all cases fulfilling their obligation to conduct complete investigations and reviews.
On St. Croix, the Use of Force working group conducted an audit of the canine unit. The working group discovered that the dogs were not able to ―stand off/recall‖ (return to handler during apprehension) or ―revere‖ (circle and bark at a subject). The Chief of St. Croix has since ordered the K9 Special Operation Commander to train the dogs and suspend them from active duty until proficiency is achieved (likely during the next quarter).
The Use of Force working group was not, however, able to review the force reporting practices of IAB or the units overseen directly by the Police Commissioner‘s Office, including those of the Insular Investigation Unit, Gang Task Force, HIDTA Task Force, and the ICE Office. The Use of Force working group continues to wait for a response from the Commissioner‘s Office regarding its inquiry on July 1 about its role in reviewing the force investigations related to these units. A resolution of this issue is important since the working group is charged with actively

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 14 of 94 X | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
reviewing use of force investigations territory-wide. The OIM expects this issue to be fully resolved in the near future, and will inquire in the next quarter about whether the working group has received a response from the Acting Commissioner or new Commissioner.
During this quarter, the OIM saw improvement on force reporting and supervisory investigations at the Zone level on both Districts, but deficiencies remain. The OIM observed that Officers are not consistently notifying their Supervisors immediately after using force as required by the Reportable Use of Force Policy. Similarly, in some instances RRRs are completed only after a Zone Commander or IAB investigation discovers that they are missing from a file. Such delay results in lost opportunities to canvass for and interview witnesses. Further, Officers who are involved in force incidents are conducting investigations and reviews of the same.
In addition to these deficiencies, the OIM reviewed files that demonstrated the Department‘s need to train Supervisors on the preponderance of the evidence standard and evaluating witness credibility, among other topics. For example, in an allegation of excessive force against a Sergeant on the St. Croix District, a review of the file indicated that an Officer failed to notify his Supervisor that he used force (and therefore there was no supervisory investigation or witness canvass). More importantly, the Zone Commander appeared to disregard any witness interviews that were adverse to the Sergeant‘s own statement.14 To the extent that more Supervisors need training on this important topic, the Department must make that a priority.
Public Information, Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints, & Investigation of Complaints
During the Third Quarter, the Department issued the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct & Citizen
14 As discussed infra, the Department provided training on the preponderance of the evidence standard in previous quarters and also during the Fourth Quarter.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 15 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | XI
Complaints Policy, which deal with the intake and investigation of complaints (both citizen and command). Prior to issuing these policies, the Department trained VIPD personnel on the Processing Citizen Complaints Directive (#014-2010) (the ―Directive‖). The VIPD reports that it has provided in-service training on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy for Officers and Supervisors from August through October. The VIPD, however, has not provided any documentation related to this training, including lesson plans or attendance sheets. As we have repeatedly requested, the VIPD must provide documentation relating to all aspects of its Consent Decree compliance process, including training activities.
Under the recently issued policies and the Directive, VIPD vehicles (whether marked or unmarked) are required to carry specific complaint process materials and certain governmental properties must have complaint materials available to the public in English, Spanish and French and/or French Patois. During the Third Quarter, the Complaint Process working group and the OIM continued to evaluate compliance with these requirements by conducting random inspections of VIPD vehicles, District Zones and substations. The OIM is pleased to report that complaint materials were available (in English) in all inspected locations. The VIPD has identified an individual to provide the Spanish translations and, once the translation is done, will distribute these materials community-wide and post them on the Department‘s website. The VIPD, however, has experienced difficulty identifying a French Patois translator.15 The OIM is hopeful that these materials will be available in the required languages by the end of the next quarter.
The OIM has recommended that the Complaint Process working group regularly conduct audits to ensure that the complaint process is functioning properly and to further examine whether VIPD personnel: (1) are knowledgeable about the complaint process; (2) respond properly to
15 Because of an inconsistency, the VIPD and DOJ may also want to clarify the Consent Decree regarding whether the VIPD must provide materials in French and/or French Patois.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 16 of 94
XII | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
inquiries on how to lodge a complaint about police service; (3) log completed complaint forms and investigate them as required by policy; and (4) apprise complainants of the status of their complaints. The OIM is hopeful that the Complaint Process working group will audit personnel‘s proficiency of the complaint process going forward. The newly established audit team should also be helpful in documenting the successful operation of the citizen complaint process. The OIM will look to the working group and audit team‘s conclusions, as well as our own inspections, to determine whether Consent Decree provisions are satisfied in upcoming quarters.
Risk Management
IAPro, the Department‘s new Risk Management System (―RMS‖), is now available at the IAB in both Districts. The Department will use IAPro to track force-related incidents and identify patterns of potentially problematic behavior from VIPD personnel at an early (and hopefully remediable) stage. To do that, however, the VIPD must upload basic human resource data and RRRs to the system and provide Supervisors outside of IAB with access to IAPro so that they can begin to monitor their subordinates‘ actions.
During the Third Quarter, the VIPD also installed the Blue Team component of IAPro on almost all Supervisors‘ computers in both Districts. Blue Team allows VIPD personnel to enter force-related reports and complaints directly into IAPro. The OIM commends the Acting Director of MIS and his staff for making the programs available in both Districts during this quarter. Still, based on monitoring, the OIM learned that many Supervisors are unaware that Blue Team now exists because the Department has not trained most Supervisors on Blue Team.
The OIM commends the Director of IAB for his dedication to the Department‘s RMS. He has been the principal person to train Supervisors on IAPro and Blue Team, to analyze IAPro data and test its capabilities, or to draft RMS-related policies. These efforts, however, are not enough – the Department must ask others to help train Supervisors and otherwise implement the RMS.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 17 of 94 Office of the Independent Monitor | XIII
Despite progress with IAPro, the Department still lacks a RMS Protocol that establishes various thresholds for supervisory review.16 After receiving several rounds of comments from the DOJ, the Protocol remains under review by the Committee. VIPD‘s progress with its RMS will be limited until the VIPD obtains approval of its RMS Protocol. The VIPD should finalize the Protocol in the next quarter.
Finally, although the Department issued the Data Input Plan in March, the VIPD has yet to provide training on this Plan. The Data Input Plan identifies information about VIPD personnel (including, but not limited to, uses of force, disciplinary issues, motor vehicle accidents, and sick days) that the Department will enter into IAPro to facilitate its risk management function. Even though the Management & Supervision working group worked in previous quarters with VIPD personnel to develop an efficient process to enter information into IAPro, the OIM observed that this effort has stalled in the Third Quarter. This is apparent with IAPro at IAB, which is still missing human resource data about VIPD personnel (e.g., hiring and promotion dates). To the extent any delay in entering the information is due to staffing limitations, the OIM encourages the Commissioner to explore staffing solutions to ensure that IAPro can be used fully and effectively. Additionally, the OIM encourages the Management & Supervision working group to resolve any remaining challenges to collecting and identifying information and work with the Training Division to develop a training program relating to the Data Input Plan in the next quarter.
Training
Despite increased activity during the Second Quarter, the Training Division‘s efforts halted during the Third Quarter. As mentioned above, the Training Division cancelled many scheduled training programs
16 For example, if an Officer receives more than X number of complaints within Y period of time, IAPro will alert the Officer‘s Supervisor to this potential issue; X and Y will be defined in the RMS Protocol based on Department norms and generally accepted police practices.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 18 of 94
XIV | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
because the Department did not secure contracts for training vendors as a result of an impasse with the Property and Procurement Division. As a result, the Training Division‘s training schedule through February 2012 lists a number of important Consent Decree training programs as tentative. This impasse presents a severe impediment to the VIPD‘s compliance efforts. The VIPD cannot begin to implement any of the policies that it issues until it adequately trains its personnel on the policies.
Despite this impasse, during the Third Quarter, the Training Division held a limited number of training programs including mandatory in-service training for Officers and Supervisors on various topics like TASER, Expandable Baton Refresher and Policy Review, Defensive Tactics, O.C. Refresher and Policy Review, and Firearm Training on handguns and shotguns. The Training Director has provided written notice to the Police Commissioner‘s Office about the Officers and Supervisors in both Districts with unexcused absences from these and other Consent Decree related trainings conducted since April. The OIM is not aware that the Police Commissioner‘s Office has responded to this memorandum or disciplined any personnel who failed to attend remedial training programs.
Among other training programs, the VIPD urgently needs to train and certify Field Training Officers (―FTOs‖). The OIM has learned that the Department is relying on Officers who serve as FTOs to serve in this capacity on both Districts, even though no substantive training has been provided to them. It is imperative that these FTOs receive substantive training on how to serve as an FTO as soon as possible.
The Acting Police Commissioner and the Attorney General, in coordination with Property and Procurement, attempted to develop a streamlined process for approving training related programs. However, they have not been successful in these efforts. The new Commissioner, and Attorney General (and, if need be, Governor‘s Office) must still find a

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 19 of 94 Office of the Independent Monitor | XV
way to fast track this process, which has created serious impediments to the VIPD‘s efforts to comply with the Consent Decree.17
Status of Substantial Compliance Before the Consent Decree expires on March 23, 2014, the VIPD must substantially comply with each Consent Decree provision and remain in compliance for two-years.18 Almost all of the dates by which the VIPD must substantially comply have already passed without VIPD achieving compliance. Under the Consent Decree Timetable, the VIPD should have substantially complied with ¶¶ 32-58, 70, and 72 by May 31, ¶¶ 60, 61, and 73-81 by June 30, and ¶¶ 49, 59, 63-66 by September 15. Instead, they have only complied with ¶¶ 82-86, 88 and 98. Simply put, the VIPD is in clear danger of failing to comply with the Consent Decree before it expires. Specifically, at the end of the Third Quarter of 2011, the VIPD has only complied with the following Consent Decree provisions (a chart summarizing the VIPD‘s progress towards substantial compliance is at the end of this Executive Summary):
In January 2010, the Parties to the Consent Decree selected the Monitor (CD ¶¶ 82-86); Effective June 2009, the Police Commissioner appointed a Compliance Coordinator to serve as a liaison between the Parties to the Consent Decree and the Monitor (CD ¶ 88); and Beginning in June 2009, the VIPD began issuing quarterly status reports delineating the steps taken by the VIPD to comply with the Consent Decree (CD ¶ 98).
17 Moreover, as noted supra in footnote 5, the Territory has an obligation under ¶ 14 of the Consent Decree to ensure that the VIPD has the necessary resources to attain compliance.
18 CD ¶ 103.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 20 of 94
XVI | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
As mentioned above, although the VIPD has already issued ten force-related policies, it has not fully implemented them (which includes, among other things, training personnel and ensuring compliance) as required by the Consent Decree.19 So, for example, while the VIPD has issued the Firearms Policy pursuant to ¶ 39, the VIPD has provided corresponding training to many, but not all, Officers. Also, with regard to ¶ 40, although the VIPD has issued the Off-Duty Official Action Policy, the VIPD, among other things, has not trained any Officers on that policy. In addition, we understand that the Department is still developing or close to finalizing several additional force-related policies.20 As such, the Department has not yet complied with ¶¶ 31-41, which requires the VIPD to review, revise, and implement its force-related policies.
Similarly, the OIM has reported that the VIPD‘s citizen complaint process is well underway and the OIM has been pleased to find complaint-related materials at many District Zones and substations and in vehicles (potentially satisfying ¶ 43 in the near future). However, regarding ¶¶ 42-45, the Department has yet to adequately train Department personnel on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy which the Department issued during the Third Quarter. As mentioned above, the VIPD must translate required complaint materials into appropriate languages (e.g., Spanish, French, French Patois). The Department must also demonstrate, which it has yet to do, that the complaint process is functioning properly (e.g., personnel provide potential complainants with the appropriate information, investigate the complaints and provide
19 As defined in the Consent Decree, ―implement‖ refers to the ―development or putting into place of a policy or procedure, including the appropriate training of personnel.‖ CD ¶ 30.
20 While the VIPD may develop additional force-related policies in the future (beyond those that are currently under development or required by the Consent Decree) after the OIM has determined that the VIPD has substantially complied with ¶ 31, the subsequent issuance of those policies will not restart the two-year substantial compliance period.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 21 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | XVII
complainants with periodic updates and the disposition of their complaints) in order to substantially comply with ¶¶ 42-58.
With regard to the management and supervision provisions of the Consent Decree, ¶¶ 59-72, the VIPD has only recently brought its RMS on-line and is still working to resolve some technical difficulties. The VIPD also must issue and train on several RMS-related policies including the RMS Protocol, Blue Team Protocol and Data Input Plan and ensure, thereafter, that VIPD personnel are following these protocols and plans in practice in order to substantially comply with ¶¶ 59-72.
In a long overdue attempt to address the deadlines, on September 29, 2011, the VIPD sent a letter to the DOJ promising to provide ―a detailed explanation with proposed completion dates.‖ In the VIPD‘s subsequent letter dated October 14, it omitted any proposed completion dates, and represented that a significant number of Consent Decree provisions have been satisfied. To the contrary, as explained above, VIPD has not satisfied most – if not all – of the provisions it claims, because from the OIM‘s perspective, the VIPD misguidedly focuses on the fact that it issued a number of policies and provided only some corresponding training (with varying levels of success) to many (but not all) VIPD personnel. But, as we have repeatedly stated, the Consent Decree requires that the VIPD do more. For example, the VIPD must: (1) provide adequate training for every issued policy; (2) ensure that personnel who are required to attend training programs do so and become proficient in the relevant policies; (3) enforce compliance with those policies (including disciplining offenders); and (4) regularly assess and rectify any deficiencies in order to substantially comply with the Consent Decree.
During the Third Quarter, the OIM drafted the Substantial Compliance Thresholds Chart (―Chart‖) to identify the criteria that it will use to evaluate the VIPD‘s compliance with the Consent Decree. In the next quarter, after receiving comment from the VIPD and DOJ, the OIM will finalize the Chart and begin to use it to evaluate the Department‘s compliance. We expect that the VIPD will institute an audit function that

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 22 of 94
XVIII | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
will use the Chart to conduct its own internal compliance audits during the life of the Consent Decree and beyond.
Conclusion
As we previously reported, the Department is in clear danger of not achieving and maintaining substantial compliance for the required twoyear period before the Consent Decree expires on March 23, 2014. While time is quickly passing, the OIM believes that it is still possible for the Department to satisfy most of its obligations under the Consent Decree within the prescribed time period. To do so, however, the Department (and its executive leadership team in particular) must devote even more energy, time, and resources to satisfying the Consent Decree. Despite entering into the Consent Decree more than two-and-a-half years ago, many within the VIPD (including some senior personnel) still view the Department‘s compliance efforts as being at odds with its ―core‖ police functions. Such thinking has hampered the Department‘s Consent Decree compliance efforts for too long. Far from being an obstacle, the Consent Decree provides the VIPD with a roadmap for improving the VIPD‘s operations, including its capacity to provide first-rate police services. In addition, as the VIPD begins to comply with the Consent Decree and hold personnel accountable for misconduct, the Department‘s relationship with the community will improve, facilitating greater cooperation and better policing.
To satisfy the Consent Decree before its expiration, the VIPD‘s executive leadership team and the working group leaders must improve their level of communication. Unfortunately, over the last three quarters, it has become clear that many VIPD personnel are working on the Consent Decree in isolation. With few exceptions, the working groups have not been working collaboratively like they should. For example, the Training working group should take an active part in each of the other working groups to develop relevant training programs. Similarly, the Management and Supervision and Complaint Process working groups must work more closely with IAB. To that end, each working group leader should keep the other working group leaders (and other relevant personnel) apprised of the work of their respective working group.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 23 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | XIX
The OIM commends the VIPD on issuing a significant number of force-related policies and having held adequate training programs on some of them, though many more policies require training. As mentioned above, the Training Division failed to organize a number of training programs relating to the Consent Decree this quarter because it relies on outside vendors to conduct these trainings and could not secure contracts for them. As a long-term goal, the VIPD must become less dependent on outside training vendors and develop an internal capacity to lead its own training programs. The VIPD can begin to do so by securing contracts for outside vendors to conduct train-the-trainer and other programs. In the short-term, the VIPD must find a way to work with Property and Procurement to contract with outside vendors.
During this significant period when policies are being developed and training programs have begun, the VIPD should develop a system to evaluate whether VIPD personnel are complying with these policies and carrying them out as part of their daily responsibilities. This is the real goal – to change policies and practices so that they are in-line with all applicable laws. And when VIPD personnel fail to comply, the Department must be ready to take corrective action, including retraining and, where necessary, disciplining personnel. The designated audit unit, created this quarter, can play a role in conducting internal compliance audits during the life of the Consent Decree, including ensuring that all policies, like the Disciplinary Policy and Matrix, are being applied appropriately and uniformly. Still, as discussed infra, this unit is primarily comprised of personnel who have other departmental duties. As we have previously recommended, the VIPD should seriously consider creating an audit division with the sole function of assessing the Department‘s compliance with the Consent Decree. The division should be staffed with at least two full-time employees (with the head of the division serving as a Director) on each District and report directly to the Police Commissioner.
Last, Supervisors are critical members of the Department and have significant responsibilities under the Consent Decree. In light of recent retirements and forthcoming promotions, the VIPD has a unique opportunity to elevate personnel to important positions and has the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 24 of 94 XX | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
simultaneous obligation to train them on their new responsibilities. The supervisory promotions, examinations, and training should occur during the Fourth Quarter (or as soon as practicable thereafter).

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 25 of 94 Office of the Independent Monitor | XXI

Deadlines for Substantial Compliance Under the Consent Decree
The substantial compliance deadlines refer to the dates established by the Consent Decree Timetable that the VIPD and DOJ jointly submitted to the U.S.
District Court for the Virgin Islands on November 24, 2010.
In order to be released from the Consent Decree, the VIPD must substantially comply with each of the Consent Decree’s provisions, and remain in compliance
for two-years before the Consent Decree expires on March 23, 2014.

CD

Description

Deadlines for Substantial Compliance Under the Consent Decree

Satisfied/Not Satisfied

31

Use of Force Policies:

within 30 days of DOJ Not Satisfied – While the

Use of Force; Vehicle

final written approval VIPD issued the Use of Force

Pursuit; OC Spray; Impact

Policy, Vehicle Pursuit

Weapons; Spike Strip;

Policy, O.C. Spray, Impact

Canine; SRT & Hostage

Weapons and Spike Strip

Policy; Sniper; FTO;

Policy on March 30, 2011,

Security Rings; Investigation and Review

the Field Training and Evaluation Program Policy

of Use of Force; Use of Force Review Board; Post Shooting Incident Procedures; Officer Involved Shooting Investigation Procedures.

on September 21, and the Security Rings Directive on October 20, it has not implemented these policies.21 In addition, the VIPD has not yet issued the SRT & Hostage Policy;

Sniper; Investigation and

Review of Use of Force; Use

of Force Review Board; Post

Shooting Incident

Procedures; and

21 As defined in the Consent Decree, ―implement‖ refers to the ―development or putting into place of a policy or procedure, including the appropriate training of personnel.‖ CD ¶ 30.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 26 of 94 XXII | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

CD

Description

32-38

Evaluation, Documentation, & Review of Use of Force

Reportable Use of Force Policy

39

Evaluation,

Documentation, &

Review of Use of Force

Firearms Policy

40

Evaluation,

Documentation, &

Review of Use of Force

Off-Duty Official Action

41

Evaluation,

Documentation, &

Review of Use of Force

Intermediate Force Device(s)

42-45 Citizen Complaint Process

Deadlines for Substantial Compliance Under the Consent Decree
May 31, 2011

Satisfied/Not Satisfied
Officer Involved Shooting Investigation Procedures policies. The VIPD is also revising the Canine Policy that it issued on May 3, 2011.
Not Satisfied – While the VIPD issued the Reportable Use of Force Policy on March 30, 2011, it has not implemented the policy. In addition, the VIPD has not satisfied the Consent Decree requirement that it evaluate, document, and review all uses of force.

May 31, 2011

Not Satisfied – While the VIPD issued the Firearms Policy on May 3, 2011, it has not implemented the policy.

May 31, 2011 May 31, 2011

Not Satisfied – While the VIPD issued the Off-Duty Official Action Policy on March 30, 2011, it has not implemented the policy.
Not Satisfied – While the VIPD issued the ECW Policy on March 30, 2011, it has not implemented this policy.

May 31, 2011

Not Satisfied – While the VIPD issued the Acceptance of Citizens Complaint Police

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 27 of 94 Office of the Independent Monitor | XXIII

CD
46-58 59-68

Description

Deadlines for Substantial Compliance Under the Consent Decree

Satisfied/Not Satisfied

Public Information & Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints

on August 2, 2011 and has made complaint forms and informational materials available at appropriate government properties, it has not, trained personnel on this policy or, for example, translated complaint materials in the appropriate languages (e.g., French, Spanish, Patois), assessed if Officers are informing citizens of their right to make complaints and resolved each complaint in writing.

Citizen Complaint Process
Investigation of Complaints

May 31, 2011, except September 15 for ¶ 49

Not Satisfied – While the VIPD issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy, it has not implemented this policy.

Management and Supervision
Risk Management System
Blue Team Protocol
Behavioral Health Services Policy; Psychological Fitness for Duty Evaluation Policy; Officer Peer Support Policy

September 15, 2011, except June 30, 2011 for ¶¶ 60-61 & May 31, 2011 for ¶ 62; also ¶¶ 67-68 have no date.

Not Satisfied

69

Management and

Supervision

Oversight

September 15, 2011 Not Satisfied

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 28 of 94 XXIV | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

CD

Description

70-72

Management and Supervision
Discipline

73-77 Training Management Oversight

78-81 Training Curriculum

Deadlines for Substantial Compliance Under the Consent Decree
May 31, 2011

Satisfied/Not Satisfied Not Satisfied

June 30, 2011 June 30, 2011

Not Satisfied Not Satisfied

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 29 of 94 Office of the Independent Monitor
Table of Contents Page
Introduction .......................................................................................... 1 Compliance Assessment ........................................................................ 5 I. Use of Force Policies (CD ¶ 31) & Specific Use of Force
Policies (CD ¶¶ 39-41) .................................................................. 5 A. Status and Assessment ....................................................... 5 B. Recommendations............................................................... 9 II. Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force (CD ¶¶ 32-38) ................................................................... 10 A. Status and Assessment ..................................................... 10
1. Policies and Directives ............................................. 10 2. Survey of Use of Force Incidents .............................. 12 3. Supervisor Review of Uses of Force .......................... 14 B. Recommendations............................................................. 16 III. Citizen Complaint Process (CD ¶¶ 42-58).................................... 18 A. Public Information (CD ¶¶ 42-43) & Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints (CD ¶¶ 44-45) .................. 18 1. Status and Assessment ........................................... 18 2. Recommendations ................................................... 21 B. Investigation of Complaints (CD ¶¶ 46-58) ........................ 22 1. Status and Assessment ........................................... 22 2. Recommendations ................................................... 25 IV. Management & Supervision (CD ¶¶ 59-72) ................................. 26 A. Risk Management System (CD ¶¶ 59-68)........................... 26

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 30 of 94 William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Page
1. Status and Assessment ............................................ 26 2. Recommendations.................................................... 30 B. Oversight (CD ¶ 69) ........................................................... 31 1. Status, Assessment, and
Recommendations.................................................... 31 C. Discipline (CD ¶¶ 70-72) ................................................... 32
1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations.................................................... 32
V. Training (CD ¶¶ 73-81) ............................................................... 33 A. Management Oversight (CD ¶¶ 73-77) and Curriculum (CD ¶¶ 78-81)................................................. 33 1. Status and Assessment ............................................ 33 2. Recommendations.................................................... 38
VI. Monitoring, Reporting, and Implementation (CD ¶¶ 82-102) ........................................................................... 40 1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations.................................................... 40 2. Status of Substantial Compliance ............................ 41
Conclusion........................................................................................... 44 Appendix A, Summary of Consent Decree Requirements ......................... i

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 31 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | 1
Introduction
This is the Third Quarterly Report of 2011 from the Office of the Independent Monitor (the ―OIM‖ or the ―Monitor‖) for the Virgin Islands Police Department (the ―VIPD‖ or the ―Department‖), covering the quarter ending on September 30, 2011.1
The OIM was established in January 20102 to monitor compliance by the Territory and the VIPD with the Consent Decree entered by the United States District Court for the Virgin Islands (the ―Court‖) on March 23, 2009. The Monitor is required by the Consent Decree to ―issue quarterly written, public reports detailing the Territory of the Virgin Islands‘ compliance with and implementation of each substantive provision‖ of the Consent Decree.3
The Consent Decree reflects the agreement between the Virgin Islands, the VIPD, and the DOJ to resolve a lawsuit brought by the United States alleging that the Virgin Islands and the VIPD violated 42 U.S.C. § 14141 by engaging ―in a pattern or practice of excessive force by
1 This Report references a limited number of events that occurred after September 30 to provide context and shed light on significant efforts that the VIPD made outside of the quarter to satisfy its Consent Decree obligations. The OIM had hoped to publish this Report on November 30. Under the Consent Decree, the Territory of the Virgin Islands (the ―Territory‖ or the ―Virgin Islands‖), the VIPD, and the United States Department of Justice (the ―DOJ‖) (collectively, the ―Parties‖) have ten business days to comment on the OIM‘s draft report. We provided a draft version of this Report to the Parties on November 14. The DOJ provided its comments on November 29. The VIPD and the Territory requested an extension because they were reviewing the OIM‘s Substantial Compliance Thresholds Chart (which is discussed further below). The VIPD and the Territory provided their comments on December 19.
2 After an initial procurement process, the Territory of the Virgin Islands and the VIPD contracted for the services of a monitoring team led by Michael R. Bromwich, a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP (―Fried Frank‖). In June 2010, the Independent and Deputy Independent Monitors joined President Obama‘s administration. After interviews and further review, the Parties appointed William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel, partners in the New York City office of Fried Frank and former Assistant United States Attorneys in the United States Attorney‘s Office for the Southern District of New York, as the Independent Monitors, effective August 13, 2010. Messrs. Johnson and Witzel continue to work with the police practices experts that were hired as part of the original OIM team.
3 Consent Decree (―CD‖) ¶ 96. This Quarterly Report, along with the OIM‘s prior reports, is available on the internet at http://www.policemonitor.org/VI/VIindex.html.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 32 of 94
2 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Officers of the Virgin Islands Police Department and by the failure to adequately train, supervise, investigate, and discipline Officers.‖4
The Parties entered into the Consent Decree ―to promote police integrity and prevent conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.‖5 The 104 paragraph Consent Decree contains a broad range of substantive requirements for reform in areas such as: (1) revising VIPD‘s force-related policies; (2) training Officers to properly use force in accordance with constitutional requirements, VIPD policy, and existing best practices in policing; (3) reporting and investigating use of force events; (4) documenting and investigating complaints alleging Officer misconduct; (5) developing systems for managing and supervising Officers; and (6) disciplining Officers found to have engaged in misconduct.
On October 1, 2010, the Court – charged with enforcing the VIPD‘s obligations under the Consent Decree – ordered the Parties to jointly propose a timetable by which the VIPD would substantially comply with each substantive provision in the Consent Decree. The Court was concerned about the VIPD‘s slow rate of progress and saw the timetable as a vehicle to help the Department move forward more quickly. The Parties subsequently filed a timetable on November 24, 2010 which set forth specific dates by which the VIPD would substantially comply with each substantive provision in the Consent Decree (the ―Consent Decree Timetable‖). The Consent Decree Timetable also created shorter-term deadlines requiring, among other things, that the VIPD submit forcerelated policies to the DOJ for approval. At the end of the Third Quarter, the VIPD had missed the deadline for substantially complying with every paragraph identified in the Consent Decree Timetable.
In January 2011, to reinvigorate the VIPD‘s Consent Decree compliance process and encourage compliance within the timeframe of the Consent Decree Timetable, the Police Commissioner convened a Consent Decree Summit on St. Thomas on January 3 and 4, 2011 (the ―Summit‖).6 At the Summit, the Police Commissioner appointed senior
4 CD ¶ 6; see also Complaint, United States v. The Territory of the Virgin Islands, No. 3:08-CV-00158-CVG-GWB (D.V.I.).
5 CD ¶ 3. 6 The OIM discussed the Summit in the Fourth Quarterly Report of 2010 and the
First Quarterly Report of 2011. For more information about the Summit, including
Footnote continued

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 33 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | 3
VIPD personnel to lead, and ultimately be held accountable for, different aspects of the Consent Decree—Use of Force (Chief of the St. Croix District), Citizen Complaint Process (Chief of the St. Thomas District), Management & Supervision (Deputy Chief of St. Thomas), and Training (Training Director).7 The Police Commissioner explained that each working group leader was responsible for: (i) designating a point person and recruiting other working group members; (ii) drafting an action plan; (iii) interacting with other VIPD personnel on interrelated Consent Decree issues; and, (iv) monitoring the working group‘s progress by attending and participating in as many meetings as schedules permit, but no less than twice a month.8
As we previously reported, after Police Commissioner Novelle Francis retired from the VIPD on August 15, Governor de Jongh appointed Assistant Police Commissioner Raymond Hyndman as the Acting Police Commissioner. During the Fourth Quarter, on November 7, the Governor, subject to Senate confirmation, nominated Henry White Jr. to serve as the new Police Commissioner. Pending Senate confirmation, Mr. White will serve as the Acting Police Commissioner, effective November 7. At the press conference announcing his appointment, Mr. White publicly stated that he intends to make the mandates of the Consent Decree a top priority from the start of his tenure. The OIM looks forward to working with the new Police Commissioner as the VIPD continues its efforts to achieve substantial compliance with the Consent Decree.
During this interim period, Acting Police Commissioner Hyndman will serve as an assistant commissioner until a commissioner is confirmed.9 Acting Police Commissioner Hyndman led the Department‘s
Footnote continued from previous page
objectives and participants, see the Consent Decree Summit Addendum at the end of those Reports. 7 The current Chief of the St. Croix District was the Deputy Chief for St. Croix when the Police Commissioner appointed him to lead the Use of Force working group. Similarly, the current Training Director was the Chief of the St. Croix District when he was appointed to lead the Training working group. 8 Memorandum from the Police Commissioner to various VIPD personnel, titled ―Meeting Current Standards of Policing,‖ dated January 19, 2011. The OIM‘s Police Practices Experts also provided the working group leaders with a memorandum outlining their respective responsibilities. Each of the OIM‘s four Police Practices Experts is assigned to work with a particular working group leader. 9 Unless otherwise noted, for purposes of this report, Acting Police Commissioner refers to Raymond Hyndman.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 34 of 94
4 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
efforts to satisfy compliance with the Consent Decree over this quarter, and the OIM has been pleased with his leadership. For example, Acting Police Commissioner Hyndman has directed Department personnel to promptly provide documents to the OIM and we are hopeful that there will be no additional impediments to our accessing information. On prior occasions, the OIM expressed concern that the VIPD held back Consent Decree related materials. For example, while working group action plans and meeting minutes, and documentation related to training "no shows" were readily available, they were not provided to the OIM on a timely basis. The OIM relies on these materials to assess the steps that the VIPD takes to comply with the Consent Decree. In addition, the OIM waited during the Third Quarter for the Acting Police Commissioner, in conjunction with the Attorney General‘s Office, to intervene and resolve the current impasse between Property and Procurement and the VIPD that prohibits vital training programs from proceeding. Consistent with ¶ 14 of the Consent Decree, the new Commissioner and Attorney General (and, if need be, the Governor) must develop a ―fast track‖ approval process for Consent Decree related training programs, a process that was purportedly attempted and failed during this quarter.
The Compliance Assessment section of this Report details the OIM‘s findings and observations based on monitoring activities during the Third Quarter, ending on September 30. This section covers the five main sections of the Consent Decree: (1) Use of Force Policies & Specific Use of Force Policies; (2) Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force; (3) Citizen Complaint Process; (4) Management and Supervision; and (5) Training. In light of the vital role that the working groups play in the Department‘s compliance with the Consent Decree, the Compliance Assessment also provides a detailed update about the progress of each working group. Finally, the Compliance Assessment includes recommended next-steps relating to each provision in the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 35 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | 5
Compliance Assessment
This section of the Report describes the VIPD‘s compliance efforts with respect to each of the substantive provisions of the Consent Decree,10 as well as the OIM‘s monitoring activities during the quarter. The organization of this section of the Report parallels the organization of the Consent Decree. Specifically, we provide a status and assessment discussion that describes and analyzes the VIPD‘s progress toward achieving substantial compliance with the Consent Decree‘s requirements.11 As part of this discussion, we provide an update about the progress of each of the working groups leading these efforts. Then, we include recommendations to assist the VIPD in achieving full and timely implementation of the Consent Decree‘s requirements.12 A chart summarizing the VIPD‘s progress towards substantial compliance is included at the end of the Executive Summary.
I. Use of Force Policies (CD ¶ 31) & Specific Use of Force Policies (CD ¶¶ 39-41)
A. Status and Assessment
The Chief of the St. Croix District leads the Use of Force working group, and has appointed Department personnel from both Districts to his working group. He has assigned certain tasks to a ―point person‖ and has held working group meetings. While the Commissioner‘s memorandum required the working groups to meet regularly, the OIM understands that this group does not meet regularly, as evidenced by limited meeting minutes since the group‘s formation last quarter.
During the previous quarter, the Use of Force working group developed the first iteration of its action plan. This quarter the OIM expected to see, but did not, another iteration of the plan. The action plan is intended to: (1) identify all Consent Decree provisions that the working group is responsible for; (2) describe the tasks that must be completed to satisfy each provision; (3) assign tasks to specific
10 A summary of the Consent Decree requirements is excerpted at Appendix A. A copy of the full text of the Consent Decree is available at: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/VIPD_CD_03-23-09.pdf.
11 The Consent Decree provides that ―[t]he Monitor shall issue quarterly written, public reports detailing the Territory of the Virgin Islands‘ compliance with and implementation of each substantive provision of [the] Agreement.‖ CD ¶ 96.
12 CD ¶ 85.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 36 of 94
6 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
individuals; and (4) set short, mid, and long-term deadlines for each provision that reflects the Consent Decree Timetable deadlines. More generally, the action plan should also consider the timeframe by which the entire Consent Decree must be fulfilled.
With regard to use of force policies, during the Third Quarter, the VIPD issued an additional force-related policy – the Field Training and Evaluation Program Policy – which is a critical component of training new Officers.13 By the end of the Third Quarter, the VIPD issued a total of ten force-related policies: (i) Use of Force; (ii) Reportable Use of Force; (iii) Impact Weapons; (iv) Electronic Control Weapon (―ECW‖);14 (v) O.C. Spray; (vi) Vehicle Pursuit; (vii) Spike Strip; (viii) Off-Duty Official Action; and (ix) Firearms. In addition, the Department also previously implemented the Response to Resistance Reporting Form (―RRR‖) (formerly known as the Use of Force Report) for VIPD personnel to document use of force events pursuant to the Reportable Use of Force Policy. Also during the quarter, the VIPD decided to revise the Canine Policy to better reflect the number of hours that canine dogs should receive in training per week.15 Once it does so, the VIPD will have to resubmit the revised Canine Policy to the DOJ for review and approval.16
The contributions of the Policy and Procedures Committee (―Committee‖) to policy development are commendable. The Committee continues to meet bi-weekly to discuss and revise policies.17 The Committee, in coordination with the Use of Force working group, continued to revise the Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy
13 The OIM provided the VIPD with extensive feedback on the Field Training and Evaluation Program Policy. The Consent Decree does not contain any specific requirement that the VIPD develop policies and practices concerning probationary Officers and their supervising FTOs. However, the VIPD recognizes that the development of an FTO program will help the Department comport with best police practices and otherwise fulfill the Consent Decree‘s mandates.
14 The TASER is one example of an ECW. 15 The VIPD initially issued the Canine Policy on May 3. 16 The OIM also learned that the Department issued a Security Ring Directive on
October 20 during the Fourth Quarter. This Directive requires VIPD personnel to secure prisoners with security rings when a holding cell is not available or when there are multiple prisoners being held simultaneously in the same cell. The OIM will report on both the status and implementation of both the Canine Policy and Security Ring Directive in the next report. 17 The VIPD renewed its contract with the Policy Consultant during the Third Quarter. The OIM is hopeful that with additional support from the Policy Consultant, the VIPD will finalize additional policies shortly. However, we encourage the VIPD to further develop its own capacity to independently develop and revise policies.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 37 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | 7
and a related checklist for Supervisors conducting these investigations (discussed below). The policy will permit the VIPD to investigate use of force events in proportion to the type of force used. The policy creates four separate use of force levels (measured on a scale from 1 to 4, with 1 being the most severe), and dictates what Supervisors must do to investigate use of force events at each level. The policy is intended to address the concern among many VIPD personnel that the existing Use of Force Policy imposes too great a burden on Supervisors by requiring ―all inclusive‖ force reviews for comparatively ―minor‖ force incidents. VIPD personnel were particularly vocal about the unnecessary burden associated with audio or videotaped statements from witnesses for lowerlevel uses of force, such as non-compliant handcuffing. The OIM is hopeful that the policy will alleviate many of these concerns and lead to greater compliance. But before the policy can be issued, the VIPD, Territory and DOJ must modify the Consent Decree so that not all reportable use of force incidents require the same level of investigation. The OIM is hopeful that the modification of the Consent Decree language and finalization of the policy occur in the Fourth Quarter.18
Given the significance of the policy and the amount of time it is taking to finalize, the Chief of the Use of Force working group has attempted to issue the substance of the Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy as a directive, amending the Reportable Use of Force Policy issued on May 3 until such time when the DOJ approves the policy.19 The Chief of St. Croix sent a memorandum to the former Police Commissioner, copying the Acting Police Commissioner and OIM, requesting an interim Directive to ―ensure prompt compliance in the St. Thomas [D]istrict [and] decrease the use of force workload currently being absorbed within the St. Croix District.‖ To the OIM‘s knowledge, the Chief never received a response. The OIM, therefore, encourages the new Commissioner to promptly respond to the Chief‘s memorandum because early resolution will help prevent improper practices and procedures from becoming ingrained in daily policing activities.
18 The DOJ approved the Reportable Use of Force policy on March 22, and the Use of Force Investigation and Review Policy on November 3. The VIPD submitted proposed language to the Territory and DOJ on October 28 to modify the Consent Decree to allow for a tiered investigation policy. The OIM will report on the status of the Territory and DOJ's responses in our next report.
19 The VIPD has written several iterations of this policy. One issue that the Committee is resolving is how to reconcile the overlap between the Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy with the Reportable Use of Force.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 38 of 94
8 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
The Department has also identified a need for additional forcerelated policies that the Committee is currently drafting including: (i) SRT & Hostage Policy;20 (ii) Sniper Policy; (iii) Investigation and Review of Use of Force Board Policy; (iv) Arrest Policy; (v) Post Shooting Incident and Procedures Policy; (vi) Officer Involved Shooting Investigation Procedures; and (vii) Canine Policy. While the VIPD may develop additional forcerelated policies in the future (beyond those that are currently under development or required by the Consent Decree) after the OIM has determined that the VIPD has substantially complied with ¶ 31, the subsequent issuance of those policies will not restart the two-year substantial compliance period.
The Committee is drafting an Arrest Policy in response to the OIM‘s concern that some Officers are arresting and subsequently releasing individuals without adequately documenting the arrest and/or whether any force was used.21 The impetus for this policy was an Arrest Directive disseminated by the Chief of St. Croix during the Second Quarter. The OIM has suggested to the VIPD that the Arrest Policy, like the Directive: (1) delineate the differences between an investigative detention and an arrest; (2) outline the steps that VIPD personnel must follow if they arrest an individual, but later determine that they do not have an adequate basis for the arrest; (3) require that all Officers, including special unit Officers (e.g., canine and SOD), who assist in the arrest be identified in the arrest report and/or 1-A; (4) emphasize the need for VIPD personnel to complete an RRR (in addition to a Form 1-A or arrest report) whenever force is used; and (5) ensure supervisory oversight over the decision to release an arrestee. Given how critical it is that the VIPD document and analyze all arrests and any force used during an arrest, the OIM suggests that the VIPD finalize this policy and train on it as soon as possible.
At the end of the Third Quarter, the VIPD is not in substantial compliance with the following Consent Decree provisions pertaining to force-related policies: ¶¶ 31 and 39-41. To achieve substantial compliance, the VIPD must finalize and implement its outstanding forcerelated policies. As previously reported, the VIPD has begun to train on a number of important force-related policies, including the Use of Force and Reportable Use of Force policies. The VIPD will not comply with these provisions until its personnel demonstrate proficiency with each policy.
20 The DOJ approved the SRT & Hostage Policy during the Fourth Quarter,. 21 OIM First Quarterly Report of 2011 at 8.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 39 of 94 Office of the Independent Monitor | 9
B. Recommendations
The Use of Force working group should regularly meet, memorialize its meetings in writing and continue to refine its action plan. Even if the working group meets informally or meets only to delegate discrete tasks, like revising the checklists or conducting audits, the Chief leading the Use of Force working group must document the activities and record the activities in its action plan.
The Use of Force working group should continue to work with the Committee to develop and/or finalize all outstanding force-related policies, including the: (i) Sniper Policy; (ii) SRT & Hostage Policy; (iii) Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy; (vi) Investigation and Review of Use of Force Board Policy; (v) Arrest Policy; (vi) Post Shooting Incident and Procedures Policy; (vii) Officer Involved Shooting Investigation Procedures; and (viii) Canine Policy. Since the Department has issued ten force related policies, and other protocols and plans, the Use of Force working group must continue to ensure that the Department is developing a consolidated and user-friendly manual to serve as a reference tool for VIPD personnel.22
The Use of Force working group and Training Division must also regularly communicate to ensure that VIPD personnel are trained on the Department‘s issued force-related policies. As discussed below (see infra Section V, Training), the Department has yet to train VIPD personnel on the Vehicle Pursuit and Off-Duty Official Action, or train all VIPD sworn personnel on the Firearms Policy. The Use of Force working group should also coordinate with the Training Director to develop training programs for force-related policies still under development in order to be able to implement those policies as soon as the DOJ approves them.
22 As previously reported, the Department‘s policies and procedures were formerly documented in several different sources, including various manuals, field directives, and training bulletins, and many of those sources contain policies that conflict with each other and are out-of-date.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 40 of 94
10 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
II. Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force (CD ¶¶ 32-38)
A. Status and Assessment
1. Policies and Directives
The Department has issued and trained (almost all) VIPD personnel on the Reportable Use of Force Policy, which requires VIPD personnel to document uses of force events on the RRR.
In order to improve the quality and consistency of the Department‘s use of force investigations, the Use of Force working group has created a ―checklist‖ to guide Supervisors in conducting investigations. The checklist is also designed to help Supervisors (and Chiefs/Deputy Chiefs) efficiently determine whether RRRs are complete, and whether additional information and/or investigative steps are required. In addition, the checklist directs Supervisors to ensure that VIPD personnel are, among other things, documenting use of force events in the Use of Force log books (which are maintained at each Zone) and completing arrest and/or Form 1-As, as necessary. During the Third Quarter, the Use of Force working group began revising this ―checklist,‖ in light of comments received from the Committee and the OIM, to reflect the varying levels of force investigations that will be a part of the Investigation and Review of Uses of Force Policy once it is finalized.
According to the Use of Force working group, Supervisors on the St. Croix District are beginning to use the checklist to ensure that they complete all required steps of a force review/investigation.23 In our last report, we recommended that the Chief of the St. Thomas District disseminate the checklist to Commanders in his Zones.24 As we have repeatedly stressed, the VIPD needs to bring greater uniformity to its use of force reporting and investigating practices across the Districts. Using these checklists in both Districts would be a positive step forward in that direction. During the Fourth Quarter, we expect to see these checklists in force investigation files in the Zones on the St. Thomas District. If the Chief of the St. Thomas District has not yet adopted these checklists, he should explain his rationale for not doing so. In the OIM‘s opinion, there
23 Based on OIM monitoring at the start of the Fourth Quarter, the OIM confirmed that some Supervisors at the Zone level on the St. Croix District are beginning to use the checklist during their review of completed force investigations.
24 OIM Second Quarterly Report of 2011 at 9.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 41 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | 11
is no reasonable explanation for the Chief of the St. Thomas District to not adopt these checklists.
With regard to RRRs, the VIPD reports that some Officers on both Districts continue to use the old use of force reports rather than the RRRs. Furthermore, during the Third Quarter the OIM learned RRRs are not readily available to Officers. The Use of Force working group should ensure that adequate copies are available. In addition, the OIM has learned that the Training Division and IAB on St. Croix are not consistently receiving completed RRRs, even though the Chief of the St. Croix District issued a Directive on July 26 mandating that all VIPD personnel send completed RRRs to the Chief‘s Office, IAB, and the Training Division pursuant to the Reportable Use of Force Policy. Since a revised version of the checklist reflects that Supervisors should send a copy of the completed RRRs to these three offices, the OIM is hopeful that this will be a common practice on both Districts going forward.
In addition, on September 19, the Chief of the St. Thomas District disseminated a Directive (#2011-9) to all enforcement personnel on St. Thomas mandating that RRRs be completed anytime suspects resist arrest. The Chief of the St. Thomas District also requested that Supervisors and Commanders pay particular attention to these incidents because VIPD personnel typically need to use force to gain control of a resisting subject. The Chief further mandated that the Directive be read at all Roll Call sessions for five consecutive days and thereafter every so often.25 Given that some Officers fail to complete RRRs, as mentioned above, Supervisors must ensure that Officers do so in accord with policy and the Consent Decree.
Finally, during the Third Quarter, the Use of Force working group requested clarification from the Commissioner on July 1 about whether they should review critical firearm discharges (rather than IAB).26 To the
25 This memorandum was prompted by a copy of correspondence from September 13 between the Acting Police Commissioner and Director of IAB identifying numerous cases where the arrest reports indicated that an individual ―resisted arrest‖ and related RRRs were not completed. The Director of IAB conducted a similar analysis for the St. Croix District and sent correspondence to the Acting Commissioner on September 13 indicating the same.
26 At this time, the OIM believes that IAB is best positioned to review critical firearm discharges since it has both the capacity and independence to conduct these reviews.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 42 of 94
12 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
OIM‘s knowledge, the Acting Commissioner has not responded. The OIM encourages the new Commissioner to respond promptly.
2. Survey of Use of Force Incidents
During the Third Quarter, the OIM continued to evaluate the Department‘s use of force reporting practices to determine whether investigation files contain all of the documentation required by the Consent Decree. A ―complete‖ investigation file generally consists of the following: Form 1-A; arrest report; (signed) RRR; video or audio statement and photos; supervisor‘s investigative report with an analysis of the facts, evidence identified, and findings; documentation that all relevant individuals in the Department‘s chain of command reviewed and approved the completed investigation file; and disposition letter.
The OIM visited Zones and IAB to review closed force investigations and noted several recurring deficiencies. For example, the OIM found that Officers on both Districts still fail to notify their Supervisors immediately after using force and fail to complete RRRs as required by the Reportable Use of Force Policy. For example, in an investigation conducted at the Zone level on the St. Thomas District, the Officers used force to subdue a mentally ill subject, but did not arrest her, and the subject did not claim injury. The Officers transported the subject to the hospital, where she was treated for her mental illness. When the Zone Commander reviewed the Officers‘ Form 1-A, she discovered that the Officers failed to notify their Supervisor. Although the Zone Commander subsequently directed the Officers to prepare RRRs and counseled them on reporting requirements, the delay in notifying the Supervisor resulted in a lost opportunity to interview witnesses and capture evidence of the lack of injury.27
In another case from the St. Thomas District, school monitors detained and handcuffed a high school student for fighting on school grounds. While handcuffed, the student fled from the school monitors. A VIPD School Security Officer then intervened and exercised force to escort the student back to the school monitors. The Officer did not arrest the student, prepare any contemporaneous documentation, or notify his Supervisor. Five days later, the student, who was the son of
27 During OIM monitoring, we have often heard VIPD personnel express their desire for a policy that will guide their actions and responsibilities when working with purported mentally ill subjects. The VIPD should assess whether they need such a policy as soon as possible.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 43 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | 13
another VIPD Officer, lodged a complaint against the Officer complaining of injury to his wrist. The investigation was assigned to the VIPD School Security Bureau. Five months after the incident, the IAB completed its review of the School Security Bureau‘s investigation and directed the Officer to complete a RRR. Upon OIM review, the investigative file contained no report explaining the cause for the delay in capturing the use of force on a RRR.28
The OIM also found that the VIPD must address issues with serious uses of force and discipline. The OIM reviewed a Zone level investigation conducted on the St. Croix District involving an allegation of excessive force against a Sergeant. The Sergeant is accused of pushing a woman down stairs, and pushing another subject to the ground while two other Officers were escorting the subject. Following an investigation of the incident by the Zone Commander, the Sergeant was not disciplined. Rather, the Department disciplined an Officer who provided a statement that was critical of the Sergeant‘s conduct. The investigating Zone Commander concluded that the Officer‘s statement appeared ―to be a falsehood‖ and his ―attention was misplaced, that instead of focusing on officer safety and scene awareness‖ he ―was more critical of‖ the Sergeant.
Based on the OIM‘s review, the investigation is laden with other deficiencies. Like the deficiencies described above, a review of this file indicated that: the Sergeant failed to notify his Supervisor that he used force; a Supervisor failed to conduct an investigation and a witness canvass following the incident. In addition, when the Zone Commander later reviewed witness interviews, he disregarded without justification any interviews that were adverse to the Sergeant‘s statement. Two VIPD firefighters, who witnessed the Sergeant push the subject to the ground, provided nearly identical statements that supported the Officer‘s critical statements about the Sergeant‘s conduct. The recorded statements were included in the file, but the investigator‘s report only briefly mentioned them. Given the outcome of the investigation – the Department exonerated the Sergeant and disciplined the Officer who provided the critical statements – the investigating Zone Commander did not give
28 Similarly, on the St. Croix District, the OIM reviewed at least two cases where a Supervisor did not seek a force number until more than a week after the force incident. In both cases, a complainant filed a complaint days before the force number was assigned.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 44 of 94
14 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
those statements adequate weight.29 These deficiencies deviate from generally accepted police practices, and demonstrate a lack of accountability within the VIPD and to the community. Consequently, it is vital that the VIPD provide Supervisors with training on the preponderance of the evidence standard and evaluating witness credibility, among other topics. As discussed infra (Sections III & V, Citizen Complaint Process and Training), various VIPD personnel and the OIM have requested this training for many months.
Finally, consistent with the Reportable Use of Force Policy, the OIM reiterates that Officers involved in a use of force incident can not participate in the investigation of that incident. The OIM reviewed a case on the St. Croix District in which a Supervisor that directed a tactical operation and used force also oversaw the force investigation and review. Pursuant to policy, however, force investigations and reviews must be conducted by uninvolved personnel that, unless otherwise instructed by the Commissioner or Chief, are higher ranked than the involved Officer who used force.
3. Supervisor Review of Uses of Force
During the Third Quarter, the Use of Force working group conducted another audit of use of force investigations conducted at the Zone level on St. Thomas. In a memorandum dated July 25 to the Chief of St. Thomas, the Chief of the St. Croix District leading the Use of Force Working noted that while Officers were documenting use of force incidents (sometimes, as noted above, using the old form), Supervisors were not conducting investigations and reviews in all instances. The Chief of St. Croix requested that the Chief of St. Thomas ―take part in ensuring [that] Commanders and Supervisors under [his] purview complete thorough investigations in-line with [policy].‖ The Chief of St. Croix also requested that the Chief of St. Thomas track and review investigations, correct deficiencies, and forward closed cases to IAB for archival.30 While the OIM understands that the District Chiefs operate
29 While this incident occurred in 2010, the OIM only discovered it during the Third Quarter in the files of the Deputy Chief of St. Croix (now Chief of St. Croix). Included in the file is a report from the Deputy Chief to the investigating Zone Commander, who has since retired, detailing deficiencies in the investigation and directing the Commander to address the deficiencies. There is no evidence in the file that the Commander ever complied.
30 Notably, the OIM observed that the Chief of St. Croix also initially did not forward completed investigations to IAB for archival. After discussions with OIM, the Chief corrected this deficiency.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 45 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | 15
separately from one another, they should work more closely and learn from their common experiences in the coming quarters. To the extent that this relationship does not develop organically, the new Commissioner should intervene and direct the Chiefs to accept guidance from each other and, when it is rejected, provide a reasonable basis for doing so.
The Use of Force working group also addressed the canine unit on St. Croix during the Third Quarter. In a September 20 memorandum, the Chief of the Use of Force working group noted that he has been working to rebuild the canine facility for a number of months, but that a lack of funding has been an impediment.31 The Chief has asked Property & Procurement for assistance removing cars from the impound lot in and around the Canine Unit. The Chief also requested funding for 3 dogs (2 replacements and 1 new). The OIM will request a status update during the next quarter on what, if any, response the Chief receives to this memorandum.
On September 27, the Chief of the Use of Force working group requested an audit of all St. Croix canine unit Officers and dogs. A retired VIPD Captain, working with a canine consultant, conducted the audit and discovered two issues with the dogs: (1) they do not ―stand off/recall‖ (return to handler during apprehension) and (2) ―revere‖ (circle and bark at a subject). The Chief of the St. Croix District has subsequently directed the K9 Special Operations Commander to train the dogs in these two areas and prohibit their deployment until the dogs receive certification that they are capable of these skills. According to the VIPD, the dogs are expected to be proficient during the Fourth Quarter. A similar audit will take place on St. Thomas during the Fourth Quarter. As with all audits, the OIM would like to receive any corresponding documentation from the working group in order to credit the VIPD for implementing the relevant policies. The OIM is hopeful that the use of Force working group will coordinate with the Training Division, since the audit is germane to force-related training.
As discussed infra (Section IV, Management and Supervision), the Department continues to enter force-related information into IAPro to
31 According to ¶ 14 of the Consent Decree, the ―Territory of the Virgin Islands is responsible for providing necessary support and resources to the VIPD and Police Commissioner to enable each of them to fulfill their obligations under this Agreement.‖ The Consent Decree, therefore, requires the Territory to provide sufficient funding to enable the VIPD to attain compliance.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 46 of 94
16 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
facilitate the collection, review, and evaluation of use of force events. IAPro is now functional at IAB on both Districts and in all Zones except for two specific locations. In light of prior technical impediments, the VIPD implemented a manual tracking system in which all Zone Commanders received log books with sequentially numbered pages to record use of force events and citizen complaints.32 The OIM has recommended that the VIPD retain the log books as a back-up measure until IAPro is fully functional and reliable.
B. Recommendations
Under the Consent Decree, Supervisors play a critical role in investigating use of force events. As mentioned above, the recent retirement of a number of Supervisors is a challenge to the Department‘s compliance efforts. Even prior to these retirements, the OIM was concerned that the Department‘s first-line Supervisors (Corporals and Sergeants) were stretched too thin. Nevertheless, the OIM is pleased that the VIPD intends to promote a number of individuals to supervisory ranks in the near future.
During the Third Quarter, after repeated requests, the VIPD provided the OIM with its organizational chart, active-duty roster, and current list of assignments for both Districts so that the OIM can begin to evaluate the VIPD‘s supervisory capacity. The VIPD also must assess its supervisory needs; while the OIM can provide assistance, the VIPD is in the best position to evaluate and identify the appropriate number of Supervisors that it requires to efficiently deliver police services and reach substantial compliance with the Consent Decree. We also encourage the VIPD to use a selection process tailored to the particular job to identify capable Officers for supervisory promotions, to set a schedule for promotional exams, and to provide training for these Supervisors during the Fourth Quarter (or as soon as possible thereafter).
Because the Use of Force Policy and Reportable Use of Force Policy are critical components of the Department‘s Consent Decree compliance, the VIPD should continue to reinforce the requirements of both policies through regular in-service training programs.33 In addition to providing periodic ―refreshers,‖ in-service training should be utilized to address common problems/deficiencies that Supervisors identify in the course of reviewing RRRs and interacting with Officers. The Chiefs and Deputy
32 VIPD February 2011 Status Report at 6. 33 The requirements can be reinforced through Roll Calls and Commanders‘ Calls.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 47 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | 17
Chiefs should also monitor that their subordinates are completing RRRs when required and that Supervisors are conducting complete investigations consistent with policy and using the checklists. To that end, the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs should review 1-As and arrest reports to ensure that their subordinates are completing RRRs whenever force is used. Since RRRs often trigger use of force investigations, it is critical that VIPD personnel document all reportable uses of force.
We also encourage the Use of Force working group and Director of IAB (or his designee) to continue auditing use of force files (and misconduct allegations) in both Districts in order to identify and remedy any issues.34 These audits should document, for example, whether Supervisors are using the checklists as they complete their review of force files.
The Use of Force working group should ensure that: (1) personnel are completing RRRs whenever reportable force is used based on the working group‘s review of 1-As and arrest reports; (2) the Department provides a sufficient supply of RRRs to Officers until all Zones are equipped to enable Officers to enter RRRs on computers; (3) Supervisors forward copies of RRRs to the Chiefs‘ Offices, IAB and the Training Division on both Districts; (4) Officers involved in force incidents are not investigating and reviewing those incidents; (5) personnel are trained on the preponderance of the evidence standard and evaluating witness credibility; and (6) the Committee finalizes the Disciplinary Matrix and related Policy as soon as possible. The working group should document these efforts.
Although the Department has made progress by issuing and training many VIPD personnel on the Use of Force Policy and Reportable Use of Policy, it is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶¶ 32-38 of the Consent Decree. Among other requirements, these paragraphs require the VIPD to evaluate, document, and review reportable uses of force. The VIPD has not yet satisfied those requirements because it has not implemented its Use of Force Policies, Officers are not consistently notifying their Supervisors when employing force, and Deputy Chiefs and
34 To the extent that IAB lacks the capacity to periodically conduct these audits because of other responsibilities, the VIPD should consider allocating a sufficient number of staff to IAB to conduct this review. The Department must ensure that all force and misconduct investigations are complete and sufficient and, if not, identify the need for Command intervention and supervisory training.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 48 of 94
18 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Supervisors are not yet conducting use of force and performance reviews according to the requirements of the Consent Decree.
III. Citizen Complaint Process (CD ¶¶ 42-58)
A. Public Information (CD ¶¶ 42-43) & Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints (CD ¶¶ 44-45)
1. Status and Assessment
The Chief‘s working group members, particularly the designated ―point person,‖ have been active and met regularly over past quarters, but the group‘s efforts waned during the Third Quarter since the point person is on leave. In delegating authority to his point person, the Chief of the St. Thomas District has not remained as involved in guiding his working group as required. As previously stated, while the OIM encouraged the working group leaders to delegate certain tasks, the leaders remain responsible for the direction and success (or failure) of their groups. Among other things, the working group leaders must personally attend working group meetings, meet with working group members, and provide overall leadership. The working group leaders cannot abdicate their responsibilities to others. Still, the OIM remains hopeful that the Chief‘s level of engagement will increase. Furthermore, even though the working group has developed several iterations of its action plan, the plan does not identify specific individuals who are working on each provision or contain short, mid, or long-term deadlines for satisfying each paragraph relevant to the complaint process.
On August 2, the Department issued the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. The VIPD reports that it has provided in-service training on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy for Officers and Supervisors from August through October. The OIM, however, has not yet received any documentation related to this training, including lesson plans and attendance sheets. Once VIPD personnel is trained on both policies (see infra, Section V, Training), they should be fully equipped to receive and investigate citizen complaints. Since October 2010 the Department has actively promoted the citizen complaint process through a public information campaign on radio and television stations in both Districts.35
35 OIM Second Quarterly Report of 2011 at 19; see also infra § V (Training).

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 49 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | 19
The VIPD has yet to report on its plans to run PSAs in 2012, but should be thinking ahead to how it will continue this aspect of the campaign.36
Prior to recently issuing the above referenced complaint-related policies, the complaint process was governed by the Processing Citizen Complaints Directive (#014-2010) (the ―Directive‖), which was issued in October 2010. Under the Directive and the newly issued Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy, VIPD personnel are required to carry complaint/compliment brochures and forms in their vehicles while onduty, and are prohibited from discouraging anyone from filing a complaint. To help facilitate compliance, the VIPD has provided various personnel with zip envelope packets containing citizen compliment and complaint forms and brochures. The OIM has recommended that the Complaint Process working group randomly question VIPD personnel to ensure that they understand the complaint process and do not engage in behavior that would discourage anyone from filing a complaint. The working group did not provide an update or any documentation that it had conducted such a ―test‖ during this quarter.
The Complaint Process working group continued to conduct random inspections of Zones, substations and police vehicles to confirm that they have the required complaint process materials. Since last quarter, the OIM has requested documentation relating to these inspections but has yet to receive it. The Consent Decree specifically requires VIPD vehicles to be equipped with English, Spanish, and French and/or French Patois language versions of the required complaint process materials.37 During the last quarter, VIPD vehicles were only equipped with English language materials. While the VIPD has identified an individual to translate the revised English version of the complaint/compliment brochure into Spanish, the translation was pending during this quarter; the OIM is hopeful that Spanish
36 In setting forth the required components of the public information campaign, ¶ 42 of the Consent Decree states that ―[t]his program will include distribution of complaint forms, fact sheets, informational posters, and public service announcements that describe the citizen complaint process‖ (emphasis added).
37 As previously reported, the fourth sentence of ¶ 43 of the Consent Decree does not expressly require VIPD officers to carry French and French Patois language complaint forms and informational brochures. However, the third sentence of ¶ 43 requires French or French Patois language placards describing the complaint process. The OIM believes that this is an inconsistency. The OIM understands that the VIPD and DOJ intend to clarify the language in this paragraph concerning French and French Patois and the OIM will report on this when the Parties make this clarification.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 50 of 94
20 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
translations will be complete in the next quarter. The VIPD also continues to have difficulty identifying an individual to translate the brochure into Patois. As soon as these translations are complete, the VIPD will print and distribute these materials throughout the Department, in the community and presumably post on the Department‘s website.
The OIM continued to conduct its own inspections of VIPD vehicles and facilities to inspect whether the required complaint process materials were available. The OIM is pleased to report that when the OIM conducted inspections of vehicles on St. John, and governmental properties on the St. Thomas District (Zones A and C), all vehicles and facilities had the required versions of the brochures and complaint forms.38
Finally, in order to make it easier for individuals to file complaints at the Zones, each Zone prominently displays bulletin boards in both Districts that identify the Commander and on-duty Shift Supervisor. Shift Supervisors are responsible for updating the board with their name when their shift begins. While the VIPD installed these boards in most Zones, the on-duty Shift Supervisor‘s name has not always been posted to the board. The VIPD previously reported that it planned to issue additional guidance regarding the bulletin boards, but the OIM never received any such documentation.
Although the VIPD has made significant progress with aspects of the citizen complaint process, it is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶¶ 42-45 of the Consent Decree. For example, the OIM is pleased with the Department‘s progress with ¶ 43 of the Consent Decree, specifically developing complaint forms, brochures, and posters, and making those materials available at various governmental properties and community centers. However, ¶ 43 also requires the VIPD to document that the complaint process is functioning properly, from the intake of complaints to their ultimate disposition. To that end, the OIM (and hopefully the working group) will continue to inspect: (1) how Officers inform citizens about making complaints, and (2) that officers do not discourage citizens from doing so. In addition, the VIPD must provide training (and related documentation, including lesson plans and attendance sheets) on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and Investigating Misconduct
38 The only exceptions were two ATVs, which the OIM learned are used infrequently. At the start of the Fourth Quarter, the OIM also found the required complaint materials in a Zone and substation on St. Croix.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 51 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | 21
and Citizen Complaints Policy, which were both finalized during this quarter.
2. Recommendations
The Complaint Process working group should continue to update its action plan to account for accomplishments and all of the specific steps that must be taken to complete outstanding tasks. Future iterations of the action plan should be revised to reflect new deadlines and the person(s) responsible for meeting those deadlines.
Since the VIPD issued the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy months ago on August 2, the VIPD must train VIPD personnel on the policies during the next quarter. The VIPD reports that it has provided in-service training on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy for Officers and Supervisors in August, September and October. The OIM, however, has not yet received any documentation related to this training, including lesson plans and attendance sheets. Any training that was provided on the Directive is no longer sufficient in light of these policies. As discussed infra (Section V, Training), the Training Division has selected an instructor for the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy, but has not set a date for training. The Complaint Process working group‘s action plan acknowledges the need for training on the new policies, and stated that the working group would vet the training programs before the Department offered them to VIPD personnel. The Complaint Process working group, in conjunction with the Training working group, therefore, should ensure that the programs are vetted. In addition, up to and after training on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy have been completed, the Complaint Process working group should continue to periodically test whether VIPD personnel understand the complaint process and are responsive and courteous to individuals seeking to file complaints. As we have previously emphasized, any such inspections should be well-documented (e.g., when and where did the inspection take place, what were the results, etc.).
The Complaint Process working group should also continue to confirm and document whether governmental properties and VIPD vehicles have the required complaint process materials and that the Zones are properly using the bulletin boards (e.g., keeping them up to date in identifying the on-duty Supervisor). Similarly, the public information campaign about the complaint process has been underway

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 52 of 94
22 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
for nearly a year and the VIPD should evaluate how it will continue the campaign in 2012.
Finally, the OIM understands that the Director of IAB periodically compiles statistics relating to the complaint process, specifically tracking the investigations of complaints that have taken longer than the statute of limitations permits. The OIM encourages the Complaint Process working group to periodically review that information.39 This review will provide a good overview of the Department‘s complaint process, help the Department identify emerging trends, and identify any deficiencies that exist. As a result, the Department will be able to reinforce what is working, and correct any problems (which may include revamping its public information campaign and providing additional training programs).
B. Investigation of Complaints (CD ¶¶ 46-58)
1. Status and Assessment
As discussed above, the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy will now govern how VIPD personnel investigate citizen and command complaints. The VIPD issued this policy on August 2 and has yet to train personnel on it, but must do so in the next quarter.
Both in previous reports and during monitoring, the OIM has encouraged the Department to consider a citizen complaint resolution process/supervisors resolution process policy that would permit Supervisors and IAB Agents to resolve certain comparatively less serious complaints based on a preliminary investigation.40 Such a policy would
39 The Complaint Process working group should also consider drafting a policy/directive for the Commissioner‘s signature that requires the Chiefs and Deputy Chief to monitor the progress and due dates for completing complaint investigations assigned to units within their respective Commands. The policy/directive should also require the Chiefs and Deputy Chief to take timely steps to ensure that due dates are met and, if not, take corrective action against the investigating Supervisors responsible for these delinquencies.
40 The OIM first reported on this suggestion in the First Quarterly Report of 2011 at 13-14. To appropriately limit the scope of such a policy, the OIM suggested the following limitations and guidelines: (i) restrictions on the type of allegations that can be closed by Supervisors after a preliminary investigation; (ii) tiered levels of investigation such that complaints against VIPD personnel who have repeatedly violated Department policies are ineligible for this process; (iii) procedures to ensure oversight by the Chief, Deputy Chief, and the IAB, empowering each to overrule the Supervisor; (iv) procedures to inform complainants about this alternative process, including their ability to accept/decline it, and the actions taken by the VIPD during
Footnote continued

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 53 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | 23
allow VIPD personnel to focus their attention on complaints of a more serious nature. In our last report, the OIM suggested that the Department implement such a policy, in advance of providing training on the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy, so that the Department could train on both policies at the same time. Nonetheless, the Committee and Complaint Process working group have not taken any action to draft this policy.
During the Third Quarter, the VIPD did not hold training programs for Supervisors (1) on the preponderance of the evidence standard (which the VIPD uses when investigating complaints) or (2) on evaluating the credibility of witnesses. The OIM learned that the VIPD will hold training programs conducted by attorneys from the Attorney General‘s Office on these subjects on both Districts during the next quarter. The OIM has observed one of the sessions and will report on our findings in our next report. The OIM previously reported that the VIPD‘s October 2010 training program on these topics was insufficient because the instructors lacked the necessary legal background.41 The Consent Decree requires Officers to evaluate witness credibility using a non-exhaustive list of factors (which are set forth in the Consent Decree) when investigating complaints and use of force events.42 The Training Division first received an intra-departmental request to hold such a training program on March 12, 2010.43 As recently as August 18, the Chief of St. Thomas sent a memorandum to the Director of Training requesting preponderance of the evidence training for all Corporals and Supervisors (up to the Commissioner level). It should be noted that neither of those training programs require policies to be final.
Subsequently, in early 2011, the Attorney General‘s Office provided a preponderance of the evidence training which the OIM attended and found was well done. Still, for many quarters, the OIM has urged the VIPD to provide more training programs on these topics to address deficiencies in how Supervisors conduct witness and complainant interviews that the OIM has observed during their review of complaint investigations (see infra, Section II, Evaluation, Documentation & Review
Footnote continued from previous page
this process, including disposition of complaints; and, (v) guidance on when IAB should re-open or continue any case ―resolved‖ (i.e., closed) by a Supervisor. 41 OIM First Quarterly Report of 2011 at 14-15. 42 CD ¶ 51. 43 OIM Second Quarterly Report of 2010 at 18.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 54 of 94
24 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
of Uses of Force). Because the VIPD has had difficulties finding an attorney to teach the programs, it has been slow to respond to requests for these trainings. As discussed infra (Training, Section V), the VIPD and Attorney General‘s Office must work together more regularly to, among other things, review the legal sufficiency of policies and training programs.
In addition, the Consent Decree requires the VIPD to institute a centralized numbering and tracking system for all complaints. For many months, technical difficulties prevented the Department from implementing a single system across both Districts. To resolve this, the VIPD created separate IAPro databases (each with a distinct numbering system to track complaints) and servers for the St. Croix and St. Thomas Districts. Although the databases are separate, the DOJ approved this approach during the Third Quarter because the requirements of ¶49 are met.44 Nonetheless, as discussed infra (Section IV, Management), MIS must still enable IAB on St. Thomas to remote into IAB on St. Croix and vice versa.
Finally, the Consent Decree also requires the VIPD to periodically inform complainants of the status of investigations and dispositions. The Investigating Misconduct and Citizens Complaint Police requires periodic and final disposition notices to complainants. During our review of complaint investigations, the OIM has found evidence of these notifications in some, but not all files. In addition to our continued review of whether these requirements are met, the VIPD should provide documentation showing its compliance (or steps towards compliance) with this requirement in its next quarterly status report.
In sum, at the end of the Third Quarter, the VIPD is not in substantial compliance with ¶¶ 46-58 of the Consent Decree concerning the investigation of complaints. Specifically, the VIPD has not trained investigating Supervisors on: the Investigating Misconduct and Citizens Complaint Policy; the preponderance of the evidence standard; or
44 Specifically, both databases can be accessed from either District; IAB agents in each District can access their respective database; the Director and Assistant Director of IAB and EIP Coordinator can access both databases; each complaint will receive a unique tracking number with an STT extension for the St. Thomas/St. John District and an STX extension for the St. Croix District so that no two complaints will have the same number within or between the two databases; information in each of the databases will be organized by District and sorted by Officer; and, if an Officer transfers from one District to another, the VIPD will transfer his/her information to the new District‘s database.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 55 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | 25
techniques to use when evaluating witness and complainant credibility. Additionally, the VIPD has failed to ensure that complaints are completely investigated. While the public service announcements have increased the volume of complaints, the VIPD is still ill-equipped to handle them properly. Unless the VIPD completes the outstanding training promptly, the VIPD may lose credibility in the eyes of the community for mishandling complaints.
2. Recommendations
The VIPD must provide training programs (and related documentation, including lesson plans and attendance sheets) concerning the following policies/standards during the Fourth Quarter: (1) Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy; (2) Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy; (3) preponderance of the evidence standard; and (4) evaluating the credibility of witnesses. The OIM is hopeful that these programs will also include training pertaining to the examination and interrogation of accused officers and other witnesses, as well as identifying misconduct. The VIPD is obliged to provide training on these topics to Supervisors within 90 days of being promoted to supervisory rank (CD ¶ 81). As we have repeatedly emphasized, the Department will not be able to achieve substantial compliance until its personnel receive adequate training on each of these policies. Accordingly, Roll and Commanders‘ Calls should reinforce the training programs.
As we have repeatedly recommended, the VIPD should determine whether it is interested in developing a policy that would permit Supervisors and IAB Agents to close certain complaints based on a preliminary investigation. Such a policy, with appropriate management controls and oversight, could help ease the administrative burdens associated with comprehensively investigating comparatively less serious complaints. As such, the OIM does not understand why the VIPD has not been more receptive to developing such a policy. If the Department decides to develop this policy, the Complaint Process working group should work in tandem with the Committee to develop it.
Finally, in the next two quarters the VIPD should assess the staffing needs of the IAB to: (1) ensure that there are sufficient personnel to conduct timely investigations into serious allegations of misconduct that IAB retains for investigation; and (2) provide quality control over the investigations IAB assigns to Zones/units for investigation. The current IAB staffing levels are insufficient to allow IAB to monitor the quality,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 56 of 94
26 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
completeness and timeliness of investigations, and alert managers of discovered deficiencies before statute of limitations are exceeded.
IV. Management and Supervision (CD ¶¶ 59-72)
A. Risk Management System (CD ¶¶ 59-68)
1. Status and Assessment
The Management and Supervision working group, led by the Deputy Chief for St. Thomas, has also developed several iterations of its action plan and continued to meet during the Third Quarter.45
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to implement a RMS to track incidents and identify patterns of and potentially problematic behavior from VIPD personnel at an early (and hopefully remediable) stage. The VIPD chose IAPro as its RMS. After lengthy delays, IAPro is now functional in the IAB offices in both Districts. Nonetheless, based upon monitoring conducted at the start of the Fourth Quarter, IAPro is not yet being fully utilized. For example, IAPro at IAB on both Districts lacks human resources information for VIPD personnel (e.g., personnel hiring and promotion dates) and the VIPD has not yet uploaded RRRs into IAPro.46 In addition, as mentioned above, IAB personnel in one District are unable to access IAPro information from the other District, making it more difficult to uniformly manage risk across the Territory.
The VIPD also reports that the Acting Director of MIS and his team have installed the Blue Team component of IAPro at both IAB and, with exceptions, on all Supervisors‘ computers in the Zones on both Districts.47 Blue Team gives VIPD personnel the ability to enter a time
45 The former ―point person‖ for the working group retired at the end of the Third Quarter. However, the Deputy Chief of the Management and Supervision working group promptly designated another ―point person‖ and the OIM commends him for doing such.
46 The OIM is aware that the Director of Payroll has been working to update this identifying information for each involved Officer and Civilian, particularly tracking Officers‘ overtime. The OIM would like a status update about where the Director is with this process. To the extent that the Director of Payroll requires assistance to speed up this process, the OIM implores the new Commissioner to intervene and provide the Director with additional manpower.
47 Based on monitoring at the beginning of the Fourth Quarter, the OIM learned that there are two locations, one on each District, where the Acting Director of MIS and his team have yet to install Blue Team. The OIM will provide an update on the installation in these locations in our next report. The OIM also confirmed that patrol Officers cannot access Blue Team from the laptops in their patrol vehicles
Footnote continued

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 57 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | 27
and date-stamped force-report, as well as a complaint, directly into IAPro. Once that information is uploaded into IAPro, it will be accessible to Supervisors and IAB personnel to review. Nonetheless, the OIM also learned at the start of the Fourth Quarter that very few Supervisors were aware that Blue Team had been installed and that many had not been trained on it. For example, in one Zone, an otherwise knowledgeable Supervisor did not appear to be familiar with Blue Team when he spoke with the OIM. The OIM learned also that Supervisors in the Zones in both Districts do not have access to IAPro because the Acting Director of MIS and his team were not aware that every Supervisor, outside of IAB, needed access.
The Director of IAB has trained 31 personnel, including IA officers and members of the MIS staff, on IAPro, who in turn will train VIPD Officers and other Supervisors. An OIM representative attended a trainthe-trainer program on Blue Team in July on St. Thomas.48 Since the Director of IAB is the primary trainer on IAPro, conducting these initials trainings, in addition to his other responsibilities, is a demand on his time. And once Supervisors have been initially trained on IAPro and Blue Team, they also require additional instruction as they become more familiar with the databases. The Management & Supervision working group must support the Director and Assistant Director of IAB; it is not the Director and Assistant Director‘s responsibility alone to train VIPD personnel on Blue Team. The Compliance Coordinator has also requested that a MIS staff member attend these training programs to help overcome technical difficulties with the programs that surface.
During the last quarter, the OIM learned that the Department needed to increase the storage capacity of its servers to accommodate IAPro, particularly the uploading of video content from VIPD personnel conducting interviews as part of force and complaint investigations. MIS reports that it has ordered a storage server for each District, but the Acting Director of MIS awaits a purchase order from Property and Procurement to purchase the servers.
Footnote continued from previous page
because VIPD equipment does not have this functionality. Further, the OIM learned during the Fourth Quarter that on the St. Thomas District, MIS is working to address other technological issues (e.g., intranet and internet access). All of these issues are obstacles that the VIPD must overcome to fully implement its risk management system. 48 A similar training was conducted on St. Croix.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 58 of 94
28 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Because of technical impediments with IAPro and Blue Team during previous quarters and that continue to exist, the VIPD implemented a manual tracking system. Under this system, all Zone Commanders received log books with sequentially numbered pages to record use of force events and citizen complaints.49 The OIM has recommended that the VIPD retain the log books as a back-up measure until IAPro is fully functional and reliable.
Although the DOJ approved the VIPD‘s Data Input Plan on March 22, the Department has not yet disseminated the Plan to the entire Department nor provided an explanation for why they have failed to do so. The Data Input Plan identifies information about VIPD personnel (including uses of force, disciplinary issues, motor vehicle accidents, and sick days) that the Department will enter into IAPro to facilitate its risk management function. The Management & Supervision working group contacted the individuals (some of whom work outside the Department) who are ordinarily responsible for maintaining that information and worked with them to develop an efficient process to enter that information into IAPro. The OIM also learned during the Third Quarter that the Department will use unique employee numbers to link VIPD personnel with certain documentation in order to perform reliable IAPro analyses. Previously, the OIM had been concerned that the Department lacked a reliable and unique identifying number to track personnel. The OIM will begin to track whether the Department is implementing this number during the Fourth Quarter.
As previously reported, IAB would like to enter information into IAPro dating back to 2009. IAB reports that it has thus far entered data from 2010 to present. Unfortunately, IAB has not been able to meet this goal because it does not have enough personnel to assist with data entry.50 The Director and Assistant Director of IAB previously hired an intern to assist with entering historic information, but this program has ended.51 Because IAPro seeks to identify potentially problematic conduct based on established norms, IAPro functions best when it has a wealth of
49 VIPD February 2011 Status Report at 6. 50 The OIM has also learned that the Assistant Director of IAB has been slow to assist
with data entry into IAPro. Prior to IAPro coming on-line, the Assistant Director and her staff built a database to capture force incidents and citizen complaints. As IAPro is being implemented, the Assistant Director must work to make it more functional, in spite of her considerable efforts in developing the other database. 51 Admittedly, this program was not without issues. For example, on occasion the IAB Director had to redo work performed by intern(s).

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 59 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | 29
information to analyze. The new Commissioner and Management and Supervision working group should assist the IAB to identify personnel to help with data entry.
The VIPD‘s slow progress on its RMS Protocol has impeded the VIPD from fully implementing its RMS. The RMS Protocol sets forth various thresholds for supervisory review. For example, if an Officer receives more than X number of complaints within Y period of time, IAPro will alert the Officer‘s Supervisor (and other appropriate personnel) to the potential issue and need for review. The DOJ provided the Department with several rounds of comments on draft versions of the RMS Protocol, including during the Fourth Quarter.
One issue that has prevented the VIPD from finalizing the RMS Protocol is that the VIPD and DOJ continue to discuss the most appropriate mechanism to identify potentially problematic conduct. The DOJ favors using ratios based on VIPD Officers' conduct (i.e., the total number of arrests where force was used divided by the total number of arrests) to identify potentially problematic behavior, while the VIPD favors using numerical thresholds based on historic norms (i.e., X number of uses of force within a 12 month period). The OIM agrees with the DOJ that the VIPD may use its current proposed thresholds as a temporary measure, but that the VIPD will eventually need to use ratios to achieve substantial compliance.
First, there are instances where Officers take a subject into custody, use force, and release the subject without documenting the arrest and release. Second, when arrests are documented, all involved Officers are not always documented. Third, actual arresting Officers are not documented as the arresting Officers in all instances. Fourth, because the VIPD defines force broadly (anything beyond compliant handcuffing), the majority of Officers would likely exceed departmental ratios. Finally, because the VIPD‘s arrest and force records are still being implemented and refined, the Department is not yet consistently collecting enough information to develop reliable ratios (e.g., unique identifiers for all personnel, names of all VIPD personnel involved in an arrest, units involved). In addition, the VIPD began to discuss the development of an arrest database to address the lack of reliable data mentioned above. This database would capture all of the information necessary for IAPro analyses (including fields to capture the names of all involved Officers and other necessary data related to arrests).
Lastly, the VIPD is developing certain policies and protocol to support the RMS. These include: (i) Blue Team Protocol; (ii) Behavioral

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 60 of 94
30 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Health Services Policy; (iii) Psychological Fitness for Duty Evaluation Policy; and (4) Officer Peer Support Policy. The OIM will report on the status of this protocol and policies in the next report.
While IAPro is now functional at the IAB on both Districts, there are still issues with access from the Zones, data input at IAB, and training for Supervisors related to IAPro that the Department must resolve. In addition, the Department must finalize the RMS Protocol and other RMS-related policies, as well as implement them and the Data Input Plan, among other things. Therefore, at the end of the Third Quarter, the Department has not yet substantially complied with ¶¶ 5968 of the Consent Decree.
2. Recommendations
As mentioned in the last quarterly report, the Management and Supervision working group must spearhead all efforts related to the Department‘s implementation of its RMS. While the Director and Assistant Director of IAB and the Acting Director of MIS have important roles to play in these efforts and have contributed greatly, the Deputy Chief of the St. Thomas District, as leader of the Management and Supervision working group, has the primary responsibility and must assume those responsibilities immediately. Among other things, the Deputy Chief and his Management and Supervision working group must: (1) ensure that human resource data is entered into IAPro by coordinating with the Department‘s Human Resources, Payroll and MIS Divisions; (2) ensure that a unique employee identifier number is being used consistently throughout the Department;52 (3) work with the Director and Assistant Direct of IAB and the Training Division to identify Supervisors who can train other Supervisors and Officers on IAPro and Blue Team; (4) identify individuals to assist with entering historic information into IAPro; (5) work with the Training Director to develop training programs relating to the Data Input Plan, RMS and Blue Team protocols; (6) finalize the Department‘s RMS Protocol, Blue Team Protocol, Behavioral Health Services Policy, Psychological Fitness for Duty Evaluation Policy, and Officer Peer Support Policy; (7) regularly visit all Zones and observe Supervisors access Blue Team and enter data; and
52 The Management and Supervision working group should also determine whether the Department will have to revise certain documents to account for this information (i.e., revise the RRR, arrest report and 1-A Form to provide a place to enter the employee number).

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 61 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | 31
(8) follow up on whether the VIPD needs an arrest database separate from IAPro.
B. Oversight (CD ¶ 69)
1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations
The VIPD is not in substantial compliance with ¶ 69 of the Consent Decree because it has yet to finalize and implement the audit protocol for the RMS. The VIPD finalized the Data Input Plan, but as mentioned above is still revising the RMS Protocol. The Plan and Protocol are the foundations of the audit protocol.
The Acting Commissioner has created an audit unit, which will evaluate the effectiveness of internal controls across the Department. During the Third Quarter, the Acting Commissioner disseminated a memorandum on September 21 designating certain personnel to serve on the audit team including: the Assistant Director of IAB; the Director of Human Resources; the Payroll Supervisor; the Compliance Coordinator; the Compliance Manager; and two alternates. The OIM expressed concern to the Acting Commissioner about his designation of the Compliance Coordinator to this team because it may divert the Compliance Coordinator‘s attention from ―serv[ing] as a full-time VIPD Compliance Coordinator,‖ pursuant to paragraph 88. The OIM is hopeful that this will not be the case.
The Acting Commissioner‘s memorandum also outlined the team‘s functions. The OIM provided feedback to the Acting Commissioner and suggested that he: (1) direct the team to audit all Consent Decree related issues (not just citizen complaints); (2) designate a chairperson of the team; (3) direct the group to develop a protocol to guide its activities; (4) establish deadlines for deliverables for this group; and (5) set due dates by which the team must submit reports to him. The OIM looks forward to receiving an update from the new Commissioner during the next quarter about whether he has acted upon any of the OIM‘s recommendations and if the group has met and what priorities they have set.
Still, as explained above, this unit is primarily comprised of personnel who have other departmental duties. As we have previously recommended, the VIPD should seriously consider creating an audit division with the sole function of assessing the Department‘s compliance

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 62 of 94
32 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
with the Consent Decree.53 The division should be staffed with at least two full time employees (with the head of the department serving as a Director) on each District who report directly to the Police Commissioner. The OIM is willing to discuss the merits and components of having such an independent, full-time body with the new Police Commissioner in the next quarter.
C. Discipline (CD ¶¶ 70-72)
1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations
Although the DOJ has approved the Disciplinary Matrix, which provides disciplinary guidelines for different types of misconduct, the VIPD reports that it is reworking the disciplinary penalties of this policy.54 Once the Matrix is revised, the VIPD will have to resubmit it to the DOJ. The Disciplinary Policy will also have to be revised in light of any changes that the Department makes to the Matrix.55
It is important that the VIPD finalize the Disciplinary Matrix and Policy as soon as possible. This will help foster a more uniform application of disciplinary sanctions and provide a foundation from which the VIPD can implement its other policies.56 For example, those personnel who do not have good cause for missing Consent Decree related training programs must be disciplined if they fail to take the remedial training, and fail to exhibit proficiency. While training personnel should be the priority, the Department can also use the disciplining of these personnel to serve notice to other members that they cannot squander these training opportunities. As discussed below, the Training Director provided written notice to the Police Commissioner‘s Office about the Officers and Supervisors in both Districts with unexcused absences from the training programs held since March. As
53 For example, this division should assess the Department‘s level of compliance with the use of force investigations requirements, the manner in which Officers respond to citizen inquiries about how to lodge a complaint against an Officer, training attendance records and secondary employment restrictions.
54 OIM First Quarterly Report of 2011 at 19. 55 While the Consent Decree does not require DOJ approval for the Disciplinary Policy,
the VIPD voluntarily submitted it to the DOJ for its review, and the DOJ agreed to provide technical assistance. The DOJ completed providing technical assistance to the VIPD on the Disciplinary Policy on April 26. 56 As previously reported, the OIM has observed first-hand (and heard about anecdotally) the Department‘s inconsistent and disparate application of disciplinary sanctions (for which there is no reasonable explanation). See, e.g., OIM Fourth of Quarterly Report of 2010 at 24.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 63 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | 33
far as the OIM is aware, none of these Officers have been disciplined for their insubordination. The OIM will review additional documentation about departmental response to these ―no shows‖ in the next quarter.
The VIPD previously reported that the Committee intended to hold a meeting with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs, as well as the Police Benevolent Association and Law Enforcement Supervisors‘ Union, in both Districts to discuss the Disciplinary Policy and Matrix in upcoming quarters. The OIM did not receive an update on whether any meetings have occurred. When they are scheduled, the OIM would like to be given advance notice the meetings so that we can monitor them.
At the end of the Third Quarter, the VIPD is not in substantial compliance with ¶¶ 70-72 of the Consent Decree because they have yet to finalize and implement the Disciplinary Matrix.
V. Training (CD ¶¶ 73-81)
A. Management Oversight (CD ¶¶ 73-77) and Curriculum (CD ¶¶ 78-81)
1. Status and Assessment
The Training Director leads the Training working group. Nearly eight months after the Police Commissioner established the working groups and gave them a roadmap describing how to organize their groups, the Training working group still has not provided the OIM with a detailed action plan or given the OIM any indication through written documentation that the group regularly meets. This is unacceptable and it is imperative that in the next quarter this working group develop an action plan that tracks all Consent Decree requirements related to training. In addition, the Training working group must start to meet regularly.
The OIM has encouraged the working group to regularly meet to review student evaluations of instructors and discuss any remedial training that instructors may need. At these meetings the group should review RRRs and determine whether additional training is required Department-wide and/or should be targeted to specific units who exhibit common deficiencies.57 Also, in accordance with ¶ 73 of the Consent
57 The Training Director does not consistently receive RRRs from the Zones as required by the Reportable Use of Force Policy. The newly developed supervisory checklist indicates that RRRs should be sent to the Chiefs‘ Offices, Training Division, as well Footnote continued

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 64 of 94
34 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Decree, the working group should meet to develop a process to review semi-annually all use of force policies and training to ensure quality, consistency and compliance with all applicable law and VIPD policy.
For a short period of time during the two previous quarters, the Training Division kept the OIM apprised about upcoming training programs. During the Third Quarter, however, the OIM had to repeatedly request a schedule from the Training Division. The OIM has previously communicated to the Division that it is imperative that we receive updated training schedules so that the OIM can plan to be present to monitor these programs. Many of these programs have been in the works for months but have been cancelled or postponed because the Department failed to secure contract approvals from the Property and Procurement Division.58 The Training Division is concerned that the VIPD has harmed its relationship with some potential vendors because the Training Division has had to repeatedly cancel or postpone these programs.
Given this difficulty with securing contracts, the Acting Commissioner issued a memorandum on September 6 directing the Training Division to explore federal funding opportunities to conduct Consent Decree-related training. In the same memorandum, the Acting Commissioner directed the Training Division to focus exclusively on Consent Decree related training, though, for the reasons described herein, very few have been held. The VIPD also reports that it has worked with the Attorney General‘s Office and Property and Procurement in an unsuccessful attempt to streamline the process for approving training-related contracts. To date, the OIM has not seen any documentation relating to this plan. Even still, the Territory has an
Footnote continued from previous page
as IAB. The OIM is hopeful that with further implementation of the checklist, all three offices, including the Training Division, will begin to regularly receive copies of the RRRs. 58 The impasse between the Department and the Property and Procurement Divisions has stalled training on six issued policies, including the: (i) Data Input Plan; (ii) OffDuty Official Action Policy; (iii) Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy; (iv) Investigating Misconduct and Citizens Complaints Policy; (v) Vehicle Pursuit Policy; and (vi) Field Training Officer and Evaluation Program. On August 18, the Chief of St. Thomas and working group leader sent a memorandum to the Training Director requesting that trainings on the complaint-related policies occur as soon as possible. While the VIPD has identified the Policy Consultant to instruct the training on the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints, the Training Division has yet to set a date.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 65 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | 35
obligation under ¶ 14 of the Consent Decree to ensure that the VIPD has adequate resources to enable it to attain compliance. Since the VIPD does not have the internal capacity to conduct these Consent Decree related training programs, some resolution must occur immediately so that the VIPD can secure these outside vendors and provide the training required by the Consent Decree. The VIPD must ultimately assemble a core group of VIPD personnel who can provide adequate training and in turn lessen the VIPD‘s reliance on outside vendors.
These delays demonstrate that the Training Division and Attorney General‘s Office need to build a stronger working relationship. The OIM has repeatedly recommended that the Training Division have an attorney liaison at the Attorney General‘s Office because many training materials have law-related content that should be reviewed and approved by a qualified attorney. Furthermore, the Department must ensure that all law-related training is delivered by an attorney. During the last quarter, the VIPD reported that the Training Director began meeting with an attorney in the Attorney General‘s Office in St. Croix. The Training Director must continue to do so and establish a similar working relationship with an attorney in the Attorney General‘s Office in St. Thomas.
As we have repeatedly stressed, the Training Division should develop training programs for policies in advance of the Department issuing the policies. To facilitate that process, the Training Division should maintain regular contact with the Committee and working groups. To the extent that it has not already done so, the Training Division should also share issued policies with the outside vendors that it is intending to contract with prior to the training program so the vendor can tailor the programs accordingly.
Nevertheless, the Training Division did conduct some training programs for VIPD personnel on both Districts during the Third Quarter. For example, the Training Division held mandatory in-service training for Officers and Supervisors on specified dates from July 12 through September 1. This program included instruction on: Report Writing; Domestic Violence; Constitutional Law updates; TASER Refresher and Policy Review; Expandable Baton Refresher and Policy Review; Police Rules and Procedures; Defensive Tactics; O.C. Refresher and Policy Review; Stress Management for Law Enforcement; Drug Free Workplace and Sexual Harassment; and Firearm Training on handguns and shotguns. The OIM was pleased to review a July 14 memorandum from the Chief of the St. Thomas District highlighting that this training was mandatory.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 66 of 94
36 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Additionally, the Training Division recently disseminated a training schedule through February 2012. Upcoming tentative training programs include: Basic & Advanced Tactical; Tactical Marine; Defensive Tactics train-the-trainer certification; FTO train-the-trainer certification; inservice FTO; basic and advanced SWAT; expandable baton train-the-train certification; O.C. Spray train-the-trainer certification; Spike Strip trainthe-trainer certification; Acceptance of Citizen Complaints; and Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints. Notably, that schedule does not include training programs relating to a number of recently issued policies, including, as mentioned above, the Data Input Plan; Off-Duty Official Action Policy; and Vehicle Pursuit Policy.59
The train-the-trainer instructor programs concerning the Spike Strip Policy, O.C. Spray and Expandable Baton programs are crucial because the VIPD must develop a cadre of VIPD personnel who can provide adequate training rather than the VIPD having to continually rely upon outside vendors (given the expense and procurement issues). In addition, the OIM views the train-the-trainer FTO program as critical. Based on OIM monitoring, the current FTOs lack adequate training beyond how to fill out basic paperwork relating to their trainees. The Chief of St. Thomas has also requested that the Training Division promptly hold a training program for officers selected as potential FTOs.
With respect to the Field Training Officer (―FTO‖) Program, this quarter the VIPD finalized the Field Training and Evaluation Program Policy. The OIM received a list of proposed Officers to participate in the 2011 FTO program (with their IAB historical allegation and disciplinary action records) for both Districts. The OIM is concerned the VIPD has proposed some Officers with questionable discipline histories. For example, one of the proposed FTOs had 9 sustained charges out of the 27 complaints filed against him; another proposed FTO, an Officer with less than 4 years experience, had 2 sustained charges of the 4 complaints filed against him. Also, while the VIPD has identified potential FTOs based upon Commander recommendations, these Officers have yet to receive the in-service training to be certified as FTOs.60 Due
59 The schedule includes training related to the Investigating and Review of Use of Force Policy by the Policy Consultant. The VIPD cannot hold this training until it finalizes the policy. The VIPD must also make preparations to train on the Canine Policy once it revised and receives DOJ approval.
60 The Training Division has only briefed them during the last quarter on June 2 about the FTO program and the various forms FTOs must complete.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 67 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | 37
to a lack of adequate certified FTOs, the OIM understands that these Officers are nonetheless being used as FTOs on both Districts.61
As requested in the last quarterly report, the OIM also received a list of the Officers on both Districts that have completed the FTO inservice training in 2008. The OIM understands that due to reassignment, among other reasons, the Department is not currently using all of these Officers as FTOs. To that end, the OIM seeks more general information about how FTOs are selected, including the minimum qualifications that FTOs must have (e.g., years of service, above average performance evaluations) and what actions will disqualify them from serving (e.g., sick roll abuse, citizen allegations, traffic accidents). We also seek additional information about how FTOs are trained and reiterate our requests for copies of any lesson plans or other materials that were used to train the current FTOs.
The Training Director has provided written notice to the Police Commissioner‘s Office and Chiefs‘ Offices about the Officers and Supervisors in both Districts with unexcused absences from the forcerelated and complaint process trainings conducted in March, April and June. The Training Director also rescheduled these ―no shows‖ for retraining. Similarly, the Training Director has forwarded to the Police Commissioner‘s Office and Chiefs‘ Offices the names of the Officers and Supervisors in both Districts who had unexcused absences from the inservice training programs held in August and early September.62 Given
61 In a memorandum dated August 3 from a Commander on St. Thomas via the Deputy Chief of St. Thomas to the Chief of St. Thomas, the Commander expressed, among other things, the concern that Officers had not been certified, but nonetheless had been delegated the responsibility for evaluating probationary Officers. Subsequently, on August 26, the Chief of St. Thomas sent a memorandum to the Director of Training requesting training as soon as possible. On September 12, the Director of Training wrote to the Acting Commissioner identifying the trainthe-trainer FTO program to be one of those pending due to contract approval.
62 The OIM learned that the Training Division, consistent with the recently issued Firearms Policy, relieved two sworn personnel in the St. Croix District and one sworn personnel in the St. Thomas/St. John District of their assigned firearms because they failed to qualify during the in-service training. The Division provides personnel with three attempts at qualifying. The OIM also learned that other VIPD personnel did not support the Training Director for taking this remedial action. The OIM is alarmed that anyone in the Department would deem it acceptable to allow personnel who failed to qualify to carry a firearm to remain with a firearm. The Training Director‘s actions are in-line with policy and demonstrate leadership. Since relieving these personnel of their weapons, the Training Division has returned them to the personnel after their successful completion of remedial firearms training and their qualification with their assigned firearm.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 68 of 94
38 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
the number of Supervisors and Officers who failed to attend this inservice training, the Training Director tentatively scheduled an additional two weeks of training during the Fourth Quarter. The OIM is interested in receiving additional documentation about these ―no shows,‖ including any communications from the Chiefs and Deputies to these Officers and/or their Supervisors, and any potential disciplinary actions meted out to them by the Department for their noncompliance. The OIM also would like documentation about the retraining held in the Fourth Quarter, including any ―no shows‖ for that program.
The Training Division has made substantial strides documenting various aspects of its training program in recent quarters. During the last quarter, the VIPD reported that the Director of Training began working with MIS and an outside vendor to develop a database of training records; IAPro does not have a training component. While the database is being developed, the Training Division continues to update its color-coded file system in both Districts. Specifically, the Training Division has continued to update the training file of each Officer and Supervisor after each has completed in-service training. In upcoming quarters, the OIM will closely inspect these files to ensure that the Training Divisions does indeed maintain individual training records for each VIPD personnel indicating each training program that they have attended. The OIM will also review whether the curricula/lesson plans associated with all training programs that the Division has conducted have signatures indicating their approval by the Training Director and, where appropriate, an attorney.
Last, during the quarter, the OIM reviewed written documentation from the Training Division concerning its efforts to disseminate to VIPD sworn personnel, as well as civilian personnel (e.g., Property & Procurement) the Department‘s issued policies. The VIPD is working to institute a more cost-effective and efficient method to disseminate policies going forward.
2. Recommendations
The VIPD must obtain approval for all outstanding contracts with training vendors expeditiously. The new Commissioner, Attorney General and/or Governor‘s Office must resolve any issues that prevent the Training Division from finalizing contracts with the vendors that it has identified. Until these training programs are held, the Department will be unable to continue to work towards meeting its mandate to implement policies by, among other things, training VIPD personnel on them.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 69 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | 39
Since the OIM has received a schedule of the Training Division‘s upcoming programs through February 2012, the OIM is hopeful that the VIPD is making plans to vet programs before they are held to avoid the need to conduct retraining (because many upcoming programs will be led by outside vendors, the OIM expects the VIPD to identify a process for exercising oversight of these programs). The OIM continues to emphasize the importance of vetting training programs prior to their implementation. Without exception, every lesson plan should be vetted by Training Division personnel and a cross section (of ranks) of high performing VIPD personnel with relevant expertise. This vetting is part of the training infrastructure that the OIM has encouraged the VIPD to build.
The Training Division must involve the Complaint Process working group in the implementation of the training programs for the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct & Citizens Complaints Policy; the OIM is hopeful that the Training Division will schedule these training programs for the Fourth Quarter. Likewise, the Training Division must work more closely with the Use of Force working group to implement all outstanding force-related training programs, including but not limited to those concerning the Vehicle Pursuit Policy, Off-Duty Official Action Policy, Spike Strip Policy (instructor training), O.C. Spray Policy (instructor training) and Field Training Evaluation Program. The OIM has repeatedly implored the Training Division to remain in close contact with each of the working groups to develop training programs for policies/directives that are still under development or that the Department has recently issued (e.g., Investigating and Review of Use of Force).
With regard to Officers and Supervisors who have unexcused absences from the training programs, the OIM recommends that the Director send a letter to each Officer or Supervisors‘ Chief or Deputy Chief, copying the Police Commissioner and IAB, requesting that an investigation be conducted to determine why the Officer or Supervisor failed to attend the training. If the investigation determines that there is no reasonable cause for the Officer or Supervisor to have missed the training, the Chief or Deputy Chief should ensure that the Officer or Supervisor is disciplined. The Director should request that the Chief or Deputy Chief respond by a date certain. The Chief or Deputy Chief should also direct the Officer or Supervisor to contact the Training Division to schedule a make-up training session by a date certain. The Chief or Deputy Chief should be held accountable for the timeliness and completeness of the investigation and any subsequent failure of the Officer or Supervisor to attend the make-up training session.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 70 of 94
40 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
With regard to future training programs, the OIM also recommends that the Training Director work with the Chiefs and Deputies to schedule ―units‖ to attend training programs together to the extent that they are not already doing so. The OIM believes that this will promote team building and consistency of practice among units. Of course, all Commanders, Bureau, Unit and Section Heads will have to make the necessary adjustments to schedules to ensure sufficient coverage in their designated areas. Also, the Training Division must develop a Roll Call/Commanders call procedure for effectively informing Officers and Supervisors of relevant changes in policies and procedures.
Despite making significant progress during the Third Quarter, the VIPD has not yet substantially complied with ¶¶ 73-81 of the Consent Decree. In addition to holding training programs for a number of recently issued policies, the Training Division must work closely with the Use of Force, Complaint Process, and Management & Supervision working groups to advance policies that are in the pipeline and develop related training programs. Moreover, the Training Division must carefully vet training programs to avoid the need to conduct retraining.
VI. Monitoring, Reporting, and Implementation (CD ¶¶ 82-102)
1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations
On October 8, the VIPD submitted its Tenth Quarterly Status Report to the DOJ and OIM. The Tenth Quarterly Status Report reflects the most comprehensive description of the VIPD‘s efforts to move towards substantial compliance that the OIM has reviewed to date. The OIM continues to be impressed by the efforts of the Compliance Coordinator to not only collect updates from VIPD personnel, who are responsible for areas of Consent Decree compliance, to include in the VIPD status reports, but also to disseminate information from the VIPD to the OIM regularly. We reiterate that it is in the VIPD‘s interest to share as much information with the OIM as possible so that we can accurately, fairly and comprehensively report on all of the VIPD‘s efforts in addition to those that we become aware of through our own monitoring.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 71 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | 41
2. Status of Substantial Compliance
Before the Consent Decree expires on March 23, 2014, the VIPD must substantially comply with each Consent Decree provision and remain in compliance for two-years.63 Almost all of the dates by which the VIPD must substantially comply have already passed without VIPD achieving compliance. Under the Consent Decree Timetable, the VIPD should have substantially complied with ¶¶ 32-58, 70, and 72 by May 31, ¶¶ 60, 61, and 73-81 by June 30, and ¶¶ 49, 59, 63-66 by September 15. Instead, they have only complied with ¶¶ 82-86, 88 and 98. Simply put, the VIPD is in grave danger of failing to comply with the Consent Decree before it expires.
Specifically, at the end of the Third Quarter of 2011, the VIPD has only complied with the following Consent Decree provisions (a chart summarizing the VIPD‘s progress towards substantial compliance is at the end of this Executive Summary):
In January 2010, the Parties to the Consent Decree selected the Monitor (CD ¶¶ 82-86);
Effective June 2009, the Police Commissioner appointed a Compliance Coordinator to serve as a liaison between the Parties to the Consent Decree and the Monitor (CD ¶ 88); and
Beginning in June 2009, the VIPD began issuing quarterly status reports delineating the steps taken by the VIPD to comply with the Consent Decree (CD ¶ 98).
As mentioned above, although the VIPD has already issued ten force-related policies, it has not fully implemented them as required by the Consent Decree.64 So, for example, while the VIPD has issued the Firearms Policy pursuant to ¶ 39, the VIPD has provided corresponding training to many, but not all, Officers. Also, with regard to ¶ 40, although the VIPD has issued the Off-Duty Official Action Policy, the VIPD, among other things, has not trained any Officers on that policy. In addition, we understand that the Department is still developing or close
63 CD ¶ 103. 64 As defined in the Consent Decree, ―implement‖ refers to the ―development or putting
into place of a policy or procedure, including the appropriate training of personnel.‖ CD ¶ 30.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 72 of 94
42 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
to finalizing several additional force-related policies.65 As such, the Department has not yet complied with ¶¶ 31-41, which requires the VIPD to review, revise, and implement its force-related policies.
Similarly, the OIM has reported that the VIPD‘s citizen complaint process is well underway and the OIM has been pleased to find complaint-related materials at many District Zones and substations and in vehicles (potentially satisfying ¶ 43 in the near future). However, regarding ¶¶ 42-45, the Department has yet to adequately train Department personnel on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy which the Department issued during the Third Quarter. As mentioned above, the VIPD must translate required complaint materials into appropriate languages (e.g., Spanish, French, French Patois). The Department must also demonstrate, which it has yet to do, that the complaint process is functioning properly (e.g., personnel provide potential complainants with the appropriate information, investigate the complaints and provide complainants with periodic updates and the disposition of their complaints) in order to substantially comply with ¶¶ 42-58.
With regard to the management and supervision provisions of the Consent Decree, ¶¶ 59-72, the VIPD has only recently brought its RMS on-line and is still working to resolve some technical difficulties. The VIPD also must issue and train on several RMS-related policies including the RMS Protocol, Blue Team Protocol and Data Input Plan and ensure, thereafter, that VIPD personnel are following these protocols and plans in practice in order to substantially comply with ¶¶ 59-72.
In a long overdue attempt to address the deadlines, on September 29, 2011, the VIPD sent a letter to the DOJ promising to provide ―a detailed explanation with proposed completion dates.‖ In the VIPD‘s subsequent letter dated October 14, it omitted any proposed completion dates, and represented that a significant number of Consent Decree provisions have been satisfied. To the contrary, as explained above, VIPD has not satisfied most – if not all – of the provisions it claims, because from the OIM‘s perspective, the VIPD misguidedly focuses on the fact that it issued a number of policies and provided only some
65 While the VIPD may develop additional force-related policies in the future (beyond those that are currently under development or required by the Consent Decree) after the OIM has determined that the VIPD has substantially complied with ¶ 31, the subsequent issuance of those policies will not restart the two-year substantial compliance period.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 73 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | 43
corresponding training (with varying levels of success) to many (but not all) VIPD personnel. But, as we have repeatedly stated, the Consent Decree requires that the VIPD do more. For example, the VIPD must: (1) provide adequate training for every issued policy; (2) ensure that personnel who are required to attend training programs do so and become proficient in the relevant policies; (3) enforce compliance with those policies (including disciplining offenders); and (4) regularly assess and rectify any deficiencies in order to substantially comply with the Consent Decree.
During the Third Quarter, the OIM drafted the Substantial Compliance Thresholds Chart (―Chart‖) to identify the criteria that it will use to evaluate the VIPD‘s compliance with the Consent Decree. In the next quarter, after receiving comment from the VIPD and DOJ, the OIM will finalize the Chart and begin to use it to evaluate the Department‘s compliance. We expect that the VIPD will institute an audit division that will use the Chart to conduct its own internal compliance audits during the life of the Consent Decree and beyond.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 74 of 94
44 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Conclusion
The Department is in clear danger of not achieving and maintaining substantial compliance for the required two-year time period before the Consent Decree expires on March 23, 2014. While time is quickly passing, the OIM believes that it is still possible for the Department to satisfy most of its obligations under the Consent Decree within the prescribed time period. To do so, however, the Department (and its executive leadership team in particular) must devote even more energy, time, and resources to satisfying the Consent Decree. Despite entering into the Consent Decree more than two-and-a-half years ago, many within the VIPD (including some senior personnel) still view the Department‘s compliance efforts as being at odds with its ―core‖ police functions. Such thinking has hampered the Department‘s Consent Decree compliance efforts for too long. Far from being an obstacle, the Consent Decree provides the VIPD with a roadmap for improving the VIPD‘s operations, including its capacity to provide first-rate police services. In addition, as the VIPD begins to comply with the Consent Decree and hold personnel accountable for misconduct, the Department‘s relationship with the community will improve, facilitating greater cooperation and better policing.
To satisfy the Consent Decree before its expiration, the VIPD‘s executive leadership team and the working group leaders must improve their level of communication. Unfortunately, over the last three quarters, it has become clear that many VIPD personnel are working on the Consent Decree in isolation. With few exceptions, the working groups have not been working collaboratively like they should. For example, the Training working group should take an active part in each of the other working groups to develop relevant training programs. Similarly, the Management and Supervision and Complaint Process working groups must work more closely with IAB. To that end, each working group leader should keep the other working group leaders (and other relevant personnel) apprised of the work of their respective working group.
The OIM commends the VIPD on issuing a significant number of force-related policies and having held adequate training programs on some of them, though many more policies require training. As mentioned above, the Training Division failed to organize a number of training programs relating to the Consent Decree this quarter because it relies on outside vendors to conduct these trainings and could not secure contracts for them. As a long-term goal, the VIPD must become less dependent on outside training vendors and develop an internal capacity

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 75 of 94

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 76 of 94 46 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Principal Contributors Leah C. Aden, Esq. Ann Marie Doherty, Esq. Charles A. Gruber Elizabeth P. Kozlowski, Esq. Dennis E. Nowicki Joshua D. Roth, Esq. Robert L. Stewart

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 77 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | i
Appendix A Summary of Consent Decree Requirements
Below is a summary of the requirements imposed by each substantive section of the Consent Decree. Because these summaries of the substantive requirements significantly lengthen our reports, we include them here in this Appendix to provide the reader with context concerning the VIPD‘s progress in implementing the broad range of reforms required under each section of the Consent Decree.
I. Use of Force Policies (CD ¶ 31)
A. Requirements
Under paragraph 31 of the Consent Decree, the VIPD is required to review and revise its use of force policies as necessary to:
Define terms clearly, including establishing a definition of force that is consistent with the definition of force under the Consent Decree;1
Incorporate a use of force model that teaches officers to use, as appropriate, strategies such as disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, or calling in specialized units to assist with a situation;
Advise VIPD officers that, whenever possible, individuals should be allowed to submit voluntarily to arrest before force is used;
Reinforce that the use of excessive force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and potential civil liability;
Ensure that sufficient less lethal force alternatives are available to all VIPD officers; and,
Explicitly prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized.2
1 Under the Consent Decree, ―[t]he term ‗force‘ means any physical coercion used to effect, influence or persuade an individual to comply with an order from an officer. The term shall not include ordinary, unresisted handcuffing. The term shall include the use of chemical irritant and the deployment of a canine and/or pointing a firearm at or in the direction of a human being.‖ CD ¶ 21.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 78 of 94
ii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
This provision requires that the VIPD implement its revised use of force policies immediately after the DOJ has reviewed and approved finalized versions of the policies.
II. Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force (CD ¶¶ 32-41)
A. General Use of Force Events (CD ¶¶ 32-38)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires that the VIPD document in writing all uses of force and develop a use of force reporting form on which officers are required to record each and every type of force used in an incident. The use of force reports must include: (1) a narrative description, prepared by a supervisor, of the events preceding the use of force; (2) a narrative description, prepared by the involved officer, of the event relating to the use of force incident; and, (3) audiotaped statements, as appropriate, from those officers.3
The Consent Decree requires officers to notify their supervisors following any use of force or allegation of excessive force. The supervisor must respond to the scene, examine the person who was subjected to the use of force for injury, interview him or her to determine the extent of any injuries, and ensure that the person receives medical attention, if necessary.
A supervisor must conduct a review and evaluation of each use of force by a VIPD officer. The Consent Decree contains the following requirements relating to these evaluations of uses of force:
The supervisor must prepare a detailed narrative description of the incident that includes all of the facts and circumstances relevant to determining whether or not the involved officers‘ conduct was justified.
Footnote continued from previous page 2 The Consent Decree defines ―deadly force‖ as ―any use of force likely to cause death
or serious physical injury, including, but not limited to, the discharge of a firearm.‖ CD ¶ 20. 3 The Consent Decree defines ―supervisor‖ as a ―sworn VIPD employee at the rank of corporal or above (or anyone acting in those capacities) and non-sworn personnel with oversight responsibility for other officers.‖ CD ¶ 27.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 79 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | iii
The supervisor must evaluate the grounds for the use of force and determine whether the involved officers‘ actions were consistent with VIPD policy.
To filter out potential bias, reviews of use of force incidents may not be conducted by any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized action that led to a use of force or allegation of excessive force.
Supervisors are required to interview all witnesses of a use of force, as well as all witnesses of any incident in which an injury results from a use of force. Supervisors must ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident, subject to any limitations imposed by any applicable provision of collective bargaining agreements or law.
Supervisors are not permitted to ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that might, for example, suggest legal justifications for the officers‘ conduct.
Supervisors must consider all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence, as appropriate. Supervisors are required to make reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between statements provided by witnesses and make determinations with respect to the credibility of witnesses when feasible. VIPD is required to train all of its supervisors on methods and factors for evaluating the credibility of a witness.
Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that use of force reports identify every officer who was involved in a use of force incident or was on the scene when the incident occurred. Supervisors must ensure that use of force reports reflect whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided to an injured person, and, if not, whether the person refused medical treatment. Supervisors also must ensure that use of force reports include contemporaneous photographs or video of all injuries resulting from the underlying incident. These images must be taken both before and after any treatment of the injuries, including the cleansing of wounds.
Supervisors are required to evaluate the performance of all officers under their command who use force or were involved in

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 80 of 94
iv| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
an incident that resulted in a subject being injured due to a use of force by an officer.
Finally, the Consent Decree requires a Deputy Chief to review and evaluate every use of force performance review prepared by a VIPD supervisor. The Deputy Chief‘s review must include the identification of any deficiencies in the supervisors‘ reviews and must require supervisors to correct any such deficiencies. The Consent Decree requires the Department to hold supervisors accountable for the quality of their use of force reviews, including subjecting a supervisor to appropriate corrective or disciplinary action in cases where the supervisor failed to conduct a timely and thorough review, or failed to recommend or implement appropriate corrective action with respect to a subject officer.
VIPD also must investigate all critical firearm discharges.4 These reviews must account for all shots fired and the locations of all officers who discharged their weapons. In connection with the investigation of all critical firearm discharges, VIPD is required to conduct, as appropriate, ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue and bullet trajectory tests.
B. Specific Force Policies (CD ¶¶ 39-41)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop a Use of Firearms Policy that is consistent with applicable law and current professional standards. This policy must:
Prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition and inform officers that any such use may subject them to disciplinary action;
Establish a single, uniform system for reporting all firearm discharges;
Prohibit officers from obtaining service ammunition from any source other than official VIPD channels;
4 The Consent Decree defines the term ―critical firearm discharge‖ as ―each discharge of a firearm by a VIPD officer with the exception of range and training discharges and discharges at animals.‖ CD ¶ 22.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 81 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | v
Specify the number of rounds VIPD officers are authorized to carry; and,
Require that all discharges of firearms by officers, including unintentional discharges, whether on duty or off-duty at the time of the discharge, are reported and investigated.
The VIPD also must develop a revised policy regarding officers‘ offduty conduct that:
Provides that, absent exigent circumstances, off-duty officers must notify VIPD or the relevant local law enforcement agency before taking police action; and
Requires that an officer who responds to an incident while offduty must submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests if it appears that the officer had consumed alcohol or was otherwise impaired at the time of the incident.
Finally, the VIPD is required to implement a policy that provides for an intermediate force device that falls between the use of chemical spray and the use of a firearm on the use of force continuum. This intermediate force device must be one that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The VIPD must incorporate the use of this intermediate force device into its use of force continuum and train officers in the device‘s use on an annual basis.
III. Citizen Complaint Process (CD ¶¶ 42-58)
A. Public Information (CD ¶¶ 42-43) & Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints (CD ¶¶ 44-45)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop and implement a program to inform members of the public that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any VIPD officer. The Consent Decree contains the following requirements with respect to this public information program:
VIPD must develop and distribute complaint forms, fact sheets, informational posters, and public service announcements that describe its citizen complaint process.
VIPD must make complaint forms and informational materials available at government facilities, including VIPD stations,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 82 of 94
vi| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
substations, mobile substations, and libraries. These forms and materials also must be available on the Internet and, upon request, with community groups and at community centers.
Each VIPD station, substation, and mobile substation must permanently post a placard that describes the complaint process and includes relevant contact information, including telephone numbers. These placards must be displayed in English, Spanish, and, where necessary in light of the local community, in French or French Patois.
VIPD officers are required to carry English, Spanish, French, and French Patois5 versions of complaint forms and informational brochures in their vehicles at all times while on duty.
If a citizen objects to an officer‘s conduct, the officer is required to inform the citizen of his or her right to make a complaint.
Officers are prohibited from discouraging any person from making a complaint concerning an officer‘s conduct.
The Consent Decree imposes the following requirements relating to the availability of means by which members of the public may lodge complaints against VIPD officers and the tracking of such complaints:
VIPD must be able to receive complaints filed in writing or orally, in person or by mail, and by telephone (or TDD), facsimile, or electronic mail.
The duty officer at the front desk of each District station shall be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints. At the intake stage, an officer taking a complaint is permitted to describe facts that relate to a complainant‘s demeanor and physical conditions but may not express
5 The OIM notes that paragraph 43 of the Consent Decree does not expressly require VIPD officers to carry French language complaint forms and informational brochures in addition to French Patois. However, in light of the third sentence in paragraph 43 (which requires French language placards describing the complaint process), the OIM believes that this was an inadvertent omission. For future printings of brochures and other similar promotional information, the OIM suggests that the VIPD create versions in English, Spanish, French, and French Patois to satisfy the intent of the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 83 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | vii
opinions regarding the complainant‘s mental competency or veracity.
Upon receipt, VIPD is required to assign each complaint a unique identifier number, which must be provided to the complainant.
VIPD must track each complaint according to the type of misconduct alleged in the complaint – e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, and improper search.
Copies of all allegations of misconduct against a VIPD officer that are filed with the Zone Commands shall be referred to the IAB within five business days.
B. Investigation of Complaints (CD ¶¶ 46-58)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree establishes numerous specific requirements relating to the investigation of complaints against VIPD officers, including the following:
Complaints must be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. The VIPD is required to develop and implement appropriate training regarding application of the preponderance of the evidence standard in internal investigations of allegations of officer misconduct.
VIPD must explicitly prohibit an officer from being involved in the investigation of a complaint or incident if the officer used force during the underlying incident, was involved in conduct that led to the injury of a person during the incident, or authorized the conduct that led to the reported incident.
VIPD must investigate every citizen complaint and the resolution of each complaint shall be documented in writing.
VIPD must develop a clear policy and procedure regarding the intake of complaints, including anonymous and confidential complaints, against VIPD officers.
The Department must implement a centralized system for numbering and tracking all complaints.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 84 of 94
viii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
IAB is responsible for determining whether each individual investigation of a complaint will be assigned to a Zone, retained by IAB, or referred for possible criminal investigation.
If IAB refers a complaint to one of the Zones for investigation, the Zone must immediately forward to IAB copies of all documents, findings, and recommendations so that IAB is able to track and monitor the investigation.
The Police Commissioner must be notified of all complaints alleging excessive force or violation of a person‘s Constitutional rights within twenty-four hours of VIPD‘s receipt of the complaint.
The VIPD also is required to develop a single policy governing the investigation of misconduct complaints, regardless of whether the investigation of such complaints is conducted by IAB or a Zone command. This policy must:
Provide guidance concerning factors for investigators to consider in evaluating the credibility of the complainant and other witnesses, examining and interrogating accused officers and other witnesses, identifying potential misconduct that is not specifically referred to in the complaint, and applying the preponderance of the evidence standard. VIPD also must train all officers who perform internal investigations on these issues.
Require that VIPD investigators ensure that all officers present at the scene of the underlying incident provide a statement and that all interviews be recorded, as appropriate, on audio or video.
Require that investigation findings include conclusions regarding whether:
 The police action was in compliance with policy, training, and legal standards, regardless of whether the complainant suffered harm;
 The incident involved misconduct by any officer;
 The use of different tactics could have, or should have, been employed;

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 85 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | ix
 The underlying incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling, or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and,
 The incident suggests that VIPD should revise its policy, training, or tactics.
Establish that each allegation investigated must be resolved by a finding of either ―unfounded,‖ ―sustained,‖ ―not sustained,‖ or ―exonerated.‖6
Provide guidance to all investigators regarding procedures for handling allegations of potential criminal misconduct, including the referral of such allegations to the Virgin Islands Attorney General‘s Office or other appropriate agency for possible criminal prosecution. The policy must establish the entity or individual responsible for making the determination as to whether a matter should be investigated criminally. The policy also must require the completion of VIPD‘s administrative investigations of potentially criminal misconduct, regardless of the initiation or outcome of any criminal proceedings.
Require that all relevant police activity, including each use of force, be investigated, even if the activity or force was not specifically complained about.
Require that investigations evaluate any searches or seizures that occurred during the underlying incident.
Prohibit investigators from closing an investigation solely because a complaint is withdrawn, the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of an injury, or the complainant will not provide additional statements or written statements. The policy shall require that, under such circumstances, investigators must continue the investigation as necessary to determine whether the allegations
6 Under the Consent Decree, a finding of ―unfounded‖ means that there are insufficient facts establishing that the alleged incident actually occurred. A finding of ―sustained‖ means that there is sufficient evidence to determine that the alleged incident occurred and that the officer‘s actions were improper. A finding of ―not sustained‖ means that there is insufficient evidence that the alleged misconduct occurred. Finally, a finding of ―exonerated‖ means that the alleged conduct occurred but that the conduct did not violate VIPD policies, procedures, or training. Each of these findings must be based on a preponderance of the evidence. CD ¶ 57.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 86 of 94
x| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
can be resolved based on available information, evidence, and investigative techniques.
Prohibit investigators from considering the fact that a complainant pleaded guilty to, or was found guilty of, an offense as evidence of whether or not an officer used a type of force or as a justification for the investigator to close the investigation.
The VIPD must keep complainants periodically informed of the status of the investigation of their complaints. Upon the completion of each investigation, the VIPD must notify the complainant of the outcome of the investigation, including an appropriate statement regarding whether any disciplinary action or non-disciplinary corrective action was taken against any officer.
Finally, the Consent Decree requires that unit commanders evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command in order to identify potential problems or training needs. Unit commanders must report any such issues to the appropriate VIPD entity in the form of a recommendation that appropriate action in response to the identified issues be taken.
IV. Management and Supervision (CD ¶¶ 59-72)
A. Risk Management System (CD ¶¶ 59-68)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop and implement a Risk Management System (―RMS‖) that includes a computerized relational database or a paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for the supervision and management of VIPD personnel. The VIPD is required to use this data regularly to promote respect for civil rights and the employment of best police practices, manage risks, and potential liability for the Department, and evaluate the performance of VIPD officers and personnel across all ranks, units, and shifts.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 87 of 94 Office of the Independent Monitor | xi
The Consent Decree specifically requires the VIPD to collect and record the following information in its new RMS:
All uses of force;
Canine bite ratios;7
The number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers;
All injuries to prisoners;
All instances in which a VIPD officer used force and the subject was charged with resisting arrest, assault on a police officer, disorderly conduct, or obstruction of official or police business;
All critical firearm discharges, whether they took place on duty or off-duty;
All complaints against officers and the dispositions of those complaints;
All criminal proceedings, civil or administrative claims, and civil lawsuits resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel;
All vehicle pursuits;
All incidents involving the pointing of a firearm;
All disciplinary action taken against VIPD officers; and,
For incidents included in the database, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (e.g., the officer‘s name, badge number, shift, and supervisor) and member of the public (including race and ethnicity or national origin, if such information is available). The VIPD has the option either to purchase the RMS ―off the shelf‖ and customize the system to VIPD‘s requirements or to develop and
7 A canine bite ratio relates to apprehensions in which a canine unit participated. It is the ratio of incidents that involved the canine biting or otherwise coming into physical contact with the suspect compared to the overall number of such apprehensions in which a canine unit participated.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 88 of 94 xii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
implement the RMS pursuant to a contracting schedule set forth in the Consent Decree.8
Within 120 days of the effective date of the Consent Decree, the VIPD is required to prepare a protocol for the use of the RMS, which must be submitted to DOJ for review and approval. Any proposed modifications to the RMS protocol also must be submitted to DOJ for review and approval prior to the implementation of the proposed modifications. The RMS protocol must contain:
Provisions regarding data storage, data retrieval, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation, and audit;
Requirements that the automated system be able to analyze data according to the following criteria:
 The number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit;
 The average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and,
 The identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit.
Requirements relating to the generation of reports on a monthly basis that describe data contained in the RMS and identify patterns of conduct by individual officers and units;
Requirements that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors initiate appropriate interventions with individual officers, supervisors, and units based on activity and pattern assessments derived from the information contained in the RMS and that VIPD have the following intervention options available:
 Discussions among Deputy Chiefs, managers, supervisors, and officers;
 Counseling;
 Training; and,
8 See CD ¶ 66.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 89 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | xiii
 Documented action plans and strategies designed to modify officer conduct and activity.
A requirement that all interventions be documented in writing and entered into the RMS;
A provision that actions taken as a result of information derived from the RMS be based on all relevant and appropriate information – including the nature of the officer‘s assignment, crime trends, and crime problems – and not solely on the number or percentage of incidents in any category of information recorded in the RMS;
A requirement that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors promptly review the RMS records of all officers who transfer into their sections or units;
A requirement that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors be evaluated based on their ability to use RMS to enhance the effectiveness of their units and to reduce risks associated with officer conduct;
Provisions that IAB shall manage and administer the RMS and that IAB shall conduct quarterly audits of RMS to ensure compliance with the RMS protocol; and,
A requirement that appropriate managers conduct regular reviews, at least quarterly, of relevant RMS information to evaluate officer performance across the Virgin Islands. The purpose of such reviews is to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all VIPD units in order to identify significant patterns or series of incidents.
Within 120 days of the implementation of the RMS (or later with the agreement of DOJ), the VIPD must prepare, for the DOJ‘s review and approval, a Data Input Plan for including appropriate fields and values for new and historical data entered into the RMS.
The Data Input Plan must identify the data to be included in the RMS and the means for inputting the data, the specific fields of information to be included in the RMS, the historical time periods for which information will be inputted into the system, deadlines for inputting data, and the persons responsible for the input of data.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 90 of 94
xiv| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
The Data Input Plan must provide for the input of historical data that is up to date and complete into the RMS.
Once the RMS is operational, VIPD is required to enter information into the RMS in a timely, accurate, and complete manner and to maintain the RMS data in a secure and confidential manner.
The VIPD must maintain all personally identifiable information about individual officers that is contained in RMS for at least five years. The VIPD shall maintain information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis in the RMS indefinitely.
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD, even prior to the implementation of the RMS, to use existing databases and resources to the fullest extent possible to identify patterns of conduct by individual VIPD officers or groups of officers.
Following the initial implementation of the RMS, the VIPD may propose to add, subtract, or modify data tables and fields in the system, modify the types of documents entered into the RMS, or modify the standardized reports generated by the RMS. The VIPD is required to submit all such proposals to the DOJ for review and approval prior to implementing the proposed changes.
B. Oversight (CD ¶ 69)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop a protocol for conducting audits within the RMS, which must be followed by the VIPD personnel responsible for conducting audits. The protocol must establish a regular and fixed audit schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency and cover all VIPD Zones.
C. Discipline (CD ¶¶ 70-72)
1. Requirements
The VIPD is required to use a disciplinary matrix to take into account a subject officer‘s violations of various rules, as opposed to considering only repeated violations of the same rule. The VIPD must revise its disciplinary matrix to increase penalties for uses of excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, and dishonesty. The revised disciplinary matrix, which must be reviewed and approved by DOJ, is required to provide the VIPD with the discretion to impose any

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 91 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | xv
appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes an officer‘s misconduct reflects a lack of fitness for duty.
Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD is not permitted to take mere non-disciplinary corrective action against an officer in cases in which the revised disciplinary matrix indicates that the imposition of discipline is appropriate.
In cases in which disciplinary action is imposed on an officer, the VIPD is required to also consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action is necessary.
The VIPD‘s policy must identify clear time periods by which each step — from the receipt of a complaint through the imposition of discipline, if any — of the complaint adjudication process should be completed. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions of these deadlines must not be granted without the Police Commissioner‘s written approval and notice to the complainant. The policy must outline appropriate tolling provisions in the limited circumstances when an extension of these deadlines is necessary.
V. Training (CD ¶¶ 73-81)
A. Management Oversight (CD ¶¶ 73-77)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to provide training to its officers that is consistent with VIPD policy, the law, and proper police practices. Accordingly, the Consent Decree requires that:
VIPD review all use of force policies and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy;
 After completing its initial review of its force-related policies and training programs, VIPD must conduct regular reviews of its use of force training program at least semi-annually.
VIPD must ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by training instructors; and,
VIPD must make best efforts to train each work shift as a team in its use of force training.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 92 of 94
xvi| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Under the Consent Decree, VIPD‘s Director of Training, either directly or through his or her designees, is responsible for:
Ensuring the quality of all use of force training;
Developing and implementing use of force training curricula;
Selecting and training VIPD officer instructors;
Developing, implementing, approving, and overseeing all inservice training;
In conjunction with the District Chiefs, developing, implementing, approving, and overseeing a protocol for patrol division roll calls that is designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in law, policies, and procedures;
Establishing procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and,
Conducting regular training needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
The VIPD must keep complete and accurate records of force-related lesson plans and other training materials. These lesson plans must be maintained in a central, commonly accessible file and must be clearly dated.
The VIPD also must maintain training records for every VIPD officer. These records must reliably reflect the training that each officer has received. These records must include, at a minimum, the course description, duration, curriculum, and instructor for each training program in which each individual officer participated.
B. Curriculum (CD ¶¶ 78-81)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD‘s Training Director to review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure that the training program complies with applicable laws and VIPD policy. Moreover, the Training Director must consult with the Virgin Island Attorney General‘s Office concerning any additions, changes, or modifications regarding use of force training or policies to ensure compliance with applicable laws.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 93 of 94
Office of the Independent Monitor | xvii
The VIPD must provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on the use of force. This use of force training must address the following topics:
VIPD‘s use of force model;
Proper use of force decision-making;
VIPD‘s use of force reporting requirements;
The Fourth Amendment and other Constitutional requirements;
Examples of scenarios faced by VIPD officers that illustrate proper use of force decision-making;
De-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without using force;
Instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a suspect, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying an arrest may be appropriate responses to a situation even when the use of force would be legally justified;
Threat assessment; and,
Appropriate training regarding conflict management.
The VIPD also is required to provide training to all officers regarding the citizen complaint process. VIPD must develop a protocol, to be used by all VIPD officers, that sets forth an appropriate process for handling and responding to complaints by members of the public. VIPD must train officers regarding this protocol.
VIPD also is required to train all supervisors with respect to appropriate burdens of proof in conducting misconduct investigations. This training also must include a discussion of the factors investigators should consider in evaluating complainant or witness credibility.
Finally, the VIPD must provide training to all supervisors regarding leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices.
This training must be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of the officer‘s assumption of

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 31 Filed: 12/27/11 Page 94 of 94
xviii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
supervisory responsibilities. This training also must be made a part of the annual in-service training of supervisors.
VI. Monitoring, Reporting, and Implementation (CD ¶¶ 82-102)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to appoint a full-time Compliance Coordinator to serve as a liaison among the Virgin Islands Attorney General‘s Office, VIPD, the OIM, and DOJ. The Compliance Coordinator‘s responsibilities include:
Coordinating VIPD‘s compliance and implementation activity relating to the Consent Decree;
Facilitating the provision of data and documents and access to VIPD employees and materials to the Monitor and DOJ as needed;
Ensuring the proper maintenance of relevant documents and records relating to the Consent Decree; and,
Assisting the Police Commissioner and his designees in assigning compliance-related tasks to appropriate VIPD personnel.
In addition to fulfilling these functions, the VIPD must file with the Monitor and the Virgin Islands Attorney General‘s Office, with a copy to DOJ, quarterly status reports describing the steps taken during the reporting period to comply with each provision of the Consent Decree.
Finally, the Virgin Islands and the VIPD are required to implement the provisions of the Consent Decree ―as soon as reasonably practicable‖ and, in any event, no later than 150 days after the March 23, 2009 effective date of the Consent Decree.

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
- against -
THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.

3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM NOTICE OF FILING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Independent Monitor for the Virgin Islands

Police Department submits the attached First Quarterly Report of 2012 of the Independent

Monitor for the Virgin Islands Police Department pursuant to a Consent Decree entered into by

the parties in the above-captioned case and filed with this Court.

Dated: New York, New York July 10, 2012

FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP

By:

s/ Steven M. Witzel

William F. Johnson

Steven M. Witzel

One New York Plaza New York, New York 10004-1980 Tel.: (212) 859-8000 Fax: (212) 859-4000 william.johnson@friedfrank.com steven.witzel@friedfrank.com

Independent Monitor

8652163

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 1 of 70
First Quarterly Report of 2012 of the
Independent Monitor for the
Virgin Islands Police Department
William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel Independent Monitors
Office of the Independent Monitor Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
One New York Plaza New York, NY 10004
212.859.8000 http://www.policemonitor.org
June 28, 2012

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 2 of 70

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 3 of 70 Office of the Independent Monitor |
Independent Monitoring Team
Independent Monitors William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
Fried Frank Monitoring Team Elizabeth P. Kozlowski Joshua D. Roth
Police Practices Coordinator Chief Charles A. Gruber Elgin (Illinois) Police Department (retired)
Police Practices Experts Superintendent Ann Marie Doherty Boston (Massachusetts) Police Department (retired) Chief Dennis E. Nowicki Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Police Department (retired) Chief Robert L. Stewart Ormond Beach (Florida) Police Department (retired)

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 4 of 70

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 5 of 70 Office of the Independent Monitor |
Table of Contents Page
Executive Summary ............................................................................... 1 Deadlines for Substantial Compliance Under the Consent
Decree .......................................................................................... 6 Introduction........................................................................................... 9 Compliance Assessment ....................................................................... 12 I. Use of Force Policies (CD ¶ 31) & Specific Use of Force
Policies (CD ¶¶ 39-41)................................................................. 12 A. Status and Assessment ..................................................... 12 B. Recommendations ............................................................. 15 II. Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force (CD ¶¶ 32-38).................................................................... 17 A. Status and Assessment ..................................................... 17
1. Policies and Directives ............................................. 17 2. OIM Survey of Uses of Force..................................... 19 B. Recommendations ............................................................. 21 III. Citizen Complaint Process (CD ¶¶ 42-58) .................................... 22 A. Public Information (CD ¶¶ 42-43) & Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints (CD ¶¶ 44-45) .................. 22 1. Status and Assessment ............................................ 22 2. Recommendations.................................................... 24 B. Investigation of Complaints (CD ¶¶ 46-58) ......................... 25 1. Status and Assessment ............................................ 25 2. Recommendations.................................................... 27

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 6 of 70 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
IV. Management and Supervision (CD ¶¶ 59-72) .............................. 28 A. Risk Management System (CD ¶¶ 59-68)........................... 28 1. Status and Assessment ........................................... 28 2. Recommendations ................................................... 31 B. Oversight (CD ¶ 69)........................................................... 32 1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations ................................................... 32 C. Discipline (CD ¶¶ 70-72) ................................................... 33 1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations ................................................... 33
V. Training (CD ¶¶ 73-81)............................................................... 34 A. Management Oversight (CD ¶¶ 73-77) and Curriculum (CD ¶¶ 78-81) ................................................ 34 1. Status and Assessment ........................................... 34 2. Recommendations ................................................... 40
VI. Monitoring, Reporting, and Implementation (CD ¶¶ 82-102)........................................................................... 41 1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations ................................................... 41 2. Status of Substantial Compliance ............................ 42
Conclusion .......................................................................................... 44 Appendix A Summary of Consent Decree Requirements .......................... i

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 7 of 70
Office of the Independent Monitor | 1
Executive Summary
This is the First Quarterly Report of 2012 from the Office of the Independent Monitor (the ―OIM‖ or the ―Monitor‖) for the United States Virgin Islands Police Department (the ―VIPD‖ or the ―Department‖), covering the quarter ending on March 31, 2012.1
During the quarter, the OIM conducted three week-long monitoring trips to the United States Virgin Islands (the ―Territory‖). In addition to those monitoring trips, OIM representatives spent a significant amount of time reviewing and commenting on Consent Decree related materials (use of force investigatory files and draft policies), and providing technical assistance to VIPD personnel. The assessments contained in this Report are primarily based on the OIM‘s observations and the Department‘s quarterly Status Report, dated April 6, 2012 (―Status Report‖).
In the OIM‘s Fourth Quarterly Report for 2011, we stated that the VIPD will not satisfy most of its obligations under the Consent Decree before the Consent Decree expires on March 23, 2014. Notwithstanding that statement, the OIM affirmed its belief that ―with the right leadership and commitment, the department has the capacity to comply with the Consent Decree.‖ Unfortunately, the VIPD (with certain exceptions, including, among others, the Acting Chief of the St. Thomas District,2 the Director and Assistant Director of the Internal Affairs Bureau (―IAB‖), and the Compliance Coordinator) made little additional progress towards compliance during the First Quarter of 2012.
While the VIPD has made progress in certain areas, including policy development and creation of the citizen complaint process, its Status Report, as quoted below, highlights the significant amount of work that the VIPD must complete to achieve substantial compliance.
Training
The Department has not trained on critical force related policies, including the Firearms Policy and Off-Duty Official Action Policy, which were issued more than one year ago. Additionally, the VIPD is just
1 This Report references a limited number of events that occurred after March 31, 2012 to provide context for significant developments or efforts that the VIPD made outside of the quarter to satisfy its Consent Decree obligations.
2 The Police Commissioner appointed the Deputy Chief of St. John to serve as the Acting Chief of the St. Thomas District pending the retirement of Chief Rodney Querrard at the end of April 2012.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 8 of 70
2| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
starting to evaluate whether VIPD personnel are absorbing the information provided at Consent Decree related training.
 ―Training on the [Off-Duty Official Action Policy] is being coordinated by the training Bureau.‖ (Status Report Paragraph 40)
 ―. . . the Training Bureau plans to develop questions from various Force related policies to test Officers knowledge, skills and comprehension with regards to the force trainings conducted.‖ (Status Report Paragraph 74(g))
Use of Force
The Department has made great strides issuing twelve force related policies, but VIPD personnel are not adequately complying with many of those policies.
 ―. . . completed RRR Forms are not consistently being submitted to the Training Bureau for review as required. This was brought to the attention of the Police Chief and will be followed up to ensure that this requirement is consistently being complied with.‖ (Status Report Paragraph 41)
Complaint Process
The Department has made progress implementing a public information campaign about the complaint process. The Department has also issued the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy, but VIPD personnel are not adequately complying with those policies. As a result, the Department needs to provide additional training and should audit whether VIPD personnel are complying with the policies.
 ― . . . ongoing reviews and or evaluations of complaint files and Supervisors knowledge with respect to their competence level in application of the preponderance of evidence standard have not occurred with the frequency necessary to adequately determine ‗knowledge Base Command‘ of the standard.‖ (Status Report Paragraph 46)
 ―The Citizen Complaint Process Working Group and the Audit Team will be conducting inspections and Audits respectively to assess the extent to which the [complaint process policies] are being complied with.‖ (Status Report Paragraph 48)

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 9 of 70
Office of the Independent Monitor | 3
Management and Supervision
After extensive delays, the VIPD‘s risk management system (―RMS‖)—IAPro—is functional in both Districts. The RMS is not fully effective, however, because the VIPD has not finalized the RMS Protocol (which will dictate how the RMS functions). The Department also needs to finalize an important component of its disciplinary policy—the Disciplinary Matrix—which should make the Department‘s disciplinary process more uniform.
 ―The RMS policy submitted to USDOJ for review and approval was again returned with comments and without approval.‖ (Status Report Paragraph 63, 64, 66, 68)
 ―. . . more meetings will be held until the [Disciplinary] Matrix has been satisfactorily revised and ready to be resubmitted to USDOJ for review/Approval.‖ (Status Report Paragraph 70)
Over the past several quarters, the Consent Decree working groups have assumed much of the responsibility for satisfying the Consent Decree. The OIM commends the working groups for increasing their level of activity and improving their communication with the OIM during the First Quarter. Nevertheless, there is still substantial room for improvement. For example, the OIM encourages the working group leaders to become more directly involved in their working groups. Each working group must also continue to update its action plan and provide detailed bi-weekly reports describing progress made towards substantial compliance. The OIM continues to encourage the Police Commissioner to hold the working group leaders accountable for the progress of their respective working groups.
One of the biggest challenges facing the Department is adequately training VIPD personnel on the Department‘s policies. During the First Quarter, the Audit Team reported that 97% of the Department‘s sworn personnel had received training on the Use of Force Policy and the Reportable Use of Force Policy. While this number appears impressive, the Audit Team did not address the extent to which sworn personnel understand the training and are proficient on those policies. In order to ―implement‖ a policy under the Consent Decree (which is what the Consent Decree requires), the VIPD must: (1) provide adequate training (including follow-up Roll Call and Commanders Call training) to relevant personnel; (2) ensure that relevant personnel are proficient on each policy (immediately following the completion of training and on a periodic basis thereafter); and (3) monitor compliance with each policy. Until the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 10 of 70
4| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
VIPD undertakes these steps, it will not be in compliance with the Consent Decree.
The VIPD‘s limited internal training capacity also continues to impede its ability to provide adequate training because the Department relies on external vendors to provide training services. Because of fiscal restraints and the Territory‘s complex procurement procedures, the Department has little control over when training programs led by external vendors will take place. On the ―Upcoming Training and Tentative Training‖ schedule (dated March 6, 2012), over half of the training programs scheduled through June of 2013 are listed as ―tentative.‖ Moreover, at the end of the First Quarter, four contracts with training vendors were either under review by the Department of Property and Procurement (―Property and Procurement‖) or at Government House (the executive branch of the Territory) awaiting approval.3 The Department would save money and have much greater flexibility (in terms of scheduling and content) by improving and relying on internal training resources to a greater extent.
The Department‘s dearth of Supervisors also continues to undermine its ability to comply with the Consent Decree. While the OIM is encouraged that the VIPD promoted sixteen Supervisors during the First Quarter, only four of those promotions represent new Supervisors. The other twelve promotions account for existing Supervisors elevated to a higher rank. As we have repeatedly emphasized, Supervisors play a key role under the Consent Decree. Without adequate supervisory oversight, uses of force continue to be underreported, and use of force investigations are completed long after the thirty calendar days permitted by the Reportable Use of Force Policy.
Although a tremendous amount of work remains to be done, the OIM continues to believe that the Department has the capacity to comply with the Consent Decree. We encourage the Police Commissioner to hold every member of the Department (particularly the executive leadership team, including the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs) accountable for making progress on the Consent Decree. Finally, the Police Commissioner should take personal responsibility for the Department‘s compliance with any new deadlines that the Court sets. The failure of prior VIPD administrations to comply with the Court‘s deadlines sent the message
3 During the Second Quarter, the VIPD disclosed that all pending contracts had received approval. Accordingly, the latest training schedule that the OIM received from the VIPD, dated May 28, 2012, no longer listed these training programs as ―tentative.‖

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 11 of 70 Office of the Independent Monitor | 5
that the Consent Decree was not a high priority for the Department and its senior leadership.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 12 of 70 6| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

Deadlines for Substantial Compliance Under the Consent Decree
The substantial compliance deadlines refer to the dates established by the Consent Decree Timetable that the Virgin Islands, VIPD, and the Department of
Justice (the “DOJ”) jointly submitted to the Court on November 24, 2010.
In order to be released from the Consent Decree, the VIPD must substantially comply with each of the Consent Decree’s provisions, and remain in compliance
for two years before the Consent Decree expires on March 23, 2014.

CD

Description

Deadlines for Substantial Compliance Under the Consent Decree

Status of Compliance as of March 31, 2012
Noncompliance/ Substantial Compliance

31

Use of Force Policies:

Within 30 days of

Use of Force; Reportable DOJ final written

Use of Force; Vehicle

approval

Pursuit; O.C. Spray;

Impact Weapons; ECW;

Firearms; Spike Strip;

Canine; SRT/HNT; Sniper;

FTO; Reporting,

Investigation and Review

of Use of Force; Use of

Force Review Board; Post

Shooting Incident

Procedures; Officer

Involved Shooting

Investigation Procedures.

Noncompliance – The VIPD has issued many of the required force related policies, including the Use of Force Policy, Reportable Use of Force Policy, Firearms Policy, Vehicle Pursuit Policy, O.C. Spray Policy, Impact Weapons Policy, SRT/HNT Policy, Sniper Policy, and Spike Strip Policy, and the FTO Policy. The VIPD, however, has not implemented many policies because it has not trained on the Vehicle Pursuit Policy, Spike Strip Policy, SRT/HNT Policy, and Sniper Policy.4 In addition, the VIPD has not issued the Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy, Use of Force Review Board Policy, Post Shooting Incident Procedures, and Officer Involved Shooting Investigation Procedures policies.

4 As defined in the Consent Decree, ―implement‖ refers to the ―development or putting into place of a policy or procedure, including the appropriate training of personnel.‖ CD ¶ 30.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 13 of 70 Office of the Independent Monitor | 7

CD 32-38

Description
Evaluation, Documentation, & Review of Use of Force

Reportable Use of Force Policy

39

Evaluation,

Documentation, &

Review of Use of Force

Firearms Policy

40

Evaluation,

Documentation, &

Review of Use of Force

Off-Duty Official Action

41

Evaluation,

Documentation, &

Review of Use of Force

Intermediate Force Device(s)

42-45

Citizen Complaint Process
Public Information & Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints

46-58 Citizen Complaint

Deadlines for Substantial Compliance Under the Consent Decree
May 31, 2011

Status of Compliance as of March 31, 2012
Noncompliance/ Substantial Compliance
Noncompliance – While the VIPD issued the Reportable Use of Force Policy on March 30, 2011, it has not implemented the policy. In addition, the VIPD has not satisfied the Consent Decree requirement that it evaluate, document, and review all uses of force.

May 31, 2011

Noncompliance – While the VIPD issued the Firearms Policy on May 3, 2011, it has not implemented the policy.

May 31, 2011 May 31, 2011

Noncompliance – While the VIPD issued the Off-Duty Official Action Policy on March 30, 2011, it has not implemented the policy.
Noncompliance – While the VIPD issued the ECW Policy on March 30, 2011, it has not implemented the policy.

May 31, 2011 May 31, 2011, except

Noncompliance – While the VIPD issued the Acceptance of Citizens Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011 and has made complaint forms and informational materials available at appropriate government properties, it has not demonstrated that VIPD personnel are proficient in the policy, assessed if Officers are informing citizens of their right to make complaints, and resolved each complaint in writing.
Noncompliance – While the VIPD issued the Investigating

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 14 of 70 8| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

CD

Description

Process

Investigation of Complaints

Deadlines for Substantial Compliance Under the Consent Decree
September 15, 2011 for ¶ 49.

Status of Compliance as of March 31, 2012
Noncompliance/ Substantial Compliance
Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy, it has not implemented the policy.

59-68

Management and Supervision
Risk Management System
Blue Team Protocol
Behavioral Health Services Policy; Psychological Fitness for Duty Evaluation Policy; Officer Peer Support Policy

September 15, 2011, except June 30, 2011 for ¶¶ 60-61 & May 31, 2011 for ¶ 62; also ¶¶ 67-68 have no date.

Noncompliance

69

Management and

Supervision

Oversight

September 15, 2011 Noncompliance

70-72

Management and Supervision
Discipline

73-77 Training Management Oversight

78-81 Training Curriculum

May 31, 2011 June 30, 2011 June 30, 2011

Noncompliance Noncompliance Noncompliance

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 15 of 70
Office of the Independent Monitor | 9
Introduction
This is the First Quarterly Report of 2012 from the Office of the Independent Monitor (the ―OIM‖ or the ―Monitor‖) for the United States Virgin Islands Police Department (the ―VIPD‖ or the ―Department‖), covering the quarter ending on March 31, 2012.5
The OIM was established in January 20106 to monitor compliance by the United States Virgin Islands and the VIPD with the Consent Decree entered by the United States District Court for the Virgin Islands (the ―Court‖) on March 23, 2009. The Monitor is required by the Consent Decree to ―issue quarterly written, public reports detailing the Territory of the Virgin Islands‘ compliance with and implementation of each substantive provision‖ of the Consent Decree.7
The Consent Decree reflects the agreement between the Virgin Islands, the VIPD, and the United States Department of Justice (the ―DOJ‖) (collectively, the ―Parties‖) to resolve a lawsuit brought by the United States alleging that the Virgin Islands and the VIPD violated 42 U.S.C. § 14141 by engaging ―in a pattern or practice of excessive force by Officers of the Virgin Islands Police Department and by the failure to adequately train, supervise, investigate, and discipline Officers.‖8
The Parties entered into the Consent Decree ―to promote police integrity and prevent conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or the laws of the
5 This Report references a limited number of events that occurred after March 31, 2012 to provide context for efforts made by the VIPD outside of the First Quarter to satisfy its Consent Decree obligations.
6 After an initial procurement process, the Virgin Islands and the VIPD contracted for the services of a monitoring team led by Michael R. Bromwich, a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP (―Fried Frank‖). In June 2010, the Independent and Deputy Independent Monitors joined President Obama‘s administration. After interviews and further review, the Parties appointed William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel, partners in Fried Frank‘s New York City office and former Assistant United States Attorneys in the United States Attorney‘s Office for the Southern District of New York, as the Independent Monitors, effective August 13, 2010. Messrs. Johnson and Witzel continue to work with the police practices experts that were hired as part of the original OIM team.
7 Consent Decree (―CD‖) ¶ 96. This Quarterly Report, along with the OIM‘s prior reports, is available on the internet at http://www.policemonitor.org/VI/VIindex.html.
8 CD ¶ 6; see also Complaint, United States v. The Territory of the Virgin Islands, No. 3:08-CV-00158-CVG-GWB (D.V.I. 2008).

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 16 of 70
10| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
United States.‖9 The 104 paragraph Consent Decree contains a broad range of substantive requirements for reform in areas such as: (1) revising the VIPD‘s force-related policies; (2) training Officers to properly use force in accordance with constitutional requirements, VIPD policy, and existing best practices in policing; (3) reporting and investigating use of force events; (4) documenting and investigating complaints alleging Officer misconduct; (5) developing systems for managing and supervising Officers; and (6) disciplining Officers found to have engaged in misconduct.
On October 1, 2010, the Court—charged with enforcing the VIPD‘s obligations under the Consent Decree—ordered the Parties to jointly propose a timetable by which the VIPD would substantially comply with each substantive provision in the Consent Decree. The Court was concerned about the VIPD‘s slow rate of progress and saw the timetable as a vehicle to help the Department move forward more quickly. The Parties subsequently filed a timetable on November 24, 2010 that set forth specific dates by which the VIPD would substantially comply with each substantive provision in the Consent Decree (the ―Consent Decree Timetable‖). The Consent Decree Timetable also created interim deadlines for the VIPD to submit force-related policies to the DOJ for approval. The VIPD successfully met nearly every policy submission deadline. However, at the end of the Third Quarter of 2011, the VIPD had missed all of the remaining deadlines for substantial compliance established by the Court-ordered Consent Decree Timetable (deadlines that the VIPD proposed and committed to meeting). For example, under the Consent Decree Timetable, the VIPD was required to substantially comply with Consent Decree ¶¶ 32-58, 70, and 72 by May 31, 2011, ¶¶ 60, 61, and 73-81 by June 30, 2011, and ¶¶ 49, 59, and 63-66 by September 15, 2011. At the end of the First Quarter, the VIPD has only complied with ¶¶ 82-86, 88, and 98 (a chart summarizing the VIPD‘s progress toward substantial compliance is located on pp. 6-8). Through the First Quarter of 2012, the VIPD has not substantially complied with the remaining provisions.
In January 2011, to reinvigorate the VIPD‘s Consent Decree compliance process and encourage compliance within the timeframe of the Consent Decree Timetable, the then-Police Commissioner convened a Consent Decree Summit on St. Thomas on January 3 and 4, 2011 (the
9 CD ¶ 3.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 17 of 70
Office of the Independent Monitor | 11
―Summit‖).10 At the Summit, the then-Police Commissioner appointed senior VIPD personnel to lead, and ultimately be held accountable for, different aspects of the Consent Decree—Use of Force (Chief of the St. Croix District), Citizen Complaint Process (Chief of the St. Thomas District), Management and Supervision (Deputy Chief of St. Thomas), and Training (Director of Training). The Police Commissioner explained that each working group leader was responsible for: (1) designating a ―point person‖ and recruiting other working group members; (2) drafting an action plan; (3) interacting with other VIPD personnel on interrelated Consent Decree issues; and (4) monitoring the working group‘s progress by attending and participating in as many meetings as schedules permit, but no less than twice a month.11
On March 15, 2012, Henry W. White Jr. was sworn-in as Police Commissioner. On March 18, 2012, the Police Commissioner appointed the Deputy Chief of St. John as the Acting Chief of the St. Thomas District following an announcement that the Chief of the St. Thomas District would retire at the end of April. The Acting Chief of the St. Thomas District will also assume responsibility for leading the Complaint Process working group. The OIM appreciates the former Chief‘s dedication to the Consent Decree, and wishes him well. The OIM looks forward to working even more closely with the Acting Chief.
During the First Quarter, the Court ordered an evidentiary hearing to address many of these concerns and to determine whether the VIPD was in compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree. The hearing took place on April 23, 2012, and after nearly seven hours of testimony from several witnesses (including one of the OIM‘s police practices experts), the Court met privately with the Parties and ordered them to propose a new deadline by which the VIPD must comply with the Consent Decree. The Court will consider the Parties‘ proposals at a hearing on July 26, 2012. We will report on the VIPD‘s and DOJ‘s respective proposals and the outcome of the hearing in the next quarter.
10 The OIM discussed the Summit in the Fourth Quarterly Report of 2010 and the First Quarterly Report of 2011. For more information about the Summit, including objectives and participants, see the Consent Decree Summit Addendum at the end of those Reports.
11 Memorandum from the Police Commissioner to various VIPD personnel, titled ―Meeting Current Standards of Policing,‖ dated January 19, 2011. The OIM‘s Police Practices Experts also provided the working group leaders with a memorandum outlining their respective responsibilities. Each of the OIM‘s four Police Practices Experts is assigned to work with a particular working group leader.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 18 of 70
12| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Compliance Assessment
This section of the Report describes the VIPD‘s compliance efforts with respect to each of the substantive provisions of the Consent Decree,12 as well as the OIM‘s monitoring activities during the quarter. The organization of this section of the Report parallels the organization of the Consent Decree. Specifically, we provide a status and assessment discussion that describes and analyzes the VIPD‘s progress toward achieving substantial compliance with the Consent Decree‘s requirements.13 As part of this discussion, we provide an update about the progress of each of the working groups leading these efforts. We also include recommendations to assist the VIPD in achieving full and timely implementation of the Consent Decree‘s requirements.14 A chart summarizing the VIPD‘s progress towards substantial compliance is included at the end of the Executive Summary.
I. Use of Force Policies (CD ¶ 31) & Specific Use of Force Policies (CD ¶¶ 39-41)
A. Status and Assessment
As previously reported, the VIPD has received DOJ approval for many of its force-related policies. For example, the VIPD has issued a total of twelve force-related policies through the end of the First Quarter: (1) Use of Force; (2) Reportable Use of Force; (3) Impact Weapons; (4) Electronic Control Weapon (―ECW‖); (5) O.C. Spray; (6) Vehicle Pursuit; (7) Spike Strip; (8) Off-Duty Official Action; (9) Firearms; (10) Field Training Officer Program (―FTO‖), and during the First Quarter, (11) Special Operations – Special Response Team and Hostage Negotiations Team (―SRT/HNT‖) Policy, and (12) Special Operations SRT – Sniper (―Sniper‖) Policy. In addition, the Department has created and put into place the Response to Resistance and Reporting Form (―RRR‖) (formerly known as the Use of Force Report) for VIPD personnel to document use of force events pursuant to the Reportable Use of Force Policy.
12 A summary of the Consent Decree requirements is excerpted at Appendix A. A copy of the full text of the Consent Decree is available at: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/VIPD_CD_03-23-09.pdf.
13 The Consent Decree provides that ―[t]he Monitor shall issue quarterly written, public reports detailing the Territory of the Virgin Islands‘ compliance with and implementation of each substantive provision of [the] Agreement.‖ CD ¶ 96.
14 CD ¶ 85.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 19 of 70
Office of the Independent Monitor | 13
The Use of Force working group and the Policy and Procedures Committee (the ―Committee‖) have also developed a Response to Resistance Investigation Checklist (the ―Checklist‖) that Supervisors will use when conducting use of force investigations.15 The Department has delayed using the Checklist department-wide because it hopes to replace the existing Use of Force Policy and Reportable Use of Force Policy with the Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy. The Reporting, Investigation and Review Use of Force Policy is intended to address concerns among some VIPD personnel that the existing Use of Force Policy and Reportable Use of Force Policy impose too great a burden on Supervisors by requiring ―all inclusive‖ force reviews for comparatively ―minor‖ force incidents. Under the new policy, the VIPD would be permitted to vary the degree of its investigation of use of force events in proportion to the type of force used, meaning that comparatively ―minor‖ force events would typically require less exhaustive investigations than more severe force events. As the OIM reported last quarter, the DOJ conditionally approved the policy on November 3, 2011, but the Parties must first modify the Consent Decree (with Court approval) to permit a tiered approach to use of force investigations before the policy can be formally approved. In the process of reviewing proposed revisions to the Consent Decree, the DOJ discovered internal inconsistencies with the Reporting, Investigation and Review Use of Force Policy and revoked its conditional approval during the First Quarter. On June 20, 2012 the VIPD submitted a revised policy to the DOJ for review. Under the Consent Decree Timetable, the DOJ will have twenty-one days to provide any substantive comments.
As previously reported, Supervisors in the St. Croix District began using the Checklist during the Third Quarter of 2011. As the leader of the Use of Force working group, the Chief of the St. Croix District previously proposed that the Police Commissioner issue a directive to allow tiered force investigations pending final approval of the Reporting, Investigation and Review Use of Force Policy. At the beginning of the Second Quarter, the Chief of the St. Croix District stated that the Use of Force working group was drafting such a directive. Some VIPD personnel expressed concern with such a directive because it would permit practices that would conflict with the existing Use of Force Policy and
15 As we have previously reported, the Checklist is designed to help Supervisors (and Chiefs/Deputy Chiefs) determine whether RRRs are complete, and whether additional information and/or investigative steps are required. The Checklist directs Supervisors to ensure that VIPD personnel are, among other things, reporting use of force events with Central Dispatch, and completing arrest and/or Form 1As, as necessary.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 20 of 70
14| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Reportable Use of Force Policy. Although the VIPD will ultimately make its own decision about issuing such a directive, we have informed the Department that tiered use of force investigations will not comply with the Consent Decree until the Court approves the relevant revisions to the Consent Decree.
Although the Department has made substantial progress finalizing and issuing force related policies, the Department has identified the need for several additional force-related policies, including the: (1) Canine Policy;16 (2) Use of Force Review Board Policy; (3) Arrest Policy; (4) Post Shooting Incident and Procedures Policy; and (5) Officer Involved Shooting Investigating Procedures.17 The VIPD reported during the Fourth Quarter of 2011 that it submitted the Use of Force Review Board Policy—which would create a forum for senior VIPD personnel to review certain use of force events—to its Policy Consultant for review. When the OIM followed up on the status of the Use of Force Review Board Policy during the First Quarter, we were told that it was still under review by the Department‘s Policy Consultant. The VIPD should follow-up with the Policy Consultant so the policy can be finalized and issued next quarter. The Committee continues to work on the Post Shooting Incident and Procedures Policy.
The OIM has encouraged the Use of Force working group to develop an Arrest Policy to address the concern that some Officers were arresting and subsequently releasing individuals without adequately documenting the arrest and/or whether any force was used.18 During
16 The VIPD initially issued the Canine Policy on May 3, 2011. The OIM previously reported that the Use of Force working group was revising the Canine Policy to reflect the appropriate number of training hours that canines should receive. During the Second Quarter, the VIPD informed the OIM that the policy had been revised, but that the revisions related to the qualifications required of canine instructors (not the number of training hours for the canines).
17 To the extent the VIPD develops additional force-related policies beyond those that are currently under development or required by the Consent Decree, the subsequent issuance and implementation of those policies will not restart the two-year substantial compliance period.
18 OIM First Quarterly Report of 2011 at 8. At a minimum, the OIM suggested that the Arrest Policy: (i) delineate the differences between an investigative detention and an arrest; (ii) outline the steps that VIPD personnel must follow if they arrest an individual, but later determine that they do not have an adequate basis for the arrest; (iii) require that all Officers, including special unit Officers (e.g., canine and Special Operations), who assist in the arrest be identified in the arrest report and/or Form 1-A; (iv) emphasize the need for VIPD personnel to complete an RRR (in addition to a Form 1-A or arrest report) whenever force is used; and (v) ensure supervisory oversight over the decision to release an arrestee.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 21 of 70
Office of the Independent Monitor | 15
the First Quarter, the Committee stated that it was working to finalize the Arrest Policy. One of the road blocks that has prevented the Department from finalizing the Arrest Policy is the failure of the United States Virgin Islands Attorney General‘s Office (―VIAG‖) to respond to legal questions about the policy from the Department‘s Policy Consultant. We respectfully encourage the VIAG to work with the Policy Consultant to resolve any outstanding questions.
Until the Department finalizes and provides adequate training on the Arrest Policy, it will continue to underreport arrests and possible uses of force. The underreporting of arrests and uses of force has a negative impact on the Department‘s Risk Management System (―RMS‖) (see infra Section IV. Management and Supervision). As a result, the VIPD will not be able to comply with important aspects of the Consent Decree relating to use of force and risk management until it rectifies this problem.
At the end of the First Quarter, the VIPD is not in substantial compliance with ¶¶ 31 and 39-41 of the Consent Decree because it has not fully implemented its use of force policies. For certain policies, such as the Firearms Policy (issued in May 2011),19 Vehicle Pursuit Policy (issued in March of 2011) and the Off-Duty Official Action Policy (issued in March 2011), the Department has not provided any training. Moreover, once the Department provides training on a particular policy, it must ensure that VIPD personnel understand their obligations and are consistently meeting them.
B. Recommendations
During the First Quarter, the Use of Force working group provided the OIM with a revised version of its action plan. As we have previously explained, an action plan should: (1) identify all Consent Decree provisions for which the working group is responsible; (2) describe the tasks that must be completed to satisfy each Consent Decree provision; (3) assign tasks to specific individuals; and (4) set interim deadlines to achieve compliance. The OIM is pleased that the working group continues to revise its action plan, but the current version lacks the detail required to focus the Use of Force working group‘s efforts. For
19 At the beginning of the Second Quarter, the VIPD represented that it provided training on the Firearms Policy during the firearms requalification process. To confirm that representation, the OIM requested documentation, including attendance sheets, lesson plans, and any course materials relating to such training, but the VIPD has not responded.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 22 of 70
16| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
example, the Use of Force working group‘s action plan does not assign specific tasks to individuals who will take responsibility for completing them, nor does it set deadlines by which each task should be completed. The OIM urges the Use of Force working group to further revise its action plan according to the recommendations herein.
The OIM also received a status report from the Use of Force working group during the First Quarter. Like its action plan, the status report did not detail the concrete steps that the VIPD has taken to comply with the relevant provisions of the Consent Decree. The OIM is encouraged that the Police Commissioner issued a memorandum, dated March 14, 2012, requiring all working group leaders to submit bi-weekly reports on the 15th and 30th of each month. The Police Commissioner‘s memorandum states that the leader of each working group will be held responsible for submitting reports on behalf of their working groups, and that non-compliance will not be tolerated. We urge the Commissioner to enforce compliance with this directive.
The Use of Force working group should also continue to work with the Committee to develop and/or finalize all outstanding force-related policies, including the: (1) Use of Force Review Board Policy; (2) Arrest Policy; (3) Post Shooting Incident and Procedures Policy; and (4) Officer Involved Shooting Investigating Procedures. While those policies are being finalized, the Use of Force working group should coordinate with the Director of Training to develop corresponding training programs so that training can begin on each policy immediately following the DOJ‘s approval.
Similarly, the Use of Force working group should work with the Training Division to ensure that training programs are being held for all of the Department‘s force-related policies. As discussed below (see infra Section V. Training), the Department has not provided any training on the Firearms Policy, Vehicle Pursuit Policy or Off-Duty Official Action Policy, which were issued over one year ago. In addition, the Use of Force working group should work with the Director of Training to schedule follow-up training (continuing in-service or Roll Call or Commanders Call training) after the initial training.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 23 of 70
Office of the Independent Monitor | 17
II. Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force (CD ¶¶ 32-38)
A. Status and Assessment
1. Policies and Directives
During the First Quarter, the Use of Force working group reports that it conducted an audit to monitor instances where Officers indicated that a subject resisted arrest on Form 1As, but then failed to complete the required RRR. Given that Officers will typically need to employ some degree of force to gain control of a subject who resists arrest, reviewing Form 1As in cases where a subject resisted arrest is one good way to identify uses of force that may not have been properly reported. The Use of Force working group reported that there were only a few instances where RRRs were not filed. The Use of Force working group, however, has not provided any documentation detailing where the audit took place, what time period the audit covered, or how many cases were reviewed during the audit. Although the OIM commends the Use of Force working group for its initiative, the OIM cannot verify whether the VIPD has complied with the Consent Decree unless the VIPD presents concrete evidence of its efforts, in this case, supporting documentation of the audit‘s method and scope. In addition to documenting these audits and sharing its findings with the OIM, the OIM encourages the Use of Force working group to review whether: (1) Supervisors are conducting adequate use of force investigations; (2) the Chief/Deputy Chiefs are reviewing investigations, correcting deficiencies, and forwarding closed cases to the IAB (for review and archiving); and (3) the Department is completing investigations within the time periods prescribed in the Reportable Use of Force Policy.
Through the end of the First Quarter, the Use of Force working group‘s audits were limited to units under the purview of the Chiefs. Certain VIPD personnel, however, were assigned to units under the purview of the Police Commissioner, including the Intelligence Unit and the Investigation Bureau. As such, the Use of Force working group‘s audits through the First Quarter have not evaluated the extent to which these units reported force according to Department policies. The Chief of the St. Croix District, as the leader of the Use of Force working group, sent a letter to then-Police Commissioner Novelle Francis on July 1, 2011 seeking permission to audit use of force practices by units under the Police Commissioner‘s purview, but the Chief never received a response. At the beginning of the Second Quarter, the OIM learned that the current Police Commissioner issued a directive, dated April 19, 2012,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 24 of 70
18| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
transferring the Intelligence Unit and Investigation Bureau from the Office of the Police Commissioner to the Office of Police Chief in each District. The OIM expects that the Use of Force working group will extend its audits to those units. To that end, the OIM suggests that the Use of Force working group coordinate with the Audit Team when conducting any audits of these units.
With respect to use of force reporting, the VIPD confirms that RRRs are not consistently sent to the Training Division as required under the Reportable Use of Force Policy. Because the Training Division is charged with identifying areas for further training, it must have access to use of force information to assess current training practices, prioritize certain policies for further review and/or identify personnel for further training. Since the Department disseminated 200 TASERs last year, the Training Division has reviewed RRRs to monitor whether Officers are using TASERs correctly. This review, however, has been hampered by the Zones‘ failure to consistently submit completed RRRs to the Training Division. In March, the Deputy Chief of St. Thomas sent a memorandum to the Director of Training reporting that some Officers had accidentally discharged their TASERs. The Deputy Chief urged the Training Division to schedule further TASER training for all VIPD personnel.20 These accidental discharges underscore the need for the Department to provide additional training on the ECW Policy to help prevent further misuse.
The OIM has also discovered that the VIPD routinely completes use of force investigations outside of the timeframe prescribed in the Reportable Use of Force Policy. For example, the Reportable Use of Force Policy requires that use of force investigations be completed within thirty calendar days. The Reportable Use of Force Policy also provides that the investigating Supervisor must submit a completed investigation file to the Commander within ten calendar days, the Commander must submit findings and conclusions to the Deputy Chief/Chief within five working days after receiving the investigation file, and the Deputy Chief/Chief then has five working days to forward a copy of the investigation file and his/her findings to IAB. Department records reflect that the Zones in both Districts have not submitted any completed investigations to IAB for nineteen RRRs (forwarded to IAB on St. Thomas), and for seventeen
20 The Chief of the St. Thomas District also sent a memorandum on January 26, 2012 to all Commanders, section/unit/bureau heads, and enforcement Supervisors reiterating that Supervisors must ensure that Officers carry the TASER while onduty, and explained that civil liability could result if an Officer used a firearm when a ―TASER could/should have been utilized.‖

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 25 of 70
Office of the Independent Monitor | 19
RRRs (forwarded to IAB on St. Croix) during the First Quarter. The VIPD must complete investigations within the required time period in order to achieve substantial compliance. Moreover, because the Department has a relatively short fifty-day statute of limitations to charge VIPD personnel with misconduct, it is critical that the VIPD complete investigations within the required periods.
2. OIM Survey of Uses of Force
During the First Quarter, the OIM continued to evaluate the Department‘s use of force reporting practices to determine, among other things, whether investigation files contained all of the documentation required by the Consent Decree. A ―complete‖ investigation file generally consists of the following (to the extent applicable): Form 1-A; Arrest Report; completed RRR; video or audio statements from witnesses; photos of injuries, weapons, etc.; the Supervisor‘s investigative report with an analysis of the facts, evidence identified, and findings; evidence that the Department‘s chain of command reviewed and approved the completed investigation file; and a disposition letter.
The OIM reviewed closed force investigations at the Zones and IAB; typically, more serious uses of force are investigated by IAB and comparatively less serious uses of force are investigated by the Zones. The OIM noted some improvements during the First Quarter, but also some recurring deficiencies. For example, the Director of IAB continued to return incomplete files/inadequate investigations to the Zones for follow-up. In one instance, IAB audited arrest data from the St. Croix District, and discovered that thirty-four Arrest Reports indicated that the suspect resisted arrest, but no RRR was completed. Moreover, the thirtyfour Arrest Reports were missing the required Supervisor‘s signature. In response to these issues, the Chief of the St. Croix District issued a memorandum to all Commanders in his District directing that they submit a memorandum to him detailing the corrective measures that they have taken in their respective Zones to assure compliance with the Department‘s use of force reporting practices.
The OIM reviewed the underlying documentation for each of the thirty-four cases described above and determined that fourteen were not in compliance with the Use of Force Policy or Reportable Use of Force Policy because force was not documented in a RRR. Of the remaining twenty cases, fourteen were in compliance, and six require follow-up because the corresponding Form 1As were missing from the investigation files and/or vagaries in the Arrest Report made it difficult to definitively determine whether force was used. When reviewing these cases, the OIM also noted that VIPD personnel are not consistently reporting how

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 26 of 70 20| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

suspects resisted arrest or obstructed justice as they are required to do on the Arrest Report and RRR. The OIM encourages the Chief of the St. Croix District to review these cases to assess the full extent of policy violations. The Chief should then coordinate with the Director of IAB and the Director of Training to determine whether discipline and/or further training is warranted. The OIM requests that the VIPD report on any corrective measures taken in the next status report.
Although the audit described above was specific to the St. Croix District, similar deficiencies exist for the St. Thomas District. The OIM continues to find that VIPD personnel in both Districts often fail to complete RRRs. The OIM audited Arrest Reports filed in the St. Thomas and St. Croix Districts between January and March 2012 to monitor whether VIPD personnel are completing RRRs whenever force is used. Based on the Arrest Reports referenced above, the OIM identified cases in which the narrative indicated that force may have been used. To determine whether force was in fact used, the OIM then tracked each case by searching for the corresponding Form 1A. The OIM found the following:

OIM Audit of Arrest Reports for the St. Thomas District

Total Number of Arrest Reports identified for further follow-up 6

 Number of cases where use of force was likely

6

 Number of cases with corresponding RRRs

0

 Number of cases for which the Arrest Report indicates that

5

the suspect resisted arrest

 Number of cases identified for further follow-up to track

6

whether force was in fact used and whether a use of force

investigation has been completed

OIM Audit of Arrest Reports for the St. Croix District

Total Number of Arrest Reports identified for further follow-up 17

 Number of cases where use of force was likely

12

 Number of cases with corresponding RRRs

1

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 27 of 70 Office of the Independent Monitor | 21

 Number of cases for which IAB initiated an administrative

2

investigation for failure to report a use of force incident

 Number of cases identified for further follow-up to track

9

whether force was in fact used and whether a use of force

investigation has been completed

B. Recommendations
Although the Department has made progress by issuing and training on the Use of Force Policy and Reportable Use of Force Policy, it is not in substantial compliance with ¶¶ 32-38 of the Consent Decree because it is not adequately evaluating, documenting, and reviewing uses of force.
With respect to use of force reporting, the Use of Force working group should continue to audit Form 1As and begin to audit Arrest Reports to determine the extent to which force is being reported across the Districts. Based on these audits, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to report uses of force. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work in concert with the Chiefs, the IAB, and the Training Division to provide remedial training, or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions if necessary.
The Use of Force working group should also review completed force investigation files to determine whether Supervisors are conducting adequate investigations. As we have repeatedly stressed, Supervisors play a critical role in investigating use of force events under the Consent Decree. The VIPD should continue to ensure that all Supervisors (including the four newly promoted Supervisors) have received training on investigating uses of force. In addition, the Use of Force working group should assess whether Supervisors in both Districts are forwarding copies of RRRs to the Chiefs, the IAB, and the Training Division.
Finally, as discussed above, the IAB routinely returns supposedly completed investigation files to the Chiefs in both Districts for additional investigation. Because IAB cannot order the Chiefs to comply with its requests, the OIM encourages the Police Commissioner to intervene. One option would be for the Police Commissioner to receive periodic reports from IAB identifying any investigations that have been returned to the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 28 of 70
22| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Chiefs and whether IAB has received any further information in response.
III. Citizen Complaint Process (CD ¶¶ 42-58)
A. Public Information (CD ¶¶ 42-43) & Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints (CD ¶¶ 44-45)
1. Status and Assessment
The Consent Decree requires VIPD vehicles to be equipped with English, Spanish, and French and/or French Patois language versions of the complaint process materials.21 The VIPD completed translating the compliment/complaint brochures and forms into Spanish and French during the First Quarter. IAB staff in the St. Croix District and Commanders in the St. Thomas District delivered the newly translated materials to the Zones. The Complaint Process working group also distributed placards describing the complaint process and replenished compliment/complaint materials (complaint forms and compliment/complaint brochures) in all Zones and substations in the St. Thomas and St. Croix Districts.
During the First Quarter, the Complaint Process working group continued to periodically inspect VIPD vehicles and Zones across the Department to confirm that complaint process materials were available. The Complaint Process working group provided the OIM with the results of four inspections in the St. Thomas District during the First Quarter, and reported that complaint process materials were available in all locations. The Complaint Process working group also reported that the required complaint process materials were available on St. Croix. The OIM commends the Compliance Coordinator for creating a Periodic Inspection Report Form for the Complaint Process working group to document its inspections during the quarter. The OIM encourages the working group to continue to document these inspections going forward, and record the process used, documents reviewed, and areas searched. Zones in both Districts should also conduct periodic inspections to ensure that their supply of complaint/compliment materials remains adequately stocked.
21 With respect to the Patois translation, the OIM has previously reported that the Department has had difficulty identifying an individual to translate the brochure into Patois. This requirement, however, may be obviated because the Parties are negotiating revisions to the Consent Decree that would remove the requirement that the VIPD translate complaint process materials to Patois.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 29 of 70
Office of the Independent Monitor | 23
To improve compliance with the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy, the VIPD reports that the Chiefs in both Districts issued directives requiring sworn personnel to adhere to the procedures for accepting citizen complaints. These procedures were also reinforced during Roll Call and Commanders Call training in the St. Thomas District. Both Districts should also coordinate further in-service training with the Director of Training since the Department has previously acknowledged the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy requires greater reinforcement.
OIM audits also confirm that more training is needed on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy.22 For example, only 67% of Officers in Zones A and C on St. Thomas, and Zone D on St. John responded correctly when asked to explain the process for filing a citizen complaint. The remaining responses omitted several key aspects of the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy, including: (1) how a citizen can file a complaint; (2) the Officer‘s obligations when a citizen wants to file a complaint; and (3) how citizens will be informed about the outcome of the complaint. Because the OIM has reported on these same issues in the last two quarterly reports,23 the OIM recommends that the Training Division schedule additional in-service training on the policy. The Department should also schedule additional Roll Call and Commanders Call training to further reinforce the policy and address specific deficiencies on an ongoing basis.
Finally, since October 2010 the Department has actively promoted the citizen complaint process through a public information campaign on radio and television stations, and in newspapers in both Districts.24 The VIPD reports that a budget for Public Service Announcements (―PSAs‖) was approved during the First Quarter. The Department has recorded three PSAs, which will be broadcast on seven radio stations at various times of day in both Districts.
Although the VIPD has made significant progress with aspects of the citizen complaint process, it is not in substantial compliance with ¶¶ 42-45 of the Consent Decree. The OIM is pleased with the Department‘s progress with ¶ 43 of the Consent Decree, specifically
22 Training on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy was initially held in March and April of 2011. The VIPD plans to offer further in-service training beginning in June of 2012.
23 OIM Third Quarterly Report of 2011 at 18, 21; OIM Fourth Quarterly Report of 2011 at 24-25.
24 OIM Second Quarterly Report of 2011 at 19; see also infra § V (Training).

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 30 of 70
24| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
developing complaint forms, brochures, and posters, and making those materials available at various governmental properties and community centers. However, ¶ 43 also requires the VIPD to document that the complaint process is functioning properly (from intake of complaints to ultimate disposition), and to provide complaint materials in French Patois. To achieve compliance, the Department should, as the VIPD itself acknowledges, begin to audit whether the complaint process is working properly. Additionally, the Department must seek approval (along with the DOJ) from the Court to remove the French Patois requirement.
2. Recommendations
The Complaint Process working group provided the OIM with a revised action plan during the First Quarter. The revised action plan is an improvement from the previous version because it identifies goals for the Complaint Process working group and assigns responsibility for those goals to specific individuals. The revised action plan, however, does not specify dates by which each goal should be achieved. We recommend that the Complaint Process working group add interim deadlines during the next quarter.
The Complaint Process working group has also provided the OIM with reports detailing the working group‘s activities during the quarter. Those reports demonstrate that the working group is meeting again after a period of stagnant activity during the last two quarters of 2011. In an effort to reenergize the Complaint Process working group, the working group has recruited a Lieutenant and a Sergeant from the St. Croix District. The OIM encourages the Complaint Process working group to continue to meet regularly and to document the working group‘s activities.
The Complaint Process working group should work with the Training Division to provide further training on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy because OIM audits reveal that Officers have difficulty explaining important aspects of the complaint process. The Complaint Process working group, in conjunction with the Audit Team, should develop its own process for testing whether VIPD personnel adequately understand the complaint process. One way to accomplish this task is to work with the Training Division to develop a series of questions (similar to what the VIPD is planning to do for its use of force policies) for VIPD personnel to complete following in-service and/or Roll Call or Commanders Call training. The OIM requests that the working group document its efforts and share its results with the OIM. The VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 31 of 70
Office of the Independent Monitor | 25
demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training as appropriate.
The Complaint Process working group should also continue its practice of confirming whether government properties and VIPD vehicles are equipped with the required complaint process materials. Finally, the Complaint Process working group should also consider drafting a policy/directive for the Police Commissioner‘s signature that requires the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to monitor the progress and due dates for completing the complaint investigations that are assigned to their Districts, and to hold their subordinates accountable for completing investigations in a timely manner.
B. Investigation of Complaints (CD ¶¶ 46-58)
1. Status and Assessment
The Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy governs how VIPD personnel investigate citizen complaints. Seven months after issuing the policy, the VIPD held in-service training on the policy for the first time on March 20, 2012 on St. Thomas. The same training was held on St. Croix at the beginning of the Second Quarter.25 Following training on both Districts, the Complaint Process working group states that it will audit completed investigations to ensure that investigations comply with the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. As the OIM urges for all Department audits, the working group should develop a protocol for and document these audits.
The OIM previously reported that the Department provided training for Supervisors on the preponderance of the evidence standard (the evidentiary standard that the Department uses to investigate complaints) during the Fourth Quarter of 2011. While IAB on both Districts has used the preponderance of the evidence standard to evaluate complaints for some time, Supervisors throughout the rest of the Department have not. The Complaint Process working group conducted an audit of Supervisors who attended the training last quarter. The working group heard from certain Supervisors that they were more confused about the standard after training. The Complaint Process working group stated that it would discuss its findings with the Director of Training and the Director of IAB.
25 The OIM will report on the St. Croix training for Supervisors in the next quarterly report.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 32 of 70
26| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Following the working group‘s inspection concerning the preponderance of the evidence standard, the Department acknowledged the need to formalize a process for testing Supervisors on their knowledge of the Accepting Citizen Complaints Policy and Investigating Misconduct and Citizens Complaints Policy. As an initial step, the Department indicated that the working group and/or the Audit Team will review completed complaint investigations to monitor whether Supervisors are correctly applying the preponderance of the evidence standard when investigating complaints. Second, the Compliance Coordinator has asked the VIAG to prepare ten questions (with answers) to ask Supervisors in order to assess their understanding of the preponderance of the evidence standard. Based on the results of these audits, the OIM urges the Complaint Process working group leader, the Director of Training, the Director of IAB, and the VIAG to collaborate and provide follow-up in-service training on the preponderance of the evidence standard during the Second Quarter. Mastery of the preponderance of the evidence standard is essential for Supervisors to properly investigate and resolve citizen complaints.
The OIM conducted its own audit of Supervisors‘ understanding of the preponderance of the evidence standard during the First Quarter, and concluded that additional training is needed. For example, only 64% of Supervisors (9 out of 14) questioned from the St. Thomas District correctly explained the preponderance of the evidence standard or how it differs from the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, and understand that leading questions are improper when interviewing a witness. In an audit on St. Croix at the beginning of April, only 50% of the Supervisors (3 out of 6) responded correctly.
Finally, under ¶51 of the Consent Decree investigating Supervisors must interview all Officers who were present at the scene of an incident, and those interviews must be audio or video recorded. The Complaint Process working group reports that some interviews are not being recorded or videotaped. Additionally, the Consent Decree and Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy also require the VIPD to periodically inform complainants about the status of their complaints, including the final disposition. Based on our review of complaint investigation files, however, the VIPD does not appear to consistently apprise complainants of the status of their complaints. Similarly, according to the IAB, the Zones are not referring all allegations of Officer misconduct to IAB within five days as required in the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. Because of the Department‘s fifty-day statute of limitations for disciplining officers, the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 33 of 70
Office of the Independent Monitor | 27
Department cannot afford to let complaints of potential misconduct linger.
In sum, at the end of the First Quarter, the VIPD is not in substantial compliance with ¶¶ 46-58 of the Consent Decree concerning the investigation of complaints. Specifically, the VIPD has not adequately trained investigating Supervisors on the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. Additionally, the VIPD has failed to ensure that complaints are being adequately investigated or that complainants are being kept apprised about the status of their complaints. While the Department‘s public awareness campaign has increased the volume of complaints, the VIPD is still ill-equipped to handle them properly.
2. Recommendations
Since the VIPD has provided initial in-service training on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy, the VIPD must now provide additional training to address the shortcomings discussed above and then conduct and document periodic audits to ensure that VIPD personnel are complying with the policies.26 The Complaint Process working group should also assess whether VIPD personnel properly follow the complaint process from intake, to investigation, to final disposition. Finally, the Complaint Process working group should evaluate whether: (1) Supervisors use proper interview techniques (i.e., they are not asking leading questions) during an investigation; (2) complainants are informed about the outcome of their complaint; (3) the preponderance of the evidence standard is properly applied; and (4) investigations are completed and returned to IAB within the timeframe specified in the policies. Based on the audits, the Complaint Process working group should identify any trends or areas for improvement. Additionally, the VIPD and VIAG should finalize the questions that they are developing to assure that Supervisors understand and are comfortable applying the preponderance of the evidence standard.
26 The VIPD acknowledged the need to audit its citizen complaint process in its Status Report.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 34 of 70
28| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
IV. Management and Supervision (CD ¶¶ 59-72)
A. Risk Management System (CD ¶¶ 59-68)
1. Status and Assessment
As previously reported, the VIPD has chosen the computer program IAPro as its RMS. The RMS will help the Department to track incidents and identify patterns relating to potentially problematic behavior by VIPD personnel. VIPD personnel use Blue Team—a companion computer program to IAPro—to enter RRRs directly into IAPro. Blue Team also allows Supervisors and Commanders to review and sign-off on use of force investigations, and to monitor use of force patterns.
Unfortunately, the Blue Team program continued to suffer from a number of technological impediments during the First Quarter. For example, the Management and Supervision working group reported that the Director of IAB discovered several issues with Blue Team in the Zones on St. Thomas, including issues in the School Security Unit, Bike Unit, and Red Hook Substation. The VIPD assures that even if Blue Team is temporarily disabled at a particular location, VIPD personnel can continue to enter data into IAPro by using the computers in the training labs on each District. The OIM requests that the Management and Supervision working group conduct similar tests on the St. Croix District, and that the working group continue to conduct periodic tests to ensure that Blue Team is fully operational in all required locations on both Districts.
The OIM is pleased that the VIPD held Blue Team training for 155 Officers and Supervisors from the St. Thomas District during the First Quarter. Following that training, Officers and Supervisors completed a questionnaire to measure their ability to use Blue Team. While this training represents a positive first step, the Management and Supervision working group should coordinate with the Training Division to determine whether follow-up training is required. Additionally, the VIPD explained that the same training was not offered on St. Croix during the First Quarter because of technical issues with IAPro. We encourage the Management and Supervision working group to resolve any technical issues and to coordinate with the Director of Training to prioritize this training for the next quarter.
The Management Information Systems Bureau (―MIS‖) (the Department‘s information technology group) reports that the hard drives it ordered to increase the Department‘s electronic storage capacity for

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 35 of 70
Office of the Independent Monitor | 29
IAPro and other databases have arrived in the Territory after a severalmonth manufacturing delay.27 The OIM is hopeful that the VIPD will finally move past the technological roadblocks that have stymied the Department‘s ability to comply with the Consent Decree‘s risk management requirements.
The Department reports that it is working to create an arrest database on both Districts to track key information about arrests. An arrest database already exists on St. Croix, but technological issues have prevented the implementation of a similar database on St. Thomas. Moreover, the Department contends that MIS must modify the arrest database because, in its current form, it does not capture all of the fields required by the Consent Decree.
Progress on the VIPD‘s RMS Protocol has been slow. The comment and revision process began on April 15, 2011 when the VIPD submitted an initial draft of the RMS Protocol to the DOJ. During the Second Quarter, the VIPD submitted its ninth revised draft of the RMS Protocol to the DOJ. Under the Consent Decree Timetable, the DOJ will have twenty-one days to provide further substantive comments. Since the RMS Protocol has been in the revision process for a significant period of time and relatively few edits remain, the VIPD and DOJ should seek to finalize the protocol as quickly as possible.
As previously reported, the RMS Protocol provides various thresholds that trigger supervisory review. For example, if an Officer receives more than X number of complaints within Y period of time, IAPro will alert the Officer‘s Supervisor (and other appropriate personnel) to the potential issue and need for review. When reporting arrest and use of force data, the VIPD must use ratios based on the conduct of VIPD personnel (the total number of arrests where force was used divided by the total number of arrests) to identify potentially problematic behavior. The VIPD, however, currently uses numerical thresholds based on historic norms (X number of uses of force within a twelve month period). The DOJ and VIPD have agreed that, for the time being, the VIPD may continue to use thresholds rather than ratios until such time when the VIPD can rely on its arrest and force records.28 For now, IAPro will notify
27 Although the hard drives arrived in the United States Virgin Islands during the First Quarter, they did not clear customs until the Second Quarter.
28 As previously reported, the VIPD contends that on-going limitations and incomplete arrest and force records would render ratios unreliable for the time being. With respect to the Department‘s arrest and force records, that information may be unreliable because: (1) there are instances where Officers make an arrest, use force,
Footnote continued

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 36 of 70
30| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
an Officer‘s Supervisor when the Officer reaches two uses of force within a six-month period. The Early Intervention Program (―EIP‖) Coordinator will then conduct a review and determine if further action is required. The Parties agree that the Department will not be in compliance with the Consent Decree until it implements a ratio-based RMS Protocol.
The DOJ approved the VIPD‘s Data Input Plan on March 22, 2011, but the Department had not provided any training on the plan as of the end of the First Quarter. While there is no excuse for the VIPD‘s lack of progress in that regard, there are some early signs of progress. For example, the EIP Coordinator met with the Director of MIS, a Sergeant from the Planning and Research Bureau, the Director of Training, Lieutenants from the Traffic Bureau on both Districts, the Deputy Chief of St. Thomas, the Director of Human Resources, and an Officer on the Management and Supervision working group, to review the information that each of their divisions must maintain under the Data Input Plan. Specifically, the Data Input Plan identifies information about VIPD personnel (including, but not limited to, uses of force, disciplinary issues, motor vehicle accidents, and sick days) that the Department is required to enter into IAPro to facilitate its risk management function.
To help track VIPD personnel (who may change job functions, names, etc.) the Police Commissioner issued a directive during the Fourth Quarter of 2011 ordering that a Permanent Designator Number (―PDN‖) be assigned to all sworn personnel, including designated civilian personnel with assignments as agents, auxiliaries, and forensic technicians. The PDN is a four digit number assigned by the Virgin Islands Territorial Emergency Management Agency (―VITEMA‖).29 Officers are required to use their PDN (which personnel will have for their entire career) on all police reports, rather than their badge numbers as was the previous practice. According to the Department, all VIPD personnel on both Districts have received PDNs, with the exception of the most recent graduating class from the Police Academy. The Planning
Footnote continued from previous page
and release the subject without completing an arrest report or documenting the release; (2) when arrests are documented, the arrest report may not identify all involved officers (particularly where a group of officers is involved in an arrest); and (3) Officers who physically make an arrest are not always identified in the arrest report. The VIPD seeks to overcome these issues by improving its arrest and force record keeping. The development of a comprehensive arrest database is one aspect of achieving this goal (see supra at p. 28). 29 VITEMA is responsible for the Virgin Island‘s 911 system.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 37 of 70
Office of the Independent Monitor | 31
and Research Bureau is expected to assign the new Officers PDNs during the Second Quarter.
The VIPD reports that it reviewed randomly selected Form 1As from the St. Thomas District to determine whether personnel are using their PDNs. In the first inspection, three out of ten randomly selected Form 1As showed that personnel were not using their PDNs as required. The second audit demonstrated improvement with only one out of ten Form 1As showing that an Officer used a badge number rather than a PDN. A similar audit has not been conducted on St. Croix.
The OIM previously reported that IAB seeks to enter into IAPro historical information going back to 2009. Since IAPro identifies potentially problematic behavior based on past conduct, IAPro functions best when it has access to as much information as possible. The project remains incomplete because the Department has had trouble identifying personnel to input the data.30 IAB reports, however, that it has entered citizen complaint, vehicle pursuit, firearm discharge, use of force, and administrative investigation data for VIPD personnel from 2010 to the present. Lastly, the VIPD continues to develop policies and protocols to support the RMS, including the Blue Team Protocol, the Behavioral Health Services Policy, the Officer Peer Support Policy, and the Psychological Fitness for Duty Evaluation Policy.31
In sum, while the VIPD has made progress implementing certain aspects of IAPro, the RMS Protocol needs to be finalized, the Data Input Plan needs to be fully implemented, and additional training on Blue Team is required. Therefore, at the end of the First Quarter, the Department has not substantially complied with ¶¶ 59-68 of the Consent Decree.
2. Recommendations
During the First Quarter, the Management and Supervision working group provided the OIM with a revised action plan. The action plan, however, does not describe the tasks that the working group must complete to satisfy each Consent Decree provision, assign tasks to specific individuals, or set interim deadlines. While the OIM recognizes
30 The Department identified an individual to assist with the data entry on St. Thomas during the Second Quarter.
31 At the beginning of the Second Quarter, the OIM learned that the Police Commissioner signed the Psychological Fitness for Duty Evaluation Policy, and that it would be issued shortly. The Department also reported that it is still drafting the Behavioral Health Services Policy and the Officer Peer Support Policy.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 38 of 70
32| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
the working group‘s efforts on the revised action plan, a number of deficiencies remain. The working group should revise its action plan to address the areas described above.
The Management and Supervision working group should promptly finalize the Department‘s RMS Protocol, Blue Team Protocol, and Disciplinary Matrix, and train on the Data Input Plan. With respect to the RMS Protocol, the VIPD should work with the DOJ to finalize the policy expeditiously given the number of drafts that have been exchanged to date, and the limited number of changes left to make. Moreover, once the RMS Protocol is implemented, the Department must conduct the required beta test (i.e., an initial full scale test) of the RMS. The Department must also remedy any outstanding technical issues relating to IAPro and Blue Team, including installing the Department‘s new servers.
The Management and Supervision working group must also conduct Blue Team training on St. Croix, and together with the Training Division, determine whether follow-up training for Blue Team on either District is needed. Since VIPD personnel will eventually enter RRRs directly into Blue Team, the Management and Supervision working group should ensure that VIPD personnel are proficient using Blue Team in order to avoid any instances where uses of force are unreported because an individual is not proficient on Blue Team.
The Management and Supervision working group should also consult with IAB to develop a plan to enter additional historical use of force information into IAPro. Finally, the Department should complete drafts of the Behavioral Health Services Policy and Officer Peer Support Policy. Once those policies are in ―near final‖ form, the OIM would welcome the opportunity to provide comments.
B. Oversight (CD ¶ 69)
1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations
The VIPD is not in substantial compliance with ¶ 69 of the Consent Decree because it has not finalized and implemented the Audit Protocol for the RMS. The VIPD will not be able to fully implement its RMS until it finalizes the Audit Protocol.
The OIM reported last quarter that the VIPD implemented an Audit Team to evaluate the effectiveness of the Department‘s internal controls.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 39 of 70
Office of the Independent Monitor | 33
On February 16, 2012, the Audit Team reported that it had conducted an audit of the number of sworn personnel trained on the Use of Force Policy and Reportable Use of Force Policy.32 The Audit Team reported that 97% of the Department‘s sworn personnel had received training on the Use of Force Policy and Reportable Use of Force Policy. While that number appears impressive, the Audit Team did not explain its audit methodology or identify the documents that it reviewed. Going forward, the Audit Team should also seek to evaluate the adequacy of any training (e.g., the quality of instruction and extent to which personnel have absorbed the material). Without that information, it is impossible for the OIM to understand the scope of the Audit Team‘s work and confirm its findings. The fact that a certain number of VIPD personnel attended a particular training is not sufficient to satisfy the Consent Decree‘s training requirements. These considerations should be incorporated into the Audit Protocol that the VIPD provided to its Policy Consultant in October of 2011. We encourage the VIPD to follow up with the Policy Consultant on the Audit Protocol in order to finalize it as soon as possible.
The VIPD also reports that the Audit Team is working on an action plan to prioritize areas for auditing and set deadlines by which to complete the audits. Finally, the Audit Team continues to research appropriate training programs for the Audit Team to address their new responsibilities and, in particular, to train them on auditing procedures. The OIM encourages the Audit Team to prioritize attending training programs in the near future. We note that the Audit Team has discussed doing so for the past two quarters.
C. Discipline (CD ¶¶ 70-72)
1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations
As previously reported, the DOJ has approved the Disciplinary Policy and Matrix,33 which provides disciplinary guidelines for different types of misconduct. The VIPD, however, decided to revise the ―charge and penalty section‖ of the Disciplinary Matrix. The Management and Supervision working group continued to meet with the Committee during the First Quarter to revise the Disciplinary Matrix. The OIM attended
32 The Audit Team initially said that 97% of sworn person had also received training on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy, but the Police Commissioner later clarified that the Audit Team‘s memorandum was intended to cover the Use of Force Policy and Reportable Use of Force Policy only.
33 OIM First Quarterly Report of 2011 at 19.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 40 of 70
34| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
one of these meetings, and notes that a revised draft is under development. As the OIM has repeatedly stressed, the VIPD needs to finalize the Disciplinary Matrix as soon as possible. As previously reported, the OIM has observed first-hand (and heard about anecdotally) the Department‘s inconsistent and disparate application of disciplinary sanctions (for which there is no reasonable explanation).34 The revised Matrix hopefully will help foster a more uniform and equitable application of disciplinary sanctions. As a reminder, once the Disciplinary Matrix is revised, the VIPD must resubmit the Matrix to the DOJ for approval.35
The need for the VIPD to impose discipline in a more uniform way is exemplified by a use of force investigation that the OIM reviewed during the First Quarter. In that case, two Officers engaged in a vehicular pursuit after the suspect fled from a traffic stop for a seatbelt violation. In light of the relatively minor nature of the alleged offense, the OIM is concerned that the Officers response may not have been justified. After a thorough IAB investigation, the IAB imposed a ten-day suspension for each Officer. Without any explanation (at least none that the OIM could find in the investigation file), the reviewing Supervisor overruled IAB and imposed ―training‖ as the disciplinary action. The discipline imposed in this case is far below the generally accepted standard for this type of policy violation.
At the end of the First Quarter, the VIPD is not in substantial compliance with ¶¶ 70-72 of the Consent Decree because it has not finalized and implemented the Disciplinary Matrix.
V. Training (CD ¶¶ 73-81)
A. Management Oversight (CD ¶¶ 73-77) and Curriculum (CD ¶¶ 78-81)
1. Status and Assessment
The bureaucratic impasse between the Department and Property and Procurement continued to paralyze the Department‘s Consent Decree related training during the First Quarter. To the OIM‘s knowledge, no Consent Decree related training was offered by the
34 See, e.g., OIM Fourth Quarterly Report of 2010 at 24. 35 Although the Consent Decree does not require DOJ approval for the Disciplinary
Policy, the VIPD voluntarily submitted it to the DOJ for its review, and the DOJ agreed to provide technical assistance. The DOJ completed providing technical assistance to the VIPD on the Disciplinary Policy on April 26, 2011.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 41 of 70
Office of the Independent Monitor | 35
Department for the first two months of the quarter. As the VIPD has previously explained, Property and Procurement requires vendors to satisfy a number of requirements before permitting the Department to formally engage vendors, which has made it difficult to finalize important training programs. For example, vendors located outside of the Virgin Islands are often required to obtain a business license from the Department of Licensing and Consumer Affairs, a process that can take several weeks or more.
The impact of the impasse is exemplified by the ―Upcoming Training and Tentative Training‖ schedule (dated March 6, 2012). Out of twenty-two training programs scheduled through June of 2013, over half are listed as ―tentative.‖36 The VIPD reported, however, that four training contracts were under review by Property and Procurement or at Government House awaiting approval at the end of the First Quarter. These contracts will allow the Department to expand its internal training capacity by offering train-the-trainer training for several important Consent Decree policies, including Field Training Officer train-thetrainer,37 Basic and Advanced SWAT Certification (which will include training on the VIPD‘s recently issued SRT/HNT Policy and Sniper Policy), Pursuit Driving and Spike Strip train-the-trainer,38 and TASER train-the-trainer. The VIPD also informs the OIM that it awaits approval of a contract with its Policy Consultant to provide training on Investigating Uses of Force, the Citizen Complaint Process, Off-Duty Conduct, Testifying in Court, Court Room Procedures, Law Enforcement Ethics, Police Administration Executive Training, Arrest Procedures, Search and Seizures, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and Active Shooter.39
Because of the delays described above, the VIPD‘s ability to build a more robust internal training capacity has become increasingly
36 See supra n.3. 37 The OIM has repeatedly stated that the FTO program is critical. Once instructors
are certified, the VIPD should provide training to the FTOs as soon as practicable thereafter since the current FTOs were never adequately trained. The rudimentary training that they received focused on how to fill out basic paperwork relating to their trainees. 38 The OIM has reported that SWAT and Spike Strip train-the-trainer programs were scheduled to take place during the Fourth Quarter of 2011 but were postponed. The OIM learned at the beginning of the Second Quarter of 2012 that the Governor approved the SWAT training contract. Once instructors are certified, the Department should promptly provide training to sworn personnel. 39 This contract was subsequently approved early in the Second Quarter.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 42 of 70
36| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
important during the First Quarter. The Department can avoid the delays associated with the procurement process by building its internal training infrastructure. On an ongoing basis, the Training Division should identify instructor candidates and provide them with the required instructor certifications. We commend the Department for tentatively scheduling an instructor development train-the-trainer course for the Third Quarter. The OIM recommends that the VIPD remain in contact with Property and Procurement and Government House to avoid having to cancel that training or any other training that is listed as ―tentative.‖
While instructor training is a positive step in lessening the VIPD‘s dependence on outside training vendors, the VIPD also needs to schedule training on the underlying policies for VIPD personnel. For example, at the end of the First Quarter the VIPD has not reported on its plans to train on the Firearms Policy,40 Spike Strip Policy, Vehicle Pursuit Policy, or the FTO Policy.41 Similarly, the VIPD had not scheduled any training for VIPD personnel on the Data Input Plan or the Off-Duty Official Action Policy.
The only Consent Decree related training held during the First Quarter included: ―Investigating Use of Force for Supervisors‖, ―Investigating Citizens Complaint Process for Supervisors‖, and ―Leadership Training for Supervisors on St. Thomas.‖42 Training for Supervisors on St. Croix is scheduled for the beginning of the Second Quarter. The OIM is pleased that the VIPD provided some supervisory training following the Department‘s announcement that it made supervisory promotions. Additional supervisory training, however, is needed. Notably, the four Officers who were promoted to Sergeant did not attend the Department‘s initial supervisory training. Paragraph 81 of the Consent Decree requires newly promoted Supervisors to be trained on the appropriate burdens of proof, factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility, and leadership and command
40 At the beginning of the Second Quarter, the VIPD represented that training on the Firearms Policy was conducted during firearms requalification programs. The OIM requested verifying documentation, including attendance sheets, lesson plans, and any course materials, and will report next quarter on whether the VIPD has met its training requirement on the Firearms Policy.
41 Following an inquiry from the OIM at the beginning of the Second Quarter, the VIPD said that training for VIPD personnel on these policies will be conducted during inservice training scheduled for the Second and Third Quarters.
42 The Training Division conducted other non-Consent Decree related training for VIPD personnel in both Districts during the First Quarter, including Firearms ReQualification for Government House Agents and Security Officers, WMD Tactical Training – VITEMA, and Advanced Cell Phone Training.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 43 of 70
Office of the Independent Monitor | 37
accountability training. The Consent Decree further requires that such training must be provided to Supervisors within ninety days of assuming supervisory responsibility and continued as part of annual in-service training. As of the date of this Report, the ninety-day period had expired.
The OIM had an opportunity to observe the ―Investigating Use of Force for Supervisors‖ and ―Leadership Training for Supervisors‖ training held during the First Quarter.43 The OIM is pleased that the Department had two VIPD Sergeants teach the Investigating Use of Force for Supervisors training (rather than using external vendors), and commends the instructors on the quality of the training class. The training focused on properly documenting, reporting, and investigating uses of force, and emphasized the important role that Supervisors play in ensuring that each step is carried out according to Department policy. It was evident during OIM monitoring that knowledge of the Use of Force Policy, Reportable Use of Force Policy, and Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy varied significantly among personnel. Indeed, many Supervisors attending the training expressed reservations about their knowledge of these policies.
Nevertheless, the OIM is encouraged that the training used adult learning techniques by incorporating scenario-based video demonstrations, and practical exercises that required all Supervisors to write, evaluate, and review use of force reports, and to write the corresponding supervisory reviews. The training, however, provided limited instruction on the steps Supervisors must take to investigate a use of force event, including collecting evidence, canvassing for witnesses, and taking witness statements.
Forty-seven Supervisors were scheduled to attend the Investigating Use of Force for Supervisors training during the First Quarter, but four failed to attend. The OIM recommends that the Director of Training provide the names of the Supervisors who were absent without explanation to the Acting Chief, copying the Police Commissioner and the IAB, and request that those Supervisors explain why they failed to attend the training. The Acting Chief should report his findings to the Police Commissioner, the IAB, and the Director of Training. Further, the Director of Training should reschedule training for all Supervisors who missed the training.
43 The OIM observed the ―Investigating Citizens Complaint Process for Supervisors‖ training on St. Croix at the beginning of the Second Quarter and will report on the training in the next quarterly report.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 44 of 70
38| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
The ―Leadership Training for Supervisors‖ program was a basic supervision and management course conducted by an instructor from the Territory‘s Office of Collective Bargaining. The training was well done. Unfortunately, some Supervisors left the training for prolonged periods of time. While this may be understandable because many of the participants were on-duty, the Training Division should determine whether those Supervisors should receive credit for attending or be required to attend another full or partial session. The Department should also consider providing more frequent and smaller classes in order to stagger the number of Supervisors who are pulled from the field at any given time to attend training. Future supervisory training should also emphasize the Consent Decree requirements and the role Supervisors play in achieving substantial compliance, in addition to relevant developments in civil and criminal law, and proper procedures for handling evidence.
The Department must also review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure compliance with applicable laws and VIPD policy. To meet this requirement, the VIPD has discussed entering into a memorandum of understanding with the VIAG to review policies and training. The Training Division also plans to develop a series of questions based on the Department‘s use of force policies to test Officers‘ proficiency with those policies.
With respect to Roll Call training, the Chief of the St. Thomas District issued a directive during the First Quarter ordering Commanders and Supervisors to document any such training. Later in the First Quarter, the VIPD issued a Roll Call Training Policy and corresponding Roll Call Training Form to formalize instruction and collect information about the Department‘s Roll Call training.44 The OIM was disappointed to learn during a meeting with the Parties that the Director of Training was unaware that the Department had issued the Roll Call Policy. This is particularly disturbing given the important role that the Training Division plays under the Roll Call Policy. For example, the Training Division is supposed to coordinate with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to ensure that Department policies are reinforced during Roll Call and Commanders Call training, and that all training is uniformly recorded on the Roll Call Training Form, which should be sent to the Training Division. This breakdown in communication is emblematic of a larger problem in the Department—a lack of communication throughout the
44 The OIM provided comments on a draft version of the Roll Call Training Form at the beginning of the First Quarter.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 45 of 70
Office of the Independent Monitor | 39
Department‘s leadership. The Police Commissioner should prioritize improving the lines of communication among the working group leaders and the rest of his executive leadership team. With respect to policies, the Committee and the Training working group should develop procedures for efficiently disseminating policies throughout the Department and ensuring that key stakeholders are aware of new policies and understand their responsibilities.
Roll Call and Commanders Call training is an important tool for reinforcing the Department‘s policies following in-service training (particularly to reinforce policies with which VIPD personnel have had difficulty demonstrating proficiency). The Training Bureau shared Roll Call training forms with the OIM during a monitoring trip to the St. Thomas District. Eleven Consent Decree related Roll Call training sessions were conducted in March on St. Thomas covering the following topics: Off-Duty Official Action; Use of Force Policy; completing RRRs; Blue Team; Accepting Citizen Complaints Policy; completing Form 1As; unlawful firearm discharges; ECW Policy (TASERs); Special Response Team; and investigating citizen complaints. Zone A also held Roll Call training on the Consent Decree generally.
The OIM encourages the Department to document Roll Call training uniformly by using the Roll Call Training Form as required by the Roll Call Policy. Under the Roll Call Training Policy, the Zones are required to forward completed Roll Call Training Forms to the Training Division to ensure that the Training Division collects the information for its training records.45 Currently, topics for Roll Call and Commanders Call training are chosen by Supervisors. The OIM encourages the Chiefs and the Director of Training to prioritize key areas that could benefit from Roll Call and Commanders Call training. The Department should also include a procedure for auditing Roll Call and Commanders Call training in the Audit Protocol that is under development.
The VIPD reports that the Training Bureau continues to maintain course evaluation forms (that the Director of Training subsequently reviews), lesson plans, and training records for each Officer. The Department, however, has not finalized a training database for training materials. As a result, hard copy documents are maintained on both Districts according to the following categories: firearms; soft hand; defensive spray; expandable baton; and TASER. The OIM notes that the
45 As of April 24, 2012, the Training Bureau in the St. Thomas District had not received any Roll Call Training Forms for training held on St. Thomas during April.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 46 of 70
40| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Department has offered Consent Decree related training beyond these limited categories, for which the VIPD must also maintain records.
Finally, for more than one year the OIM has encouraged the VIPD to create a reference source for all of its force-related policies. During the First Quarter, the Training Division distributed binders containing many of the Department‘s policies to Supervisors in the St. Thomas District who attended supervisory training; the policy binders were also distributed to Supervisors on St. Croix during the Second Quarter. The Police Commissioner subsequently ordered that policy binders be distributed to Officers. As the Department updates and/or adds additional policies, the Training Division should ensure that these binders are promptly updated.
2. Recommendations
The Training working group is the only working group that did not provide the OIM with an action plan or a report detailing the working group‘s activity during the First Quarter. The OIM has also repeatedly asked the Training Division to provide the OIM with updated training schedules on a regular basis, which the Training Division only did after the OIM asked repeatedly. The Director of Training needs to keep the OIM informed of scheduled training programs so that we can stay apprised of the Training Division‘s activity and monitor training as our schedule permits. In addition, the Training working group needs to demonstrate that it meets regularly (by providing agenda, minutes, etc.), and should develop an action plan.
Resolving the current impasse with Property and Procurement regarding training should continue to be a high priority for the VIPD. The Department‘s inability to provide training on several of its issued force related policies has prevented the VIPD from making further progress toward compliance. The OIM also encourages the Department to continue to improve its internal training capacity to help reduce the Department‘s reliance on expensive outside training vendors. As we have emphasized in previous reports, the VIPD should develop lesson plans for all training programs in advance of the corresponding training (and in most cases while the policy is being finalized) so they can be vetted appropriately without delaying training. Additionally, once the lesson plans are developed the VIPD should conduct ―dry runs‖ so that Training Division personnel can make any necessary adjustments before the training is actually delivered.
The OIM also encourages the Police Commissioner to hold the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs accountable for their subordinates‘ compliance

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 47 of 70
Office of the Independent Monitor | 41
with training requirements. To that end, the Training Division should also continue to keep the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs apprised whenever VIPD personnel in their command miss a scheduled training.
Once instructor training is conducted for a VIPD policy and instructors obtain the proper certifications, the OIM recommends that the Training Division promptly provide training to VIPD personnel on the underlying policy. Specifically, as of the end of the First Quarter the Department needed to train VIPD personnel on the Vehicle Pursuit Policy, Spike Strip Policy, SRT/HNT Policy, Sniper Policy, Off-Duty Official Action Policy, and FTO Policy. Additionally, the Training Division must work closely with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to arrange further training (in-service, Roll Call, and Commanders Call) on certain policies for which compliance has been problematic, including the ECW Policy (discussed supra at p. 17), Accepting Citizen Complaints Policy (discussed supra at p. 22), and the preponderance of the evidence standard for Supervisors (discussed supra at pp. 24-25).
Despite making progress during the First Quarter, the VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶¶ 73-81 of the Consent Decree. In addition to holding training programs for a number of recently issued policies, the Training Division must work closely with the Use of Force, Complaint Process, and Management and Supervision working groups to prepare training programs for policies that are under development. Moreover, the Training Division must identify areas that require additional training, either through additional in-service training or Roll Call and Commanders Call training, to ensure that VIPD personnel adequately understand their obligations.
VI. Monitoring, Reporting, and Implementation (CD ¶¶ 82-102)
1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations
On January 13, 2012, the VIPD submitted its eleventh Status Report to the DOJ and the OIM. The eleventh Status Report is the most comprehensive description of the VIPD‘s Consent Decree compliance efforts that the OIM has received to date, and we commend the VIPD on that effort. We reiterate that it is in the VIPD‘s interest to share as much information with the OIM as possible so that we can accurately, fairly, and comprehensively report on all of the VIPD‘s efforts. To that end, we suggest that the Department append certain additional materials relating to the Consent Decree to its status reports, including, but not limited to, any policies, directives, or memoranda that were issued during the prior quarter, revised action plans and meeting minutes for each working

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 48 of 70
42| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
group, documentation of any internal audits, and training attendance sheets and lesson plans. Finally, the OIM encourages the VIPD to clearly state in its status report whether it believes that it has achieved substantial compliance with each substantive provision of the Consent Decree. We note that the VIPD did not claim to be in substantial compliance with any substantive provision during the First Quarter.
For several quarters, the OIM requested access to the administrative investigation files for two fatal police involved shootings that occurred on St. Thomas in September 2011 and on St. Croix in January 2012. The OIM‘s position (vigorously supported by the DOJ) has always been that ¶ 95 of the Consent Decree grants the OIM access to those files (along with certain other materials, such as arrest reports, arrest warrants, and warrant application).46 Nevertheless, the VIPD steadfastly refused to grant the OIM access to those files because it was concerned that doing so could compromise ongoing parallel criminal investigations. After extensive discussions between the OIM, VIPD/VIAG, and the DOJ, the VIPD agreed to share the administrative investigation files with the OIM. As a result, the OIM was finally given access to the requested administrative investigation files during the Second Quarter. We will discuss our findings in the next quarterly report. The OIM expects the VIPD to provide administrative investigation files for any future cases without undue delay.
2. Status of Substantial Compliance
Before the Consent Decree expires on March 23, 2014, the VIPD must substantially comply with each Consent Decree provision and remain in compliance for two years.47 Under the Consent Decree Timetable, the VIPD should have substantially complied with ¶¶ 32-58, 70, and 72 by May 31, 2011, ¶¶ 60, 61, and 73-81 by June 30, 2011, and ¶¶ 49, 59, 63-66 by September 15, 2011. Instead, they have only complied with ¶¶ 82-86, 88 and 98.
Specifically, as the OIM has previously reported, the VIPD has only complied with the following Consent Decree provisions (a chart summarizing the VIPD‘s progress toward substantial compliance is at the end of the Executive Summary):
 In January 2010, the Parties to the Consent Decree selected the Monitor (CD ¶¶ 82-86);
46 CD ¶ 95. 47 CD ¶ 103.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 49 of 70
Office of the Independent Monitor | 43
 Effective June 2009, the Police Commissioner appointed a Compliance Coordinator to serve as a liaison between the Parties to the Consent Decree and the Monitor (CD ¶ 88); and
 Beginning in June 2009, the VIPD began issuing quarterly status reports delineating the steps taken by the VIPD to comply with the Consent Decree (CD ¶ 98).
The OIM provided a draft Substantial Compliance Thresholds Chart (―Chart‖) to the Department on November 1, 2011. The Chart is intended to guide the VIPD toward substantial compliance by identifying the criteria that the OIM will use to evaluate the VIPD‘s compliance with the Consent Decree. After receiving general comments from the VIAG during the Fourth Quarter of 2011, the OIM sent a letter on December 1, 2011 to the VIPD‘s legal counsel requesting a conference call to discuss the VIPD‘s comments. In an effort to move forward with finalizing the Chart, the OIM also requested that the Parties provide concrete proposals for modifying the Chart. After lengthy delays by the VIAG, the OIM and the VIAG had a substantive conversation on April 3, 2012 during which the VIAG agreed to provide the OIM with specific draft language to amend any metrics that the VIAG considered objectionable by May 3, 2012. As of June 5, 2012, the VIAG had not responded as promised. There is no excuse for this delay, particularly since the VIAG advises the Territory, which is a party to the Consent Decree. We encourage the Police Commissioner to follow up with the VIAG about the OIM‘s outstanding request for their proposed revisions.
Despite these delays, the OIM remains hopeful that the Chart will be finalized and that the OIM will be able to use the Chart to evaluate the Department‘s compliance by the Fourth quarter of 2012. Once the Chart is implemented, the Audit Team should utilize it to conduct its own internal audits during the life of the Consent Decree and beyond.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 50 of 70
44| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Conclusion
The VIPD has made significant progress in certain areas, including policy development and the creation of the citizen complaint process. The VIPD, however, appears to recognize that a tremendous amount of work remains. For example, the VIPD‘s Status Report does not assert that the Department is in full compliance with a single substantive provision of the Consent Decree.
In order to move toward substantial compliance, the working groups must increase their level of collaboration and set more aggressive goals for satisfying their respective objectives. Part of this process includes working in concert with the Training Division and IAB to ensure that issued policies are implemented, and that personnel understand and comply with Department policies.
In addition, the Training Division must continue to build its internal training capacity to allow Consent Decree related training to occur with greater frequency, and to obviate its current reliance on outside training vendors. The VIPD must also develop a process for assuring that the goals of training are achieved and that VIPD personnel can apply training in daily policing activities. Finally, as we have repeatedly stated, the Department‘s Supervisors are critical to the VIPD‘s compliance with the Consent Decree. Without proper supervisory oversight, substantial compliance will be a near impossibility.
Despite the challenging road ahead, the OIM continues to believe that the Department has the capacity to comply with the Consent Decree. To that end, we encourage the Police Commissioner to hold every member of the Department accountable for making progress on the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 51 of 70

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 52 of 70

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 53 of 70
Office of the Independent Monitor | i
Appendix A Summary of Consent Decree Requirements
Below is a summary of the requirements imposed by each substantive section of the Consent Decree. Because these summaries of the substantive requirements significantly lengthen our reports, we include them in this Appendix to provide the reader with context concerning the VIPD‘s progress in implementing the broad range of reforms required under each section of the Consent Decree.
I. Use of Force Policies (CD ¶ 31)
A. Requirements
Under paragraph 31 of the Consent Decree, the VIPD is required to review and revise its use of force policies as necessary to:
 Define terms clearly, including establishing a definition of force that is consistent with the definition of force under the Consent Decree;1
 Incorporate a use of force model that teaches officers to use, as appropriate, strategies such as disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, or calling in specialized units to assist with a situation;
 Advise VIPD officers that, whenever possible, individuals should be allowed to submit voluntarily to arrest before force is used;
 Reinforce that the use of excessive force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and potential civil liability;
 Ensure that sufficient less lethal force alternatives are available to all VIPD officers; and
 Explicitly prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized.2
1 Under the Consent Decree, ―[t]he term ‗force‘ means any physical coercion used to effect, influence or persuade an individual to comply with an order from an officer. The term shall not include ordinary, unresisted handcuffing. The term shall include the use of chemical irritant and the deployment of a canine and/or pointing a firearm at or in the direction of a human being.‖ CD ¶ 21.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 54 of 70
ii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
This provision requires that the VIPD implement its revised use of force policies immediately after the DOJ has reviewed and approved finalized versions of the policies.
II. Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force (CD ¶¶ 32-41)
A. General Use of Force Events (CD ¶¶ 32-38)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires that the VIPD document in writing all uses of force and develop a use of force reporting form on which officers are required to record each and every type of force used in an incident. The use of force reports must include: (1) a narrative description, prepared by a supervisor, of the events preceding the use of force; (2) a narrative description, prepared by the involved officer, of the event relating to the use of force incident; and, (3) audiotaped statements, as appropriate, from those officers.3
The Consent Decree requires officers to notify their supervisors following any use of force or allegation of excessive force. The supervisor must respond to the scene, examine the person who was subjected to the use of force for injury, interview him or her to determine the extent of any injuries, and ensure that the person receives medical attention, if necessary.
A supervisor must conduct a review and evaluation of each use of force by a VIPD officer. The Consent Decree contains the following requirements relating to these evaluations of uses of force:
 The supervisor must prepare a detailed narrative description of the incident that includes all of the facts and circumstances relevant to determining whether or not the involved officers‘ conduct was justified.
Footnote continued from previous page 2 The Consent Decree defines ―deadly force‖ as ―any use of force likely to cause death
or serious physical injury, including, but not limited to, the discharge of a firearm.‖ CD ¶ 20. 3 The Consent Decree defines ―supervisor‖ as a ―sworn VIPD employee at the rank of corporal or above (or anyone acting in those capacities) and non-sworn personnel with oversight responsibility for other officers.‖ CD ¶ 27.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 55 of 70
Office of the Independent Monitor | iii
 The supervisor must evaluate the grounds for the use of force and determine whether the involved officers‘ actions were consistent with VIPD policy.
 To filter out potential bias, reviews of use of force incidents may not be conducted by any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized action that led to a use of force or allegation of excessive force.
 Supervisors are required to interview all witnesses of a use of force, as well as all witnesses of any incident in which an injury results from a use of force. Supervisors must ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident, subject to any limitations imposed by any applicable provision of collective bargaining agreements or law.
 Supervisors are not permitted to ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that might, for example, suggest legal justifications for the officers‘ conduct.
 Supervisors must consider all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence, as appropriate. Supervisors are required to make reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between statements provided by witnesses and make determinations with respect to the credibility of witnesses when feasible. The VIPD is required to train all of its supervisors on methods and factors for evaluating the credibility of a witness.
 Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that use of force reports identify every officer who was involved in a use of force incident or was on the scene when the incident occurred. Supervisors must ensure that use of force reports reflect whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided to an injured person, and, if not, whether the person refused medical treatment. Supervisors also must ensure that use of force reports include contemporaneous photographs or video of all injuries resulting from the underlying incident. These images must be taken both before and after any treatment of the injuries, including the cleansing of wounds.
 Supervisors are required to evaluate the performance of all officers under their command who use force or were involved in

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 56 of 70
iv| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
an incident that resulted in a subject being injured due to a use of force by an officer.
 Finally, the Consent Decree requires a Deputy Chief to review and evaluate every use of force performance review prepared by a VIPD supervisor. The Deputy Chief‘s review must include the identification of any deficiencies in the supervisors‘ reviews and must require supervisors to correct any such deficiencies. The Consent Decree requires the Department to hold supervisors accountable for the quality of their use of force reviews, including subjecting a supervisor to appropriate corrective or disciplinary action in cases where the supervisor failed to conduct a timely and thorough review, or failed to recommend or implement appropriate corrective action with respect to a subject officer.
The VIPD also must investigate all critical firearm discharges.4 These reviews must account for all shots fired and the locations of all officers who discharged their weapons. In connection with the investigation of all critical firearm discharges, the VIPD is required to conduct, as appropriate, ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue and bullet trajectory tests.
B. Specific Force Policies (CD ¶¶ 39-41)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop a Use of Firearms Policy that is consistent with applicable law and current professional standards. This policy must:
 Prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition and inform officers that any such use may subject them to disciplinary action;
 Establish a single, uniform system for reporting all firearm discharges;
 Prohibit officers from obtaining service ammunition from any source other than official VIPD channels;
4 The Consent Decree defines the term ―critical firearm discharge‖ as ―each discharge of a firearm by a VIPD officer with the exception of range and training discharges and discharges at animals.‖ CD ¶ 22.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 57 of 70
Office of the Independent Monitor | v
 Specify the number of rounds VIPD officers are authorized to carry; and,
 Require that all discharges of firearms by officers, including unintentional discharges, whether on duty or off-duty at the time of the discharge, are reported and investigated.
The VIPD also must develop a revised policy regarding officers‘ offduty conduct that:
 Provides that, absent exigent circumstances, off-duty officers must notify the VIPD or the relevant local law enforcement agency before taking police action; and
 Requires that an officer who responds to an incident while offduty must submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests if it appears that the officer had consumed alcohol or was otherwise impaired at the time of the incident.
Finally, the VIPD is required to implement a policy that provides for an intermediate force device that falls between the use of chemical spray and the use of a firearm on the use of force continuum. This intermediate force device must be one that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The VIPD must incorporate the use of this intermediate force device into its use of force continuum and train officers in the device‘s use on an annual basis.
III. Citizen Complaint Process (CD ¶¶ 42-58)
A. Public Information (CD ¶¶ 42-43) & Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints (CD ¶¶ 44-45)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop and implement a program to inform members of the public that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any VIPD officer. The Consent Decree contains the following requirements with respect to this public information program:
 The VIPD must develop and distribute complaint forms, fact sheets, informational posters, and public service announcements that describe its citizen complaint process.
 The VIPD must make complaint forms and informational materials available at government facilities, including VIPD

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 58 of 70
vi| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
stations, substations, mobile substations, and libraries. These forms and materials also must be available on the Internet and, upon request, with community groups and at community centers.
 Each VIPD station, substation, and mobile substation must permanently post a placard that describes the complaint process and includes relevant contact information, including telephone numbers. These placards must be displayed in English, Spanish, and, where necessary in light of the local community, in French or French Patois.
 VIPD officers are required to carry English, Spanish, French, and French Patois5 versions of complaint forms and informational brochures in their vehicles at all times while on duty.
 If a citizen objects to an officer‘s conduct, the officer is required to inform the citizen of his or her right to make a complaint.
 Officers are prohibited from discouraging any person from making a complaint concerning an officer‘s conduct.
The Consent Decree imposes the following requirements relating to the availability of means by which members of the public may lodge complaints against VIPD officers and the tracking of such complaints:
 The VIPD must be able to receive complaints filed in writing or orally, in person or by mail, and by telephone (or TDD), facsimile, or electronic mail.
 The duty officer at the front desk of each District station shall be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints. At the intake stage, an officer taking a complaint is permitted to describe facts that relate to a complainant‘s demeanor and physical conditions but may not express
5 The OIM notes that paragraph 43 of the Consent Decree does not expressly require VIPD officers to carry French language complaint forms and informational brochures in addition to French Patois. However, in light of the third sentence in paragraph 43 (which requires French language placards describing the complaint process), the OIM believes that this was an inadvertent omission. For future printings of brochures and other similar promotional information, the OIM suggests that the VIPD create versions in English, Spanish, French, and French Patois to satisfy the intent of the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 59 of 70
Office of the Independent Monitor | vii
opinions regarding the complainant‘s mental competency or veracity.
 Upon receipt, the VIPD is required to assign each complaint a unique identifier number, which must be provided to the complainant.
 The VIPD must track each complaint according to the type of misconduct alleged in the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, and improper search).
 Copies of all allegations of misconduct against a VIPD officer that are filed with the Zone Commands shall be referred to the IAB within five business days.
B. Investigation of Complaints (CD ¶¶ 46-58)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree establishes numerous specific requirements relating to the investigation of complaints against VIPD officers, including the following:
 Complaints must be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. The VIPD is required to develop and implement appropriate training regarding application of the preponderance of the evidence standard in internal investigations of allegations of officer misconduct.
 The VIPD must explicitly prohibit an officer from being involved in the investigation of a complaint or incident if the officer used force during the underlying incident, was involved in conduct that led to the injury of a person during the incident, or authorized the conduct that led to the reported incident.
 The VIPD must investigate every citizen complaint and the resolution of each complaint shall be documented in writing.
 The VIPD must develop a clear policy and procedure regarding the intake of complaints, including anonymous and confidential complaints, against VIPD officers.
 The Department must implement a centralized system for numbering and tracking all complaints.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 60 of 70
viii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
 IAB is responsible for determining whether each individual investigation of a complaint will be assigned to a Zone, retained by IAB, or referred for possible criminal investigation.
 If IAB refers a complaint to one of the Zones for investigation, the Zone must immediately forward to IAB copies of all documents, findings, and recommendations so that IAB is able to track and monitor the investigation.
 The Police Commissioner must be notified of all complaints alleging excessive force or violation of a person‘s Constitutional rights within twenty-four hours of the VIPD‘s receipt of the complaint.
The VIPD also is required to develop a single policy governing the investigation of misconduct complaints, regardless of whether the investigation of such complaints is conducted by IAB or a Zone command. This policy must:
 Provide guidance concerning factors for investigators to consider in evaluating the credibility of the complainant and other witnesses, examining and interrogating accused officers and other witnesses, identifying potential misconduct that is not specifically referred to in the complaint, and applying the preponderance of the evidence standard. The VIPD also must train all officers who perform internal investigations on these issues.
 Require that VIPD investigators ensure that all officers present at the scene of the underlying incident provide a statement and that all interviews be recorded, as appropriate, on audio or video.
 Require that investigation findings include conclusions regarding whether:
 The police action was in compliance with policy, training, and legal standards, regardless of whether the complainant suffered harm;
 The incident involved misconduct by any officer;
 The use of different tactics could have, or should have, been employed;

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 61 of 70
Office of the Independent Monitor | ix
 The underlying incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling, or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and
 The incident suggests that the VIPD should revise its policy, training, or tactics.
 Establish that each allegation investigated must be resolved by a finding of either ―unfounded,‖ ―sustained,‖ ―not sustained,‖ or ―exonerated.‖6
 Provide guidance to all investigators regarding procedures for handling allegations of potential criminal misconduct, including the referral of such allegations to the Virgin Islands Attorney General‘s Office or other appropriate agency for possible criminal prosecution. The policy must establish the entity or individual responsible for making the determination as to whether a matter should be investigated criminally. The policy also must require the completion of the VIPD‘s administrative investigations of potentially criminal misconduct, regardless of the initiation or outcome of any criminal proceedings.
 Require that all relevant police activity, including each use of force, be investigated, even if the activity or force was not specifically complained about.
 Require that investigations evaluate any searches or seizures that occurred during the underlying incident.
 Prohibit investigators from closing an investigation solely because a complaint is withdrawn, the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of an injury, or the complainant will not provide additional statements or written statements. The policy shall require that, under such circumstances, investigators must continue the
6 Under the Consent Decree, a finding of ―unfounded‖ means that there are insufficient facts establishing that the alleged incident actually occurred. A finding of ―sustained‖ means that there is sufficient evidence to determine that the alleged incident occurred and that the officer‘s actions were improper. A finding of ―not sustained‖ means that there is insufficient evidence that the alleged misconduct occurred. Finally, a finding of ―exonerated‖ means that the alleged conduct occurred but that the conduct did not violate VIPD policies, procedures, or training. Each of these findings must be based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. CD ¶ 57.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 62 of 70
x| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
investigation as necessary to determine whether the allegations can be resolved based on available information, evidence, and investigative techniques.
 Prohibit investigators from considering the fact that a complainant pleaded guilty to, or was found guilty of, an offense as evidence of whether or not an officer used a type of force or as a justification for the investigator to close the investigation.
The VIPD must keep complainants periodically informed of the status of the investigation of their complaints. Upon the completion of each investigation, the VIPD must notify the complainant of the outcome of the investigation, including an appropriate statement regarding whether any disciplinary action or non-disciplinary corrective action was taken against any officer.
Finally, the Consent Decree requires that unit commanders evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command in order to identify potential problems or training needs. Unit commanders must report any such issues to the appropriate VIPD entity in the form of a recommendation that appropriate action in response to the identified issues be taken.
IV. Management and Supervision (CD ¶¶ 59-72)
A. Risk Management System (CD ¶¶ 59-68)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop and implement a Risk Management System (―RMS‖) that includes a computerized relational database or a paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for the supervision and management of VIPD personnel. The VIPD is required to use this data regularly to promote respect for civil rights and the employment of best police practices, manage risks, and potential liability for the Department, and evaluate the performance of VIPD officers and personnel across all ranks, units, and shifts.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 63 of 70 Office of the Independent Monitor | xi
The Consent Decree specifically requires the VIPD to collect and record the following information in its new RMS:
 All uses of force;
 Canine bite ratios;7
 The number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers;
 All injuries to prisoners;
 All instances in which a VIPD officer used force and the subject was charged with resisting arrest, assault on a police officer, disorderly conduct, or obstruction of official or police business;
 All critical firearm discharges, whether they took place on duty or off-duty;
 All complaints against officers and the dispositions of those complaints;
 All criminal proceedings, civil or administrative claims, and civil lawsuits resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel;
 All vehicle pursuits;
 All incidents involving the pointing of a firearm;
 All disciplinary action taken against VIPD officers; and
 For incidents included in the database, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (e.g., the officer‘s name, badge number, shift, and supervisor) and member of the public (including race and ethnicity or national origin, if such information is available).
The VIPD has the option either to purchase the RMS ―off the shelf‖ and customize the system to VIPD‘s requirements or to develop and
7 A canine bite ratio relates to apprehensions in which a canine unit participated. It is the ratio of incidents that involved the canine biting or otherwise coming into physical contact with the suspect compared to the overall number of such apprehensions in which a canine unit participated.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 64 of 70
xii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
implement the RMS pursuant to a contracting schedule set forth in the Consent Decree.8
Within 120 days of the effective date of the Consent Decree, the VIPD is required to prepare a protocol for the use of the RMS, which must be submitted to DOJ for review and approval. Any proposed modifications to the RMS protocol also must be submitted to DOJ for review and approval prior to the implementation of the proposed modifications. The RMS protocol must contain:
 Provisions regarding data storage, data retrieval, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation, and audit;
 Requirements that the automated system be able to analyze data according to the following criteria:
 The number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit;
 The average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and
 The identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit.
 Requirements relating to the generation of reports on a monthly basis that describe data contained in the RMS and identify patterns of conduct by individual officers and units;
 Requirements that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors initiate appropriate interventions with individual officers, supervisors, and units based on activity and pattern assessments derived from the information contained in the RMS and that the VIPD has the following intervention options available:
 Discussions among Deputy Chiefs, managers, supervisors, and officers;
 Counseling;
 Training; and,
8 See CD ¶ 66.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 65 of 70
Office of the Independent Monitor | xiii
 Documented action plans and strategies designed to modify officer conduct and activity.
 A requirement that all interventions be documented in writing and entered into the RMS;
 A provision that actions taken as a result of information derived from the RMS be based on all relevant and appropriate information—including the nature of the officer‘s assignment, crime trends, and crime problems—and not solely on the number or percentage of incidents in any category of information recorded in the RMS;
 A requirement that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors promptly review the RMS records of all officers who transfer into their sections or units;
 A requirement that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors be evaluated based on their ability to use RMS to enhance the effectiveness of their units and to reduce risks associated with officer conduct;
 Provisions that IAB shall manage and administer the RMS and that IAB shall conduct quarterly audits of RMS to ensure compliance with the RMS protocol; and
 A requirement that appropriate managers conduct regular reviews, at least quarterly, of relevant RMS information to evaluate officer performance across the Virgin Islands. The purpose of such reviews is to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all VIPD units in order to identify significant patterns or series of incidents.
Within 120 days of the implementation of the RMS (or later with the agreement of DOJ), the VIPD must prepare, for the DOJ‘s review and approval, a Data Input Plan for including appropriate fields and values for new and historical data entered into the RMS.
 The Data Input Plan must identify the data to be included in the RMS and the means for inputting the data, the specific fields of information to be included in the RMS, the historical time periods for which information will be inputted into the system, deadlines for inputting data, and the persons responsible for the input of data.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 66 of 70
xiv| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
 The Data Input Plan must provide for the input of historical data that is up to date and complete into the RMS.
 Once the RMS is operational, the VIPD is required to enter information into the RMS in a timely, accurate, and complete manner and to maintain the RMS data in a secure and confidential manner.
The VIPD must maintain all personally identifiable information about individual officers that is contained in RMS for at least five years. The VIPD shall maintain information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis in the RMS indefinitely.
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD, even prior to the implementation of the RMS, to use existing databases and resources to the fullest extent possible to identify patterns of conduct by individual VIPD officers or groups of officers.
Following the initial implementation of the RMS, the VIPD may propose to add, subtract, or modify data tables and fields in the system, modify the types of documents entered into the RMS, or modify the standardized reports generated by the RMS. The VIPD is required to submit all such proposals to the DOJ for review and approval prior to implementing the proposed changes.
B. Oversight (CD ¶ 69)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop a protocol for conducting audits within the RMS, which must be followed by the VIPD personnel responsible for conducting audits. The protocol must establish a regular and fixed audit schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency and cover all VIPD Zones.
C. Discipline (CD ¶¶ 70-72)
1. Requirements
The VIPD is required to use a disciplinary matrix to take into account a subject officer‘s violations of various rules, as opposed to considering only repeated violations of the same rule. The VIPD must revise its disciplinary matrix to increase penalties for uses of excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, and dishonesty. The revised disciplinary matrix, which must be reviewed and approved by DOJ, is required to provide the VIPD with the discretion to impose any

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 67 of 70
Office of the Independent Monitor | xv
appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes an officer‘s misconduct reflects a lack of fitness for duty.
 Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD is not permitted to take mere non-disciplinary corrective action against an officer in cases in which the revised disciplinary matrix indicates that the imposition of discipline is appropriate.
 In cases in which disciplinary action is imposed on an officer, the VIPD is required to also consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action is necessary.
The VIPD‘s policy must identify clear time periods by which each step—from the receipt of a complaint through the imposition of discipline, if any—of the complaint adjudication process should be completed. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions of these deadlines must not be granted without the Police Commissioner‘s written approval and notice to the complainant. The policy must outline appropriate tolling provisions in the limited circumstances when an extension of these deadlines is necessary.
V. Training (CD ¶¶ 73-81)
A. Management Oversight (CD ¶¶ 73-77)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to provide training to its officers that is consistent with VIPD policy, the law, and proper police practices. Accordingly, the Consent Decree requires that:
 The VIPD review all use of force policies and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy;
 After completing its initial review of its force-related policies and training programs, the VIPD must conduct regular reviews of its use of force training program at least semi-annually.
 The VIPD must ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by training instructors; and,
 The VIPD must make best efforts to train each work shift as a team in its use of force training.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 68 of 70
xvi| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Under the Consent Decree, the VIPD‘s Director of Training, either directly or through his or her designees, is responsible for:
 Ensuring the quality of all use of force training;
 Developing and implementing use of force training curricula;
 Selecting and training VIPD officer instructors;
 Developing, implementing, approving, and overseeing all inservice training;
 In conjunction with the District Chiefs, developing, implementing, approving, and overseeing a protocol for patrol division roll calls that is designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in law, policies, and procedures;
 Establishing procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and
 Conducting regular training needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
The VIPD must keep complete and accurate records of force-related lesson plans and other training materials. These lesson plans must be maintained in a central, commonly accessible file and must be clearly dated.
The VIPD also must maintain training records for every VIPD officer. These records must reliably reflect the training that each officer has received. These records must include, at a minimum, the course description, duration, curriculum, and instructor for each training program in which each individual officer participated.
B. Curriculum (CD ¶¶ 78-81)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD‘s Director of Training to review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure that the training program complies with applicable laws and VIPD policy. Moreover, the Director of Training must consult with the Virgin Island Attorney General‘s Office concerning any additions, changes, or modifications regarding use of force training or policies to ensure compliance with applicable laws.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 69 of 70
Office of the Independent Monitor | xvii
The VIPD must provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on the use of force. This use of force training must address the following topics:
 The VIPD‘s use of force model;
 Proper use of force decision-making;
 The VIPD‘s use of force reporting requirements;
 The Fourth Amendment and other Constitutional requirements;
 Examples of scenarios faced by VIPD officers that illustrate proper use of force decision-making;
 De-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without using force;
 Instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a suspect, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying an arrest may be appropriate responses to a situation even when the use of force would be legally justified;
 Threat assessment; and
 Appropriate training regarding conflict management.
The VIPD also is required to provide training to all officers regarding the citizen complaint process. The VIPD must develop a protocol, to be used by all VIPD officers, that sets forth an appropriate process for handling and responding to complaints by members of the public. The VIPD must train officers regarding this protocol.
 The VIPD also is required to train all supervisors with respect to appropriate burdens of proof in conducting misconduct investigations. This training also must include a discussion of the factors investigators should consider in evaluating complainant or witness credibility.
Finally, the VIPD must provide training to all supervisors regarding leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices.
 This training must be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of the officer‘s assumption of

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 50-1 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 70 of 70 xviii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
supervisory responsibilities. This training also must be made a part of the annual in-service training of supervisors. VI. Monitoring, Reporting, and Implementation
(CD ¶¶ 82-102) 1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to appoint a full-time Compliance Coordinator to serve as a liaison among the Virgin Islands Attorney General‘s Office, VIPD, the OIM, and DOJ. The Compliance Coordinator‘s responsibilities include:
 Coordinating the VIPD‘s compliance and implementation activity relating to the Consent Decree;
 Facilitating the provision of data and documents and access to VIPD employees and materials to the Monitor and DOJ as needed;
 Ensuring the proper maintenance of relevant documents and records relating to the Consent Decree; and
 Assisting the Police Commissioner and his designees in assigning compliance-related tasks to appropriate VIPD personnel.
In addition to fulfilling these functions, the VIPD must file with the Monitor and the Virgin Islands Attorney General‘s Office, with a copy to DOJ, quarterly status reports describing the steps taken during the reporting period to comply with each provision of the Consent Decree.
Finally, the Virgin Islands and the VIPD are required to implement the provisions of the Consent Decree ―as soon as reasonably practicable‖ and, in any event, no later than 150 days after the March 23, 2009 effective date of the Consent Decree.
8551135

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 61 Filed: 11/02/12 Page 1 of 8

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, )

and VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT, )

)

Defendants.

)

)

Civil No. 2008-158

ATTORNEYS:

Marina Mazor, Esq. United States Department of Justice Washington, D.C.
For the plaintiff,

Vincent Frazer, Attorney General Carol Thomas-Jacobs, Esq Virgin Islands Department of Justice St. Thomas, VI
For the defendants.

ORDER

GÓMEZ, C.J.

Before the Court is the motion of the plaintiff to amend

the Consent Decree entered in this matter. The parties also

jointly request the adoption of an action plan.

On March 23, 2009, the Court approved a Consent Decree in

this matter (the “Consent Decree”). The Consent decree set forth

various reforms to be implemented by the Government of the

Virgin Islands and the Virgin Islands Police Department

(collectively, the “Virgin Islands”) in order to correct an

UniteCdasSet:a3t:e0s8-vc.v-T0e0r1r5i8t-oCrVyGo-fRMtheDVoicrugminenIts#l:a6nd1s Filed: 11/02/12 Page 2 of 8
Civil No. 2008-158 Order Page 2
alleged systematic violation of constitutional rights through
excessive force.
The Consent decree provided that
The Agreement w ill terminate f ive years after the effective date of the Agreement or earlier if the parties agree that the VIPD and the Territory are in substantial compliance with each of the provisions of this Agreement, and have maintained substantial compliance for at least two years.
(Consent Decree ¶ 103.)
For nearly a year after the Consent Decree was approved by
this Court, little progress was made towards achieving
substantial compliance. On October 1, 2010, the Court held a
hearing in this matter, at which it urged the parties to submit
interim deadlines for partial compliance with the Consent
Decree. Thereafter, the parties agreed to some interim
deadlines, which they compiled in the “Consent Decree
Timetable.” Specifically, the Consent Decree Timetable set forth
several dates by which the Virgin Islands was to achieve
compliance with the major provisions of the Consent Decree. On
December 16, 2010, the Court adopted the Consent Decree
Timetable and ordered the parties to comply with the deadlines
therein.
On April 23, 2012, this matter came before the Court at a
hearing. At that hearing, several representatives of the Virgin
Islands Police Department (the “VIPD”) testified. One member of

UniteCdasSet:a3t:e0s8-vc.v-T0e0r1r5i8t-oCrVyGo-fRMtheDVoicrugminenIts#l:a6nd1s Filed: 11/02/12 Page 3 of 8
Civil No. 2008-158 Order Page 3
the Independent Monitoring Team, created pursuant to the Consent Decree, also testified. These witnesses largely agreed that the Virgin Islands had failed to achieve most, if not all, of the goals set forth in the Consent Decree Timetable. Although significant progress had been made, it was nonetheless clear from this testimony that the Virgin Islands would not be able to achieve and maintain substantial compliance for two years prior to the consent decree’s expiration.1
In light of this evidence, the United States has moved to amend the Consent Decree. The Court heard arguments on this motion on July 26, 2012. The parties agreed that an extension of the Consent Decree is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Consent Decree. To that end, the Virgin Islands represented that they will be able to achieve substantial compliance on or before June 30, 2013.
At the conclusion of the July 26, 2012, hearing, the Court ordered the parties to jointly formulate an action plan, with concrete interim objectives for the Government of the Virgin Islands to meet on their way to substantial compliance. The Court further ordered that, after the parties have finalized the
1 The Court notes that the Consent Decree does not necessarily require two years of substantial compliance prior to its expiration. Notwithstanding that circumstance, as the Court has previously noted, it is clear that the United States contemplated a two-year period of substantial compliance. Indeed, the United States appears to have proceeded under this assumption throughout the pendency of this action.

UniteCdasSet:a3t:e0s8-vc.v-T0e0r1r5i8t-oCrVyGo-fRMtheDVoicrugminenIts#l:a6nd1s Filed: 11/02/12 Page 4 of 8
Civil No. 2008-158 Order Page 4
joint action plan, the parties will jointly submit the action plan to the Court.
On August 30, 2012, the parties jointly submitted an action plan (the “Action Plan”). The Action Plan sets forth deadlines for reaching and maintaining substantial compliance with each and every provision of the Consent Decree that has not yet been satisfied. The Action Plan further provides that the Virgin Islands is to achieve substantial compliance by October 31, 2013. The parties now seek for the Court to approve the Action Plan and to amend the Consent Decree accordingly.
A court has the power to amend a consent decree under “(1) its inherent power to enforce compliance with its consent decrees; and (2) its inherent power to modify consent decrees.” Holland v. New Jersey Dep’t of Corrs., 246 F.3d 267, 281 (3d Cir. 2001). A court’s modification power “is long-established, broad, and flexible” and courts should apply “a flexible modification standard in institutional reform litigation . . . .” Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 381 & n.6 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). It is well within the Court’s inherent equitable powers to extend a consent decree. See, e.g., Chrysler Corp. v. United States, 316 U.S. 556, 562–64 (1942) (affirming the extension of a consent decree via the district court’s exercise of its modification power); Holland v. New Jersey Dep’t of Corrs., 246

UniteCdasSet:a3t:e0s8-vc.v-T0e0r1r5i8t-oCrVyGo-fRMtheDVoicrugminenIts#l:a6nd1s Filed: 11/02/12 Page 5 of 8
Civil No. 2008-158 Order Page 5
F.3d 267, 281 (3d Cir. 2001) (holding that district court had authority under either modification power or compliance enforcement power to extend a consent decree); United States v. Local 359, United Seafood Workers, 55 F.3d 64, 69 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that “it was well within the district court’s inherent power” to extend parts of a consent judgment decree as an exercise of the court’s compliance enforcement power).
However, the Court’s powers to enforce compliance or modify a consent decree are not without limits. “[A] court may use its compliance enforcement power to extend one or more provisions of a decree only if such compliance enforcement is essential to remedy the violation and thus provide the parties with the relief originally bargained for in the consent order.” Id. at 283. (citing EEOC v. Local 580, 925 F.2d 588, 593 (2d Cir. 1991)). “[A] district court may modify a consent decree (in response to a request from a plaintiff) only upon making a finding that conditions have change so that the ‘basic purpose of the original consent decree’ has been ‘thwarted,’ meaning that ‘time and experience have demonstrated’ that ‘the decree has failed to accomplish th[e] result’ that it was ‘specifically designed to achieve.’ ” Id. (quoting Chrysler, 316 U.S. at 562; United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244, 249 (1968)) (internal citations omitted).

UniteCdasSet:a3t:e0s8-vc.v-T0e0r1r5i8t-oCrVyGo-fRMtheDVoicrugminenIts#l:a6nd1s Filed: 11/02/12 Page 6 of 8
Civil No. 2008-158 Order Page 6
Here, there is ample justification for extending the Consent Decree under either the Court’s compliance-enforcement power or its consent-decree modification power. The parties do not dispute that they originally contemplated that the Virgin Islands would at least have the opportunity to reach and maintain substantial compliance for two years prior to the termination of the Consent Decree. It is likewise undisputed that the Virgin Islands has utterly failed to achieve substantial compliance, and cannot realistically do so until October of 2013, less than a year before the Consent Decree’s current termination date.
Although a literal reading of Paragraph 103 of the Consent Decree may suggest otherwise, reading the Consent Decree as a whole, the Court finds that the basic purpose was to not merely reform the practices of the Virgin Islands with respect to excessive force, but to achieve successful, long-lasting reform. As such, the requirement of the Consent Decree, that the Virgin Islands reach and maintain substantial compliance for two years, cannot be disregarded. Reading the Consent Decree to require that the Virgin Islands only achieve substantial compliance for any length of time, or even not at all, prior to its termination, seems contrary to the parties clearly stated goals to achieve permanent institutional reform.

UniteCdasSet:a3t:e0s8-vc.v-T0e0r1r5i8t-oCrVyGo-fRMtheDVoicrugminenIts#l:a6nd1s Filed: 11/02/12 Page 7 of 8
Civil No. 2008-158 Order Page 7
The Court thus finds that the Virgin Islands, by virtue of its failure to reach substantial compliance within two years of the termination date, is in violation of the Consent Decree. The Court further finds that the only means of remedying this violation is to extend the Consent Decree’s duration. The Court further finds that the Virgin Islands’ failure to reach substantial compliance by March of 2012 has so changed the circumstances that the basic purpose of the Consent Decree has been thwarted. The Court must therefore conclude that some modification of the Consent Decree is in order.
The Virgin Islands, while acknowledging that the Consent Decree must be extended, urges the Court to retain a fixed termination date. The Virgin Islands points to the fact that it has spent, to date, approximately $3.1 million in its efforts to achieve compliance, over $2 million of which has gone to pay the fees of a monitoring team tasked with overseeing the compliance efforts. The Court is not persuaded by the Virgin Islands’ argument.
It is true that an inordinately large portion of the Virgin Islands’ expenditures have gone towards paying the costs of monitoring. It is also true that those costs are only indirectly related to the actual substance of the Consent Decree. Those facts, however, do not justify permitting the Consent Decree to expire at a certain date, irrespective of whether Compliance has

UniteCdasSet:a3t:e0s8-vc.v-T0e0r1r5i8t-oCrVyGo-fRMtheDVoicrugminenIts#l:a6nd1s Filed: 11/02/12 Page 8 of 8
Civil No. 2008-158 Order Page 8
been achieved. Indeed, to allow such an outcome would be to

elevate form over substance and illogically undermine the very

purpose of the Consent Decree.

The premises considered, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Action Plan, appended hereto and

incorporated herein by reference is ADOPTED, and the parties

shall comply with its terms; it is further

ORDERED that the Action Plan, appended hereto and

incorporated by reference herein, shall be made part of the

Consent Decree; it is further

ORDERED that the relevant portion of Paragraph 103 of the

Consent Decree shall be AMENDED to read:

The Agreement will terminate two years after the VIPD

and the Territory have achieved compliance with eac h

of the provisions of this

Agreement, and have

maintained substantial compliance for at least two

years.

S\ CURTIS V. GÓMEZ Chief Judge

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 67 Filed: 03/12/13 Page 1 of 7

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, )

and VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT, )

)

Defendants.

)

)

Civil No. 2008-158

ATTORNEYS:

Marina Mazor, Esq. United States Department of Justice Washington, D.C.
For the plaintiff,

Vincent Frazer, Attorney General Carol Thomas-Jacobs, Esq Virgin Islands Department of Justice St. Thomas, VI
For the defendants.

ORDER

GÓMEZ, C.J.

Before the Court is the motion of the defendants to extend

the time for completing a required task outlined in the March

23, 2009, Consent Decree (the “Consent Decree”) entered in this

matter.

The Consent Decree sets forth various reforms designed to

remedy the systemic excessive use of force by the Virgin Islands

Police Department. Specifically, the Government of the Virgin

Islands and the Virgin Islands Police Department (collectively,

UniteCdasSet:a3t:e0s8-vc.v-T0e0r1r5i8t-oCrVyGo-fRMtheDVoicrugminenIts#l:a6nd7s Filed: 03/12/13 Page 2 of 7
Civil No. 2008-158 Order Page 2
the “Virgin Islands”) were required to implement the reforms within a certain time frame.
The Consent Decree originally provided that it would terminate in five years or upon the Virgin Islands’ reaching and maintaining substantial compliance with the Consent Decree’s requirements for a period of two years.
For nearly a year after the Consent Decree was approved by this Court, little progress was made towards achieving substantial compliance. On October 1, 2012, the Court held a hearing at which it urged the parties to submit interim deadlines for partial compliance with the Consent Decree. The parties thereafter agreed to a “Consent Decree Timetable.” The Consent Decree Timetable set forth various interim deadlines with the goal of having the Virgin Islands reach substantial compliance no later than March of 2012, or two years before the expiration of the Consent Decree.
On April 23, 2012, the Court held another hearing in this matter. Witnesses for both parties agreed that the Virgin Islands had failed to achieve most of the goals set forth in the Consent Decree Timetable. The parties further agreed that it was no longer possible for the Virgin Islands to maintain substantial compliance for two years prior to the Consent Decree’s expiration.

UniteCdasSet:a3t:e0s8-vc.v-T0e0r1r5i8t-oCrVyGo-fRMtheDVoicrugminenIts#l:a6nd7s Filed: 03/12/13 Page 3 of 7
Civil No. 2008-158 Order Page 3
In light of this evidence, the plaintiff, the United States of America (the “United States”), moved to amend the Consent Decree. After a hearing on this motion, the parties agreed to submit an action plan (the “Action Plan”) with detailed, new interim deadlines, with an ultimate goal of reaching substantial compliance by June of 2013.
On November 2, 2012, the Court amended the Consent Decree in two general respects. First, the Court adopted the jointlyproposed Action Plan and incorporated its deadlines into the Consent Decree. Second, the Court amended the Consent Decree to provide that it would only expire after the Virgin Islands had maintained substantial compliance with its terms for a period of two years.
Among the various deadlines set forth in the Action Plan were several deadlines pertaining to training of Virgin Islands Police Department (“VIPD”) officers in vehicle pursuit policies and policies regarding the use of spike strips--devices used to stop cars by puncturing their tires. Specifically, VIPD officers were to be trained in the use of vehicle-pursuit and spike-strip polices no later than October 31, 2012.
The Action Plan further set forth deadlines for what is referred to as “Blue Team” training. The Blue Team is a component of a risk management system that evaluates the performance of all VIPD officers with respect to uses of force.

UniteCdasSet:a3t:e0s8-vc.v-T0e0r1r5i8t-oCrVyGo-fRMtheDVoicrugminenIts#l:a6nd7s Filed: 03/12/13 Page 4 of 7
Civil No. 2008-158 Order Page 4
Training on the use of the Blue Team system was to have been completed by January 31, 2013.
The Virgin Islands now moves for an extension of these deadlines. The Virgin Islands represents that, until recently, it was not able to obtain trained and certified instructors for vehicle-pursuit and spike-strip policy training. It maintains that several VIPD officers have received training in these fields, and will now be able to instruct all other officers by no later than June of 2013.
The Virgin Islands further represents that technical and scheduling challenges have delayed Blue Team training. Although most VIPD officers on St. Thomas have been trained, most VIPD officers on St. Croix have not received the appropriate training. The VIPD maintains that officers will be fully trained in the use of the Blue Team system by no later than March 15, 2013.
Accordingly, the VIPD requests that the deadlines associated with these training requirements be extended. The United States does not oppose the motion.
A court has the power to amend a consent decree under “(1) its inherent power to enforce compliance with its consent decrees; and (2) its inherent power to modify consent decrees.” Holland v. New Jersey Dep’t of Corrs., 246 F.3d 267, 281 (3d Cir. 2001). A court’s modification power “is long-established,

UniteCdasSet:a3t:e0s8-vc.v-T0e0r1r5i8t-oCrVyGo-fRMtheDVoicrugminenIts#l:a6nd7s Filed: 03/12/13 Page 5 of 7
Civil No. 2008-158 Order Page 5
broad, and flexible” and courts should apply “a flexible modification standard in institutional reform litigation . . . .” Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 381 & n.6 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, the Court’s powers to enforce compliance or modify a consent decree are not without limits. “[A] court may use its compliance enforcement power to extend one or more provisions of a decree only if such compliance enforcement is essential to remedy the violation and thus provide the parties with the relief originally bargained for in the consent order.” Id. at 283. (citing EEOC v. Local 580, 925 F.2d 588, 593 (2d Cir. 1991)).
There is no suggestion that the Virgin Islands has not been engaged in a good faith effort to reach substantial compliance by June of 2013 or that they have missed any other deadlines in the Action Plan. The most recent report of the Independent Monitors,1 while reviewing the last quarter of 2012 before the Action Plan came into effect, is substantially more optimistic than many prior reports.
The extension sought by the Virgin Islands will help it reach the ultimate goal of substantial compliance by June of
1 Pursuant to the Consent Decree, two Independent Monitors have been appointed to track the Virgin Islands’ progress under the Consent Decree. The Independent Monitors publish quarterly status reports.

UniteCdasSet:a3t:e0s8-vc.v-T0e0r1r5i8t-oCrVyGo-fRMtheDVoicrugminenIts#l:a6nd7s Filed: 03/12/13 Page 6 of 7
Civil No. 2008-158 Order Page 6
2013, by granting it more time to provide its officers with appropriate training. The Court also notes that while training on vehicle pursuits, spike strips, and the Blue Team are undoubtedly important, they comprise only a small portion of the total requirements of the Consent Decree. There has been no suggestion that the Virgin Islands has failed the interim deadlines for the vast majority of the Consent Decree’s requirements. The Court thus finds that amending the Consent Decree to grant extensions to these deadlines “is essential to remedy the violation and thus provide the parties with the relief originally bargained for in the consent order.” Id. at 283. (citing EEOC v. Local 580, 925 F.2d 588, 593 (2d Cir. 1991)).
The premises considered, it is hereby ORDERED that the Virgin Islands’ motion to amend the Consent Decree is GRANTED ORDERED that the relevant portions of the Consent Decree shall be amended to provide that vehicle pursuit and spike strip training shall be completed not later than April 30, 2013; and it is further

UniteCdasSet:a3t:e0s8-vc.v-T0e0r1r5i8t-oCrVyGo-fRMtheDVoicrugminenIts#l:a6nd7s Filed: 03/12/13 Page 7 of 7
Civil No. 2008-158 Order Page 7
ORDERED that the relevant portions of the Consent Decree
shall be amended to provide that vehicle pursuit and spike strip
training shall be completed not later than March 15, 2013.
S\ CURTIS V. GÓMEZ Chief Judge

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
- against -
THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.

3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM NOTICE OF FILING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Independent Monitor for the Virgin Islands

Police Department submits the attached Fourth Quarterly Report of 2012 of the Independent

Monitor for the Virgin Islands Police Department pursuant to a Consent Decree entered into by

the parties in the above-captioned case and filed with this Court.

Dated: New York, New York April 10, 2013

FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP

By:

s/ Steven M. Witzel

William F. Johnson

Steven M. Witzel

One New York Plaza New York, New York 10004-1980 Tel.: (212) 859-8000 Fax: (212) 859-4000 william.johnson@friedfrank.com steven.witzel@friedfrank.com

Independent Monitor

8943983

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 1 of 104

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 2 of 104
Independent Monitoring Team
Independent Monitors William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
Fried Frank Monitoring Team Elizabeth P. Kozlowski Joshua D. Roth
Police Practices Coordinator Chief Charles A. Gruber Elgin (Illinois) Police Department (retired)
Police Practices Experts Superintendent Ann Marie Doherty Boston (Massachusetts) Police Department (retired) Chief Robert L. Stewart Ormond Beach (Florida) Police Department (retired)

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 3 of 104
Table of Contents Executive Summary………………………………………………………. 4 Introduction…………………………………………………………………. 8 Compliance Assessment………………………………………………… 11
Use of Force………………………………………………………….. 11 Citizen Complaint Process………………………………………. 32 Management and Supervision………………………………….. 52 Training………………………………………………………………...72 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………84 Appendix A Summary of Consent Decree Requirements……….. i

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 4 of 104 4 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Executive Summary

This is the Fourth Quarterly Report of 2012 from the Office of the Independent Monitor (the “OIM” or the “Monitor”) for the United States Virgin Islands Police Department (the “VIPD” or the “Department”), covering the quarter ending on December 31, 2012.1
In the Fourth Quarter, the OIM’s Police Practices Experts conducted two week-long monitoring trips to the United States Virgin Islands (the “Territory”). During these trips, the Police Practices Experts spent time meeting with and providing technical assistance to VIPD personnel, observing Consent Decree related training, and reviewing closed investigation files and other police records. The assessments contained in this Report are primarily based on the Police Practices Experts’ observations and the Department’s quarterly Status Report, dated January 3, 2013 (“VIPD Report”). In addition, there were further communications and updates, telephonically and electronically, between the VIPD and the Police Practices Experts during the Fourth Quarter, as well as periodic telephonic status conferences between the VIPD, the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”), the Police Practices Experts, and the Monitors.
The Police Practices Experts noted some improvements in the quality of the VIPD’s investigations during the Fourth Quarter, including the completeness of investigations. For example, 73% (8 out of 11) of the investigation files reviewed during the Fourth Quarter were complete.2 In addition, individuals who witnessed uses of force were interviewed with more consistency, and Officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred were identified in most of the investigations.
Despite these improvements, it appears that VIPD personnel continue to underreport uses of force. To evaluate the Department’s use of force reporting practices, the Police Practices Experts reviewed a sample of 194 Arrest Reports and identified 13 Arrest Reports (7% of the total) in which the Officer’s narrative or the Arrest Report indicated that force was used. Of those 13 Arrest Reports, 54% (7 out of 13) did not have corresponding Response to Resistance Report forms (“RRR”) as required by the Reportable Use of Force

1

This Report references a limited number of events that occurred after December 31,

2012 to provide context for efforts made by the VIPD outside of the Fourth Quarter to satisfy its

Consent Decree obligations.

2

Some statistics are calculated from a total number less than 11 because: (1) the Police

Practices Experts were unable to draw certain conclusions based on the information included

in the investigative files; or (2) a Consent Decree requirement was not applicable to all

investigations, in which case we used the total number of applicable investigations (a number

less than 11) as the denominator.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 5 of 104 Office of the Independent Monitor | 5

Policy. Force accountability, including fully reporting all uses of force, is a critical requirement of the Consent Decree. Without it, uses of force may never be identified and investigated, training deficiencies may never be identified and addressed, and the Department’s use of force statistics (which fuel much of the VIPD’s risk management program) will be incomplete.
The VIPD also continues to allow the timeframe for completing use of force investigations to expire before completing the required investigations.3 In 2012, the Office of the Deputy Chief of St. Thomas was required to review 47 use of force investigations. Less than half (49%) of these investigations were reviewed in 2012. In addition, the average number of days to complete a review of an investigation was more than triple (105 days) the amount of time allowed by Department policy (30 days). On St. Croix, the Office of the Deputy Chief was required to review 63 use of force investigations in 2012. Only 38% (24 out of 63) of these investigations were reviewed in 2012, and the average number of days to complete a review was 63 days.
With respect to the citizen complaint process, Officers showed improvement during the Fourth Quarter in their knowledge of the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy. On St. Croix, 67% (8 out of 12) of the Officers questioned responded correctly when a Police Practices Expert asked them to explain the process for filing a complaint. The remaining Officers were not able to explain how a citizen is kept informed about the outcome of a complaint. Supervisors also continued to show improvement in their knowledge of the preponderance of the evidence standard. On St. Croix, we were pleased to see that 100% (8 out of 8) of the Supervisors correctly explained the preponderance of the evidence standard and how it differs from the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.4
Although the Complaint Process working group and the Use of Force working group have conducted audits relating to their respective areas of responsibility, other working groups have not yet undertaken similar audits. The VIPD should share the results of any audits with the OIM so that the Department can receive credit for any steps that it takes towards achieving substantial compliance with the Consent Decree. The OIM is hopeful that once the VIPD’s Audit Team completes audit training, the Audit Team will be fully functional and able to assist the working groups with the Department’s

3

The Reportable Use of Force Policy requires that use of force investigations be

completed within thirty calendar days. The Reportable Use of Force Policy also provides that

the investigating Supervisor must submit a completed investigation file to the Commander

within ten calendar days, the Commander must submit findings and conclusions to the Deputy

Chief/Chief within five working days after receiving the investigation file, and the Deputy

Chief/Chief then has five working days to forward a copy of the investigation file and his/her

findings to IAB.

4

The Police Practices Experts did not question Officers and Supervisors on the St.

Thomas District during the Fourth Quarter, but will do so in future quarters.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 6 of 104 6 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

Consent Decree compliance efforts. The time frame for the Audit Team to complete training, however, is uncertain because the VIPD’s contract with the training vendor has stalled at the Department of Property and Procurement (“Property and Procurement”). The reason for the delay appears to be that the vendor does not have a business license to operate in the Virgin Islands. The OIM respectfully suggests that the Governor’s Office should work with the Department and Property and Procurement to expedite approval for that contract and, to the extent possible, develop a fast track process to avoid similar delays in the future.
After nearly two years of work, the DOJ approved the VIPD’s Risk Management System (“RMS”) Protocol on October 2, 2012. The RMS Protocol will dictate how the Department’s RMS functions. The VIPD reports, however, that the policy will not be fully implemented until at least January 2013 because the Department is waiting for Property and Procurement to approve a contract to provide corresponding training. As of the First Quarter of 2013, the VIPD had not received approval for this contract and the RMS Protocol was not fully implemented as anticipated.
During the Fourth Quarter, the Department continued to work on the Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy, which will allow the VIPD to adjust the scope of its use of force investigations in proportion to the type of force used. To allow tiered use of force investigations (which would otherwise not be permitted under the Consent Decree), the Court approved revisions to the Consent Decree that were submitted by the VIPD and the DOJ (collectively, “the Parties”), and supported by the Monitors.
The Court also approved the Parties’ Joint Action Plan extending the deadline for complying with the Consent Decree and setting interim deadlines by which the VIPD must accomplish certain tasks in order to achieve substantial compliance.5 As set forth more fully below, the VIPD was required to satisfy interim deadlines for 45 Consent Decree provisions during the Fourth Quarter. The OIM expects that the VIPD will strictly adhere to the deadlines agreed to by the Parties and approved by the Court, and that the VIPD will explain in detail any missed deadlines in future VIPD Reports following the missed deadline. Future VIPD Reports should also include specific reports from the Department on whether it has met a Joint Action Plan deadline, and the steps the Department has taken to meet those deadlines.
Moreover, the Court approved the DOJ’s request to eliminate the Consent Decree’s “bright line” termination date (which was March 23, 2014) during the Fourth Quarter. The Consent Decree will now terminate “two years after the VIPD and the Territory have achieved compliance with each of the

5

United States v. The Territory of the Virgin Islands, No. 3:08-CV-00158-CVG-GWB (D.V.I.

2008), Doc. No. 61, dated December 13, 2012.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 7 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 7
provisions of [the Consent Decree], and have maintained substantial compliance for at least two years.”6 While the VIPD has improved the quality and consistency of its procedures and practices since entering into the Consent Decree in March 2009, the VIPD needs to dedicate even more resources to meeting the deadlines set forth in the Joint Action Plan and to satisfying its obligations under the Consent Decree.
Finally, during the Fourth Quarter, efforts were initiated to organize a “summit” among the VIPD, the United States Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office (the “VIAG”), the DOJ, and the OIM to discuss ideas and initiatives surrounding the Consent Decree process in order to make it more effective and to help the VIPD achieve substantial compliance. A summit has now been scheduled to take place in Washington, D.C. on April 11 and 12, 2013, to be attended by the leadership of the VIPD, the VIAG, the DOJ, and the OIM.

6

Consent Decree (“CD”) ¶103.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 8 of 104 8 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

Introduction

This is the Fourth Quarterly Report of 2012 from the Office of the Independent Monitor (the “OIM” or the “Monitor”) for the United States Virgin Islands Police Department (the “VIPD” or the “Department”), covering the quarter ending on December 31, 2012.
The OIM was established in January 2010 to monitor compliance by the United States Virgin Islands (the “Territory”) and the VIPD with the Consent Decree entered by the United States District Court for the Virgin Islands (the “Court”) on March 23, 2009. The Monitor is required by the Consent Decree to “issue quarterly written, public reports detailing the Territory’s compliance with and implementation of each substantive provision” of the Consent Decree.7
The Consent Decree reflects the agreement between the Territory, the VIPD, and the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) (collectively, the “Parties”) to resolve a lawsuit brought by the United States alleging that the Territory and the VIPD violated 42 U.S.C. § 14141 by engaging “in a pattern or practice of excessive force by Officers of the Virgin Islands Police Department and by the failure to adequately train, supervise, investigate, and discipline Officers.”8
The Parties entered into the Consent Decree “to promote police integrity and prevent conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.”9 The 104 paragraph Consent Decree contains a broad range of substantive requirements for reform in areas such as: (1) revising the VIPD’s force-related policies; (2) training Officers to properly use force in accordance with constitutional requirements, VIPD policy, and existing best practices in policing; (3) reporting and investigating use of force events; (4) documenting and investigating complaints alleging Officer misconduct; (5) developing systems for managing and supervising Officers; and (6) disciplining Officers found to have engaged in misconduct.
On October 1, 2010, the Court—charged with enforcing the VIPD’s obligations under the Consent Decree—ordered the Parties to jointly propose a timetable by which the VIPD would substantially comply with each substantive provision in the Consent Decree. The Parties subsequently filed a timetable on

7

CD ¶ 96. This Quarterly Report, along with the OIM’s prior reports, is available on the

internet at http://www.policemonitor.org/VI/VIindex.html.

8

CD ¶ 6; see also Complaint, United States v. The Territory of the Virgin Islands, No. 3:08-

CV-00158-CVG-GWB (D.V.I. 2008).

9

CD ¶ 3.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 9 of 104 Office of the Independent Monitor | 9

November 24, 2010 that set forth specific dates by which the VIPD would substantially comply with each substantive provision in the Consent Decree (the “Consent Decree Timetable”). The Consent Decree Timetable also created interim deadlines for the VIPD to submit force-related policies to the DOJ for approval. The VIPD successfully met nearly every policy submission deadline. However, by the end of the Third Quarter of 2011, the VIPD had missed all of the remaining deadlines for substantial compliance established by the Courtordered Consent Decree Timetable (deadlines that the VIPD proposed and committed to meeting). For example, under the Consent Decree Timetable, the VIPD was required to substantially comply with Consent Decree ¶¶ 32-58, 70, and 72 by May 31, 2011, ¶¶ 60, 61, and 73-81 by June 30, 2011, and ¶¶ 49, 59, and 63-66 by September 15, 2011. To date, the VIPD has only complied with the following non-substantive provisions: ¶¶ 82-86, 88, and 98.
In January 2011, to encourage compliance within the timeframe of the Consent Decree Timetable, the then-Police Commissioner convened a Consent Decree Summit on St. Thomas on January 3 and 4, 2011 (the “Summit”).10 At the Summit, the then-Police Commissioner appointed senior VIPD personnel to lead, and ultimately be held accountable for, different aspects of the Consent Decree—Use of Force (Chief of the St. Croix District),11 Citizen Complaint Process (Chief of the St. Thomas District),12 Management and Supervision (Deputy Chief of St. Thomas), and Training (Director of Training). The Police Commissioner explained that each working group leader was responsible for: (1) designating a “point person” and recruiting other working group members; (2) drafting an action plan; (3) interacting with other VIPD personnel on interrelated Consent Decree issues; and (4) monitoring the working group’s progress by attending and participating in as many meetings as schedules permit, but no less than twice a month.13
The OIM is hopeful that the Joint Action Plan—proposed by the Parties and approved by the Court during the Fourth Quarter—will reinvigorate the

10

The OIM discussed the Summit in the Fourth Quarterly Report of 2010 and the First

Quarterly Report of 2011. For more information about the Summit, including objectives and

participants, see the Consent Decree Summit Addendum at the end of those Reports.

11

Following on-duty injuries sustained by the Chief of the St. Croix District during the

Third Quarter, the Deputy Chief of St. Croix assumed responsibility as Acting Chief of the St.

Croix District and Acting Leader of the Use of Force working group. The Acting Chief appointed

a Captain as his point person, and she has recruited new members and commenced regular

meetings of the working group.

12

The Citizen Complaint Process working group is now led by the Deputy Chief of St.

John.

13

Memorandum from the Police Commissioner to various VIPD personnel, titled “Meeting

Current Standards of Policing,” dated January 19, 2011. The OIM’s Police Practices Experts

also provided the working group leaders with a memorandum outlining their respective

responsibilities. During the Fourth Quarter, the Police Practices experts regularly exchanged

emails and telephone calls with their counterparts and met in person during the quarter’s

monitoring trips.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 10 of 104
10 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
VIPD’s Consent Decree compliance efforts. The Joint Action Plan extends the deadline for complying with the Consent Decree and sets interim deadlines by which the VIPD must accomplish certain tasks in order to achieve substantial compliance. As set forth more fully below, the VIPD was required during the Fourth Quarter to satisfy interim deadlines for 45 Consent Decree provisions. The OIM expects that the VIPD will strictly adhere to the deadlines agreed to by the Parties and approved by the Court, and that the VIPD will explain in detail any missed deadlines in future VIPD Reports following the missed deadline. Future VIPD Reports should also include specific reports from the Department on whether it has met a Joint Action Plan deadline, and the steps the Department has taken to meet those deadlines. We are mindful that the Parties jointly agreed on the prior timetable, and that the VIPD failed to satisfy many of the interim deadlines set forth in that document. In order for the new Joint Action Plan to succeed (where previous efforts have failed), the VIPD must commit substantially more resources and management effort to complying with the Consent Decree.
The Court also approved several revisions to the Consent Decree during the Fourth Quarter. First, the Court eliminated the Consent Decree’s original “bright line” termination date. Instead of automatically terminating on March 23, 2014, the Consent Decree will now terminate once the VIPD achieves substantial compliance and remains in substantial compliance for two years.14 Second, the Court revised the Consent Decree to allow the Department to use a “tiered approach” to investigating uses of force where more serious uses of force are subject to more extensive investigations than relatively less serious uses of force.15 Third, the Court revised CD ¶¶ 32-38 and 43 to resolve certain ambiguities and to make these provisions clearer. The OIM believes that the Court-approved changes will reinvigorate and strengthen efforts to achieve substantial compliance with the Consent Decree.
Finally, as we reported in the Third Quarterly Report of 2012, Police Commissioner White resigned on January 14, 2013 and Rodney Querrard (the former Police Chief of the St. Thomas District) was appointed by the Governor as Acting Police Commissioner. The OIM congratulates Acting Police Commissioner Querrard on his new appointment. We welcome him back and look forward to working with him again.
14 CD ¶103. 15 CD ¶36.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 11 of 104 Office of the Independent Monitor | 11

Compliance Assessment
This section of the Report describes the VIPD’s compliance efforts with respect to each of the substantive provisions of the Consent Decree,16 as well as monitoring activities by the OIM’s Police Practices Experts during the quarter. The organization of this section of the Report parallels the organization of the Consent Decree. Specifically, we provide a status and assessment discussion that describes and analyzes the VIPD’s progress toward achieving substantial compliance with the Consent Decree’s requirements.17 We include recommendations to assist the VIPD in achieving full and timely implementation of the Consent Decree’s requirements.18
Use of Force Policies
Joint Action Plan Requirements
During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD was required under the Joint Action Plan to complete certain interim steps towards achieving substantial compliance with ¶¶ 31-41 of the Consent Decree. Specifically, the VIPD was required to implement a tracking system to ensure that VIPD personnel are trained on the Department’s Use of Force policies and to periodically test VIPD personnel for proficiency with these policies. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department has developed such a tracking system.
The Department also agreed that the United States Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office (the “VIAG”), the Use of Force working group and the Training working group would begin quarterly reviews of all Use of Force policies. The VIPD reported during the Third Quarter that it would begin an annual review of its use of force policies in consultation with the VIAG. To that end, the VIPD developed a review form entitled “Use of Force Policies/Training Review,” which provides a uniform format for seeking comments and recommendations. The Training Director (or his designee) must sign the form upon review. The VIPD has not yet provided the OIM with any completed forms relating to its review of use of force policies. The Use of Force working group provided the OIM with a document reflecting suggested revisions to the Firearms Policy. Those suggestions were forwarded to the Policy and Procedures Committee (the “Committee”) for its consideration.

16

A summary of the Consent Decree requirements is excerpted at Appendix A. A copy of

the full text of the Consent Decree is available at:

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/VIPD_CD_03-23-09.pdf.

17

The Consent Decree provides that “[t]he Monitor shall issue quarterly written, public

reports detailing the Territory of the Virgin Islands’ compliance with and implementation of

each substantive provision of [the] Agreement.” CD ¶ 96.

18

CD ¶ 85.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 12 of 104
12 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
The Use of Force working group did not provide a further report on the status of its review of other use of force policies (e.g., Use of Force, Impact Weapons, ECW, O.C. Spray, Off-Duty Official Action, Vehicle Pursuit, Spike Strip, SRT, and Sniper Policies) during the Fourth Quarter. The OIM learned at the beginning of the First Quarter of 2013 that the Department’s review is ongoing.
In addition, the VIPD agreed to provide the DOJ with an action plan for achieving a sufficient number of Supervisors to implement the use of force policies and the Joint Action Plan by November 30, 2012. As we have previously reported, the VIPD has too few supervisors to satisfy the Consent Decree. While the VIPD promoted 16 supervisors during the First Quarter of 2012, only 4 of those promotions represented new supervisors; the other promotions accounted for existing supervisors being promoted to a higher rank. Without adequate supervisory oversight, Supervisors are unable to respond to the scene of uses of force and to conduct contemporaneous investigations. As a result, uses of force continue to be underinvestigated and underreported, and use of force investigations are completed well after the 30 calendar days permitted by the Reportable Use of Force Policy.
Satisfying one of its obligations under the Joint Action Plan, the VIPD provided the DOJ with an action plan for achieving a sufficient number of Supervisors on November 30, 2012. On December 31, 2012, the DOJ provided comments on the VIPD’s action plan. One of the DOJ’s comments recommended that the VIPD clarify what, if anything, it plans to do in the event that there is a lack of funding for new Supervisors. Recognizing the Department’s fiscal constraints, the VIPD should address that possibility and plan accordingly.
31. The VIPD will review and revise its use of force policies as necessary to: a) define terms clearly; b) define force as that term is defined in this Agreement; c) incorporate a use of force model that teaches disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements or calling in specialized units as appropriate responses to a situation; d) advise that, whenever possible, individuals should be allowed to submit to arrest before force is used; e) reinforce that the use of excessive force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and/or civil liability; f) ensure that sufficient less lethal alternatives are available to all patrol officers; and g) explicitly prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized. Once the DOJ has reviewed and approved these policies, the VIPD shall immediately implement any revisions.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 13 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 13
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 31 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it continued to review the Department’s use of force policies and that the period for submitting comments (as established by a September 2012 Department memorandum) on those policies closed on November 23, 2012. The Committee plans to convene to review each policy and the comments received. Once the review process is complete, the Department reports that the revised policies will be submitted to the Police Commissioner for review and approval before being reissued Departmentwide.19
OIM Report:
As previously reported, the VIPD has received DOJ approval for twelve force-related policies through the end of the Fourth Quarter: (1) Use of Force; (2) Reportable Use of Force; (3) Impact Weapons; (4) Electronic Control Weapon (“ECW”); (5) O.C. Spray; (6) Vehicle Pursuit; (7) Spike Strip; (8) Off-Duty Official Action; (9) Firearms; (10) Field Training Officer Program (“FTO”); (11) Special Operations – Special Response Team and Hostage Negotiations Team (“SRT/HNT”); and (12) Special Operations SRT – Sniper (“Sniper”). The VIPD adopted these policies in partial satisfaction of ¶¶ 31 to 41 of the Consent Decree. The Department’s Use of Force Policy incorporates all of the elements set forth in subparts a-g of ¶ 31. In addition, the Department has adopted the Response to Resistance Reporting Forms (“RRR”) (formerly known as Use of Force Reports) for VIPD personnel to document uses of force pursuant to the Reportable Use of Force Policy; RRRs should be completed whenever force is used. During the Fourth Quarter, however, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of the Department’s use of force policies or that the Department has fully implemented those policies. The Consent Decree defines implementation as “the development or putting into place of a policy or procedure, including the appropriate training of personnel.”
The Department continued to work on the Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy in the Fourth Quarter. The Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy is intended to address concerns among some VIPD personnel that the existing Use of Force Policy and Reportable Use of Force Policy impose too great a burden on Supervisors by requiring “all inclusive” force reviews for comparatively “minor” force incidents.
19 The OIM notes that CD ¶31 requires the Department to submit any revised force related policies to the DOJ for approval before being issued.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 14 of 104
14 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Under the new policy, the VIPD would adjust its investigation in proportion to the type of force used, meaning that comparatively “minor” uses of force would typically require less exhaustive investigations than more severe uses of force. The DOJ conditionally approved the Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy on November 3, 2011, subject to agreeing on and receiving Court approval for corresponding revisions to the Consent Decree to permit “tiered” force investigations. In the process of reviewing the proposed revisions to the Consent Decree, however, the DOJ discovered internal inconsistencies with the Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy and revoked its conditional approval during the First Quarter. During the Fourth Quarter, the Court approved revisions to the Consent Decree to allow “tiered” investigations.
The VIPD first reported during the Third Quarter that it would start reviewing its use of force policies and related training on an annual basis in consultation with the VIAG. As part of that process, the VIPD developed a review form entitled “Use of Force Policies/Training Review” to collect comments and recommendations for each policy. The Training Director (or his designee) is required to sign the form to document his/her receipt and review. Despite repeated requests, the VIPD has not yet provided the OIM with any completed forms.
The Use of Force working group provided the OIM with its proposed revisions to the Firearms Policy, which the working group submitted to the Committee for consideration. The OIM learned at the beginning of the First Quarter of 2013 that the Department’s review of other force-related policies is on-going.
Recommendations:
The Use of Force working group should continue to work with the Training Division to ensure that training programs are held for all of the Department’s force-related policies on an on-going basis, and that all relevant VIPD personnel are attending those programs in their entirety. The Use of Force working group should also work with the Director of Training to evaluate post-training examinations to help assess the degree to which VIPD personnel understand the policies and the lessons conveyed during training. The Use of Force working group and Director of Training should then schedule follow-up training (continuing in-service, Roll Call, or Commanders Call training) based on the results of those post-training examinations.
The VIPD should also attempt to determine why certain personnel are failing to comply with the requirements of the use of force policies. The VIPD should then actively address those issues at Roll and Commanders Call training, and with individual Officers as appropriate. Additionally, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 15 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 15
comply with Department policy. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work with the Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, the Internal Affairs Bureau (the “IAB”), and the Training Division to provide remedial training or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions if necessary. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
In addition, the Department should finalize the Arrest Policy sent to the VIAG for review during the First Quarter of 2013 and implement the policy by providing training to VIPD personnel. As previously reported, until the Department finalizes and provides adequate training on the Arrest Policy, it will continue to underreport arrests and uses of force. The underreporting of arrests and uses of force has a negative impact on the Department’s Risk Management System (“RMS”). As a result, the VIPD will not be able to comply with important aspects of the Consent Decree relating to use of force and risk management until it rectifies this problem.
32. The VIPD will require all uses of force to be documented in writing. The use of force report form will indicate each and every type of force that was used, and require the evaluation of each type of force. Use of force reports will include a narrative description of the events preceding the use of force, written by a supervisor or by the designated investigative unit. Use of force reports also will include the officer(s)’ narrative description of events and the officer(s)’ statement. Except in cases of use of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, the officer’s statement shall be audio- or videotaped.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 32 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
During the Fourth quarter, the Use of Force working group submitted a “Use of Force Working Group Audit Operation Request” to the Police Commissioner to identify and remediate investigatory practices on both Districts that do not comply with Department policy. The VIPD will report on that audit in the Department’s next Status Report.
During the Fourth Quarter, the Commissioner issued Directive 007-2012 mandating that all Supervisors and reviewers of use of force investigations use the Response to Resistance Investigation Checklist (the “Checklist”). According to the VIPD, the Checklist “identifies essential elements that are critical in the completion of a thorough and complete investigation and further serves as a guide at various levels of the review process . . . [t]he Checklist references levels

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 16 of 104 16 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

of resistance consistent with the [Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy] still under review by both the VIPD and USDOJ.”

The Department also reports that it issued Directive 006-2012 in the Fourth Quarter, which rescinded a previously issued directive that required Officers and Supervisors to complete a “Use/Non-Response to Resistance Acknowledgement form” (in addition to an RRR) whenever force is used.

OIM Report:

The VIPD has issued the Use of Force Policy and Reportable Use of Force Policy in response to the requirements of ¶ 32 of the consent decree. The Department modified the Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy, which is intended to address concerns among some VIPD personnel that the existing Use of Force Policy and Reportable Use of Force Policy impose too great a burden on Supervisors by requiring “all inclusive” force reviews for comparatively “minor” force incidents. Under the new policy, the VIPD would adjust the extent of its investigation of use of force events in proportion to the type of force used, meaning that comparatively “minor” force events would typically require less exhaustive investigations than more severe force events. The DOJ conditionally approved the Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy on November 3, 2011, subject to agreeing on and receiving court approval for corresponding revisions to the Consent Decree that would permit “tiered” force investigations. In the process of reviewing the proposed revisions to the Consent Decree, however, the DOJ discovered internal inconsistencies with the Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy and revoked its conditional approval during the First Quarter. The Parties continued to work on revising the policy during the Fourth Quarter.20 To allow tiered use of force investigations, the Court approved revisions to Consent Decree ¶32 during the Fourth Quarter.

The VIPD provided the OIM with Directive 007-2012, which requires all investigating Supervisors to use the “Response to Resistance Investigation Checklist” during the Fourth Quarter. As the OIM has previously reported, Supervisors from the St. Croix District began using the Checklist during the Third Quarter of 2011, but the Department delayed using the Checklist Department-wide until finalizing the Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy.

The Department continued to underreport force during the Fourth Quarter. The OIM’s Police Practices Experts continued to review a sample of Arrest Reports to determine whether VIPD personnel are reporting force as required by the Use of Force Policy and Reportable Use of Force Policy. The Police Practices Experts reviewed a total of 194 Arrest Reports from the St.

20

The DOJ approved the Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy during

the First Quarter of 2013.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 17 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 17
Thomas and St. Croix Districts, and identified that force was likely used in 7% (13 out of 194) of the arrests based on the Officer’s narrative or because the report indicated that the subject resisted arrest.21 Fifty-four percent (7 out of 13) of those Arrest Reports did not have corresponding RRRs (documenting force was used) as required by the Reportable Use of Force Policy.22
To further evaluate the Department’s use of force reporting practices, the OIM reviewed a total of 11 completed use of force investigation files on the St. Thomas and St. Croix Districts during the Fourth Quarter. Throughout the Report, certain statistics may be calculated from a total number of less than 11 because: (1) the Police Practices Experts were unable to draw certain conclusions based on the information included in the investigative files; or (2) a Consent Decree requirement was not applicable to all investigations, in which case we used the total number of applicable investigations (a number less than 11) as the denominator.
The Police Practices Experts found that 73% (8 out of 11) of the investigation files reviewed during the Fourth Quarter were complete, which was a marked improvement from 50% (12 out of 24) in the Third Quarter. A “complete” investigation file generally consists of the following (to the extent applicable): Form 1A; Arrest Report; completed RRR; video or audio statements from witnesses; photos of injuries, weapons, etc.; the Supervisor’s investigative report with an analysis of the facts, evidence identified, and findings; evidence that the Department’s chain of command reviewed and approved the completed investigation file; and a disposition letter.
With respect to the other requirements of this provision, Supervisors described the events preceding the use of force and evaluated the appropriateness of each type of force used in 91% (10 out of 11) of the investigation files (an improvement from 71% (17 out of 24) in the Third Quarter for a description of the events preceding the use of force); 100% (11 out of 11) of the investigation files included the Officer’s description of events (an improvement from 96% (24 out of 25) in the Third Quarter); the use of force report in 91% (10 out of 11) of the investigation files indicated the type of force used (a slight decline from 92% (23 out of 25) in the Third Quarter); audiotaped statements were taken in 60% (6 out of 10) of the investigations (an improvement from 46% (11 out of 24) in the Third Quarter); and 82% (9 out of 11) of the investigations were completed within the timeline required under the Reportable Use of Force Policy (a marked improvement from 50% (13 out of 76)

21

During the Third Quarter, the Police Practices Experts determined that force was likely

used in 7% (18 out of 243) of the arrests.

22

During the Third Quarter, the Police Practices experts determined that 61% (11 out of

18) of Arrest Reports that indicate that force was used did not have corresponding RRRs.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 18 of 104
18 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
in the Third Quarter).23 The VIPD must conduct its own audit to ensure that it is complying with each of the requirements of Consent Decree ¶ 32.
The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department is in substantial compliance with this Consent Decree provision. According to ¶103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The full and timely reporting of force is a cornerstone requirement of the Consent Decree. To that end, the Use of Force working group should audit Arrest Reports to determine the extent to which force is being reported across the Districts. Based on those audits, the VIPD should attempt to determine why force is being underreported. The VIPD should then actively address those issues at Roll Call and Commanders Call training, and with individual Officers as appropriate. The VIPD should also develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work with the Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, the IAB, and the Training Division to provide remedial training or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions, if necessary. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.24
33. Officers shall notify their supervisors following any use of force [or]25 upon the receipt of an allegation of excessive force. Except in uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, supervisors will respond to the scene, examine the subject for injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain, and ensure that the subject received needed medical attention.

23

The Reportable Use of Force Policy requires that use of force investigations be

completed within thirty calendar days. The Reportable Use of Force Policy also provides that

the investigating Supervisor must submit a completed investigation file to the Commander

within ten calendar days, the Commander must submit findings and conclusions to the Deputy

Chief/Chief within five working days after receiving the investigation file, and the Deputy

Chief/Chief then has five working days to forward a copy of the investigation file and his/her

findings to IAB.

24

Based on the use of force investigations that the Police Practices Experts have reviewed,

it appears that most use of force investigations do not involve a large number of witnesses or

evidence. In these cases, the corresponding use of force investigations should be completed

within the required 30 days. When circumstances arise that make it impossible to complete an

investigation within this time period, the Department should include in the investigation file a

statement explaining the delay and evidence that an extension has been requested and

granted.

25

During the First Quarter of 2013 the Parties jointly filed a motion to correct or amend

the Court’s Order, dated December 13, 2012, by inserting “or” into the first sentence of ¶ 33 of

the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 19 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 19
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 33 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that the requirements of ¶ 33 of the Consent Decree are incorporated into the Reportable Use of Force Policy, and that the Department will monitor for continued compliance with the policy.
The VIPD also reports that members of the Use of Force working group conducted Commanders Call training on reporting uses of force in the St. Thomas District during the Fourth Quarter. Squad Supervisors will conduct future Commanders Call training, and members of the Use of Force working group will observe those trainings to identify any Supervisors who may resist the Consent Decree process and its requirements. In addition, the Acting Chief of the St. Croix district conducted Commanders Call training on “Resisting Arrest/Non-Compliance and Use of Force.” A copy of the Joint Action Plan was distributed to all Supervisors who attended. The Department reports that it will also continue to hold Roll Call and Commanders Call training to address other aspects of the Consent Decree.
OIM Report:
As discussed in connection with Consent Decree ¶ 32, the Police Practices Experts reviewed 11 completed investigation files during the Fourth Quarter to evaluate the Department’s use of force reporting practices. Among other things, that review showed that Officers timely notified Supervisors following a use of force in 64% (7 out of 11) of the investigations (an improvement of 50% (12 out of 24) in the Third Quarter), and that Supervisors responded to the scene and conducted an investigation in 56% (5 out of 9) of the investigations (an improvement from 35% (8 out of 23) in the Third Quarter). The VIPD must conduct its own audit to ensure that it is complying with each of the requirements of Consent Decree ¶ 33.
Recommendations:
The Use of Force working group should audit whether Officers are notifying their Supervisors following any use of force or allegation of excessive use of force. The Use of Force working group should also audit whether Supervisors are responding to the scene of a use of force, examining the subject for injury, interviewing the subject for complaints of pain, and ensuring that the subject receives needed medical attention. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 20 of 104
20 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
34. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, will review, evaluate, and document each use of force, and will complete the narrative description section of the use of force report. The narrative description will include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer’s conduct. As part of this review, the supervisor or designated investigating officer/unit will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officer’s actions were within VIPD policy. An officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized conduct leading to the use of force or allegation of excessive force, or who was present during the incident, will not be eligible to review of investigate the incident.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 34 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that the requirements of ¶ 34 of the Consent Decree have “already been established department wide and internal monitoring of the processes in place . . . will be instrumental in gauging the degree of compliance of non-compliance.”
OIM Report:
As discussed above, the Police Practices Experts reviewed 11 complete investigation files during the Fourth Quarter to evaluate the Department’s use of force reporting practices. In 82% (9 out of 11) of the completed use of force investigations reviewed, Supervisors included narratives describing the facts and circumstances that justified or failed to justify the Officer’s conduct. In 100% (11 out of 11) of the completed use of force investigations (an improvement from 54% (13 out of 24) in the Third Quarter) Supervisors evaluated the basis for the use of force; in 82% (9 out of 11) of the investigations, Supervisors determined whether the Officer’s actions were within VIPD policy (a decrease from 83% (20 out of 24) in the Third Quarter); and 91% (10 out of 11) of the investigations were conducted by Supervisors who were not directly involved in the use of force incident (an improvement from 67% (14 out of 21) in the Third Quarter). The VIPD must conduct its own audit to ensure that it is complying with each of the requirements of Consent Decree ¶ 34.
The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department is in compliance with this Consent Decree provision. This lack of documentation included, for example, the lack of audits of use of force

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 21 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 21
investigations. According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The Use of Force working group should audit whether Supervisors are conducting adequate use of force investigations. Based on those audits, the VIPD should attempt to determine why certain personnel are failing to comply with the requirements of ¶ 34. The VIPD should then actively address those issues at Roll and Commanders Call training, and with individual Officers as appropriate. The VIPD should also develop a process for identifying personnel who continually produce deficient investigations. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work with the Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, the IAB, and the Training Division to provide remedial training, or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions if necessary. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
35. The parties agree that it is improper interview procedure during use of force investigations to ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer’s conduct when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. In each review/investigation, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. The VIPD will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. The VIPD will train all of its supervisor and officers assigned to conduct use of force investigations in conducting use of force investigations, including in the factors to consider when evaluating credibility.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 35 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that Supervisors on both Districts received training during the Third Quarter on investigating uses of force, and that additional training will be offered during future in service, Roll Call, and Commanders Call training. The Department also reports that policies “already implemented department wide establish the requirements” of ¶ 35.
OIM Report:
As discussed above, the Police Practices Experts reviewed 11 completed investigation files during the Fourth Quarter to evaluate the Department’s use

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 22 of 104
22 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
of force reporting practices, the Police Practices. Among other things, that review showed that Supervisors did not use leading questions in 82% (9 out of 11) of the completed use of force investigations, which remained constant from the Third Quarter.
While monitoring on St. Thomas, a Police Practices Expert reviewed the examinations administered to Supervisors during the Third Quarter after attending training on investigating uses of force. The examination included 14 multiple choice and 16 true/false questions. Of the Supervisors who completed the examination, 24% (9 out of 37) answered more than 2 questions incorrectly. The Police Practices Expert also learned that the Deputy Chief of St. John asked the IAB to conduct Commanders Call training for Supervisors and Commanders on common deficiencies that the IAB identified in reviews of Zone investigations.
The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department is in compliance with this Consent Decree provision. This lack of documentation included, for example, the lack of audits of use of force investigations. According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The Use of Force working group should audit investigations to determine the extent to which Supervisors are complying with the requirements of ¶ 35 of the Consent Decree. Based on these audits, the VIPD should attempt to determine why certain personnel are failing to comply with the requirements of ¶ 35. The VIPD should then actively address those issues at Roll and Commanders Call training, and with individual Officers as appropriate. The VIPD should also develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply with Department policy. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work with the Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, the IAB, and the Training Division to provide remedial training, or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions if necessary. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
36. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall conduct an investigation of all uses of force or injury resulting from a use of force by any officer under their command. This requirement does not apply to uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ. In an investigation, supervisors or designated investigating officers or units, shall interview all witnesses to a use of force or an injury resulting from a use of force. Consistent with the requirements of the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable law, VIPD supervisors or designated investigating officers or units shall ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 23 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 23
the incident. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all use of force reports for all levels of force identify all officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports for all levels of force indicate whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided, and whether the subject refused medical treatment. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports include contemporaneous photographs or videotapes taken of all injuries at the earliest practicable opportunity, both before and after any treatment, including cleansing of wounds.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 36 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that under the leadership of the Acting Chief of the St. Croix District and his designated point person, the Use of Force working group has held weekly meetings to address issues of priority, including developing a Roll Call training to rectify misconceptions about the Consent Decree, reviewing use of force policies, developing a revised Use of Force working group action plan, and auditing use of force investigations.
The VIPD also reported that it is considering various methods to increase awareness throughout the Department about the Consent Decree and force reporting requirements. One of the options that the VIPD is considering involves the installation of electronic billboards highlighting key Consent Decree requirements in various Zones. The Department has received bids from vendors for the electronic billboards.
OIM Report:
As discussed in connection with Consent Decree ¶ 32, to evaluate the Department’s use of force reporting practices, the Police Practices Experts reviewed 11 completed investigation files during the Fourth Quarter. Among other things, that review showed that all witnesses to a use of force or an injury resulting from a use of force were interviewed (9 out of 9) as part of the use of force investigation, which is an improvement from 67% (12 out of 18) in the Third Quarter. All Officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred were identified in 90% (9 out of 10) of the investigations, which is an improvement from 79% (19 out of 24) in the Third Quarter. In 80% (4 out of 5) of the investigations where injuries were sustained, the Supervisor described the injuries, which is an improvement from 55% (6 out of 11) in the Third Quarter. In addition, 40% (2 out of 5) of

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 24 of 104
24 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
the investigations where injuries were sustained included photographs of the injuries. The VIPD must conduct its own audit to ensure that it is complying with each of the requirements of Consent Decree ¶ 36.
The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department is in compliance with this Consent Decree provision. This lack of documentation included, for example, the lack of audits of use of force investigations. According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The Use of Force working group should audit investigations to determine the extent to which Supervisors are complying with the requirements of ¶ 36. Based on those audits, the VIPD should attempt to determine why certain personnel are failing to comply with the requirements of ¶ 36. The VIPD should then actively address those issues at Roll Call and Commanders Call training, and with individual Officers as appropriate. The VIPD should also develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply with Department policy. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work with the Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, the IAB and the Training Division to provide remedial training, or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions if necessary. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
37. All investigations into use of force shall be reviewed by the Officer’s Commander and/or Director, or by a Commander and/or Director in the designated investigative unit, who shall identify any deficiencies in those reviews, and shall require supervisors, or designated investigative officers or units, to correct any and all deficiencies. Supervisors, and designated investigative officers or units, will be held accountable for the quality of their reviews. Appropriate non-disciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary action will be taken when a supervisor, or designated investigative officer or unit, fails to conduct a timely and thorough review, or neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action, or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action. As provided by VIPD policy and approved by DOJ, designated command staff shall further review the Commander and/or Director’s reviews according to the level of force involved.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 25 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 25
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 37 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that the requirements of ¶ 37 have “already been established department wide.” The Department states that it will monitor conduct to ensure continued compliance with Department policy.
OIM Report:
For several quarters, the OIM has reported that the Reportable Use of Force Policy requires that use of force investigations be completed within 30 calendar days. The Reportable Use of Force Policy also provides that the investigating Supervisor must submit a completed investigation file to the Commander within ten calendar days, the Commander must submit findings and conclusions to the Deputy Chief/Chief within five working days after receiving the investigation file, and the Deputy Chief/Chief then has five working days to forward a copy of the investigation file and his/her findings to the IAB.
Department records indicate that both Districts have failed to complete investigations within the time periods required by Department policy for a significant number of uses of force. For example, in 2012 the Office of the Deputy Chief of St. Thomas was required to review 47 use of force investigations. Less than half (49%) of these investigations were reviewed in 2012. In addition, the average number of days to complete a review of an investigation was more than triple (105 days) the amount of time allowed by Department policy (30 days). Of these investigations that were reviewed: 61% (14 out of 23) of the uses of force were justified and within Department policy; 2 out of 23 (9%) of the uses of force were found to be justified but in violation of Department policy; 17% (4 out of 23) of the use of forces were found to be justified, but required remedial training; and 13% (3 out of 23) of the investigated uses of force were found to be not justified.
In St. Croix, the Office of the Deputy Chief was required to review 63 use of force investigations in 2012. Only 38% (24 out of 63) of the use of force investigations were reviewed, and the average number of days to complete a review was more than double (63 days) the amount of time allowed by Department policy. Of those investigations that were reviewed, 88% (21 out of 24) of the uses of force were found to be justified and within Department policy; 2 out of 24 (8 %) of the uses of force were found to be justified, but required remedial training; and 4% (1 out of 24) of the investigated uses of force were found to be not justified.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 26 of 104
26 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department is in compliance with this Consent Decree provision. This lack of documentation included, for example, the lack of audits of use of force investigations. According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The Use of Force working group should audit investigations to determine the extent to which Supervisors are complying with the requirements of ¶ 37. In particular, the Use of Force working group should audit whether Supervisors conduct adequate use of force investigations, and whether the Chiefs/Deputy Chiefs are reviewing investigations, identifying deficiencies, and forwarding closed cases to the IAB and Training Division (for review and archiving). Based on those audits, the VIPD should attempt to determine why certain personnel are failing to comply with the requirements of ¶ 37. The VIPD should then actively address those issues at Roll Call and Commanders Call training, and with individual Officers as appropriate. The VIPD should also develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply with Department policy. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work with the Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, the IAB and the Training Division to provide remedial training, or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions if necessary. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
38. The VIPD will investigate all critical firearm discharges. The VIPD will ensure that the investigation accounts for all shots and locations of all officers who discharged their firearms. The VIPD will conduct ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 38 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that all critical firearms discharges continue to be investigated by the IAB.
OIM Report:
During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD provided the OIM with a report of critical firearm discharges investigated by the IAB in 2012. In the St. Thomas

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 27 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 27
District, the IAB investigated a total of 4 critical firearms discharges2 discharges involving animals, 1 accidental discharge, and 1 discharge in the line of duty, which appears to relate to the May 26, 2012 incident in which a VIPD Officer was shot in the line of duty. Two of the investigations are completethe accidental discharge was “sustained” and one of the discharges involving an animal was determined to be “justified and within policy”. The investigation relating to the discharge in the line of duty is currently suspended pending completion of a ballistics report. The final investigation involving a discharge and an animal remained active (and overdue) at the end of the Fourth Quarter. In the St. Croix District, the IAB continues to investigate 2 in the line of duty discharges. Both investigations remained active (and overdue) at the end of the Fourth Quarter.
The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department is in compliance with this Consent Decree provision. According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendation:
The OIM is concerned with the extended amount of time that it takes for the VIPD to complete ballistics tests for critical firearms discharges. The VIPD should assess ways to expedite this process. The VIPD will be unable to comply with the Consent Decree if it is unable to conduct timely use of force investigations. The VIPD should also continue to provide the OIM with documentation that the IAB is investigating critical firearms as required by ¶ 38 of the Consent Decree, and that the investigations are complete and receive a final disposition.
39. VIPD shall complete development of a Use of Firearms policy that complies with applicable law and current professional standards. The policy shall prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition and shall inform officers that any such use may subject them to disciplinary action. The policy shall establish a single, uniform reporting system for all firearms discharges. The policy shall prohibit officers from obtaining service ammunition from any source except through official VIPD channels, and shall specify the number of rounds VIPD authorizes its officers to carry. The policy will continue to require that all discharges of firearms by officers on- or off-duty, including unintentional discharges, be reported and investigated.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 39 of the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 28 of 104
28 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that the requirements of ¶ 39 have “already been established department wide.” The Department states that it will monitor conduct to ensure continued compliance.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued its Firearms Policy on May 3, 2011. The Firearms Policy addresses all of the requirements set forth in ¶ 39. During the Fourth Quarter, however, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of the policy or that the Department has fully implemented the policy.
The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department is in compliance with this Consent Decree provision. According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The Use of Force working group should continue to work with the Training Division to ensure that training programs are held for the Firearms Policy on an on-going basis and that relevant VIPD personnel are attending those programs. The Use of Force working group should also work with the Director of Training to evaluate post-training examinations to help assess the degree to which VIPD personnel understand the policies and the lessons conveyed during training. The Use of Force working group and Director of Training should then schedule follow-up training (continuing in-service, Roll Call, or Commanders Call training) based on the results of those post-training examinations. In addition, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate.
The Department should also conduct routine inspections to determine that VIPD personnel are carrying only authorized ammunition, as required by the firearms Policy. Officers found to be carrying unauthorized ammunition should be disciplined. The results of these inspections and any resulting discipline should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
Finally, the Use of Force working group should also provide the OIM with documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of ¶ 39 and that the Department has fully implemented the Off-Duty Official Action policy.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 29 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 29
40. The VIPD shall revise its policies regarding off-duty officers taking police action to: a) provide that off-duty officers shall notify on-duty VIPD or local law enforcement officers before taking police action, absent exigent circumstances, so that they may respond with appropriate personnel and resources to handle the problem; b) provide that, if it appears the officer has consumed alcohol or is otherwise impaired, the officer shall submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 40 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that the requirements of ¶ 40 have “already been established department wide.” The Department states that it will monitor conduct to ensure continued compliance.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued its Off-Duty Official Action Policy on March 20, 2011. The policy addresses all of the requirements set forth in subparts a-b of ¶ 40.
The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department is in compliance with this Consent Decree provision. According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The Use of Force working group should continue to work with the Training Division to ensure that training programs are held on the Off-Duty Official Action Policy on an on-going basis and that relevant VIPD personnel are attending those programs. The Use of Force working group should also work with the Director of Training to evaluate post-training examinations to help assess the degree to which VIPD personnel understand the policies and the lessons conveyed during training. The Use of Force working group and Director of Training should then schedule follow-up training (continuing inservice, Roll Call or Commanders Call training) based on the results of those post-training examinations. In addition, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate.
The Use of Force working group should also provide the OIM with documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of ¶ 40

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 30 of 104
30 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
and that the Department has fully implemented the Off-Duty Official Action Policy.
41. The VIPD shall continue to provide an intermediate force device, which is between chemical spray and firearms on the force continuum, that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The VIPD shall continue its policy regarding the intermediate force device, incorporate the intermediate force device into the force continuum and train all officers in its use on an annual basis.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 41 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD contends that it has complied with the requirements of ¶ 41 because its has implemented the ECW Policy, and that certain Officers have been trained to use and have been issued a TASER.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the ECW Policy on March 30, 2011. The policy addresses the requirements in ¶ 41 of the Consent Decree. While this Consent Decree provision requires the VIPD to train “all officers on [the TASER’s] use on an annual basis,” the VIPD concedes that only “select officers have been trained and issued a TASER.” If only a limited number of relevant VIPD personnel (e.g., patrol officers) are trained and authorized to carry TASERs, the VIPD will continue to rely on more lethal force tools (such as firearms) when a TASER (or some lower level use of force) may have been more appropriate under the use of force continuum. Moreover, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department is in compliance with this Consent Decree provision during the Fourth Quarter. According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The Use of Force working group should continue to work with the Training Division to ensure that training programs are held on the ECW Policy on an on-going basis so that, at a minimum, all patrol Officers will ultimately be trained and authorized to use TASERs in lieu of more lethal force tools. The Use of Force working group should also work with the Director of Training to evaluate post-training examinations to help assess the degree to which VIPD personnel understand the policies and the lessons conveyed during training. The Use of Force working group and Director of Training should then schedule

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 31 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 31
follow-up training (continuing in-service or Roll Call or Commanders Call training) based on the results of those post-training examinations. In addition, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate.
The Use of Force working group should also provide the OIM with documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of the policy or that the Department has fully implemented the policy.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 32 of 104
32 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Citizen Complaint Process
Joint Action Plan Requirements
During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD was required under the Joint Action Plan to complete intermediate steps for ¶¶ 42-46, 49, and ¶¶ 50-58 in furtherance of its efforts to achieve substantial compliance with the Consent Decree. Specifically, the VIPD was required to offer competency-based training to all investigators on the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy, implement a tracking system to ensure that the required VIPD personnel are trained on the Department’s Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy, and periodically test for proficiency with these policies. The Department, however, did not provide the OIM with any documentation that these requirements were completed.
In addition, the Department was required to implement a tracking system to document that all allegations of misconduct are referred to IAB within 5 days, and to begin monthly reviews of complaint investigations to determine whether complainants have been periodically notified about their complaint and whether the notification is timely. The VIPD, however, did not provide the OIM with any documentation (1) that it has developed a tracking system to ensure that the required VIPD personnel are trained on the Department’s policies, (2) that the 5 day requirement is met, or (3) that complainants are notified in a timely matter.
42. The VIPD will develop and implement a program to inform persons that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any officer. This program will include distribution of complaint forms, fact sheets, informational posters, and public service announcements that describe the citizen complaint process.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 42 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that its has substantially complied with the requirements of ¶ 42 of the Consent Decree because it has developed and implemented a program to educate the public on the VIPD’s complaint and compliment process through Public Service Announcements, brochures, posters, and compliment/complaint forms in various languages as required, and by continuing “to provide training on an ongoing basis on the complaint process.”

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 33 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 33
The VIPD also states that it is conducting and documenting inspections in the Zones, substations, and police vehicles to ensure that all compliment/complaint materials are available.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2012 pursuant to ¶¶ 42-58 of the Consent Decree. Those policies reflect the requirements in ¶ 42 of the Consent Decree. Officers showed improvement during the Fourth Quarter in their knowledge of the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy. For example, in St. Croix, 67% (8 out of 12) of the Officers responded correctly when asked to explain the process for filing a complaint which is an improvement from 36% (4 out of 11) in the Third Quarter. In addition, 33% of Officers in St. Croix (4 out of 12) responded incorrectly when asked how a citizen is kept informed about the outcome of their complaint.
During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that it conducted audits to assess the proficiency of VIPD personnel with the citizen complaint process. According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The VIPD has made significant progress issuing the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy, and developing and disseminating promotional material concerning the Department’s citizen complaint process. The VIPD should continue to provide Officers with additional training on the complaint process and then conduct and document periodic audits to ensure that VIPD personnel are complying with the relevant policies. The Citizen Complaint Process working group should also work with the Director of Training to evaluate post-training examinations to help assess the degree to which VIPD personnel understand the policies and the lessons conveyed during training. The Complaint Process working group and Director of Training should then schedule follow-up training (continuing in-service, Roll Call, or Commanders Call training) based on the results of those post-training examinations. In addition, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate.
43. The VIPD will make complaint forms and informational materials available at government properties such as VIPD district stations, substations, mobile substations, libraries, the Internet, and, upon request, to community groups and community centers. At each VIPD district

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 34 of 104
34 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
station, substation, and mobile substation, the VIPD will permanently post a placard describing the complaint process and include the relevant phone numbers. These placards shall be displayed in both English and Spanish, and where deemed necessary, in French or French Patois, to account for diversity in the VI population. The VIPD will require all officers to carry informational brochures and complaint forms, in English and Spanish, and where deemed necessary, in French or French Patois, in their vehicles at all times while on duty. If a citizen objects to an officer’s conduct, that officer will inform the citizen of his or her right to make a complaint. Officers will not discourage any person from making a complaint.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 43 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it has complied with “most of the requirements” of ¶ 43 of the Consent Decree, “with the exception of being able to determine if Officers are informing citizens of their right to make a complaint and if Officers are discouraging citizens from filing a complaint.” To assess compliance with these requirements, the VIPD has included boxes at the top of the complaint form for complainants to complete.
OIM Report:
In past quarters, the VIPD has provided documentation showing that complaint forms and informational materials are available at VIPD offices, but the VIPD has not provided documentation showing that those materials are available at other government properties, such as libraries.26 Additionally, as the VIPD recognizes, the VIPD did not have a mechanism in place until the Fourth Quarter to evaluate whether (1) Officers are informing citizens of their right to file a complaint, or (2) Officers are discouraging citizens from making complaints. The VIPD has not yet provided documentation showing compliance with those Consent Decree requirements. The VIPD has not provided documentation showing that Officers inform citizens of their right to file a complaint and that Officers do not discourage citizens from doing so.

26

The Citizen Complaint Process working group provided the OIM with inspection forms

for these facilities during the First Quarter of 2013. The OIM will report on these forms in the

next Report.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 35 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 35
Recommendations:
The VIPD should expand the scope of its ongoing audits to determine whether complaint forms and related informational materials are available at all required locations. The VIPD should also audit whether Officers are informing citizens of their right to file a complaint and that Officers are not discouraging citizens from doing so. The VIPD should then provide documentation of these audits to the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM. Through the Department’s information campaign, the VIPD should also inform citizens that they may contact the Department if an Officer refuses to take their complaint or attempts to discourage them from filing a complaint.
44. Complaints may be filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile or electronic mail. The duty officer at the front desk of each district station will be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints, which persons may file at any district station. Complaint intake officers may describe facts that bear upon a complainant’s demeanor and physical condition but may not express opinions regarding his/her mental competency or veracity. Each complaint will be resolved in writing. Upon receipt, each complaint will be assigned a unique identifier, which will be provided to the complainant. Each complaint will be tracked according to the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, improper search, etc.).
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 44 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that its has substantially complied with the requirements of ¶ 44 of the Consent Decree because it continues to accept citizen complaints at the various locations required by ¶ 44; has made complaint/compliment “drop boxes” available at the Zones and substations; and where possible, citizens are provided a copy of their complaint. In addition, all complaints are assigned a complaint number, and any complaints investigated by the IAB are resolved in writing. For complaints investigated in the Zones, the investigations are returned to the IAB upon completion or final review and the IAB then provides a final written disposition to the complainant.
OIM Report:
The DOJ approved the Acceptance of Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. The policy addresses the requirements in ¶ 44 of the Consent Decree. During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD provided the OIM with a breakdown of the citizen complaints that it received. For example, 12.5% of all complaints in

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 36 of 104
36 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
the St. Croix District were based on allegations of discourtesy by an Officer, and 8% of all complaints alleged an excessive use of force. For the St. Thomas District, 9% of all complaints were based on allegations of discourtesy by an Officer, and 6% of all complaints alleged excessive use of force.
During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that that complaints are resolved in writing, or that complaint numbers are being provided to complainants. It is the VIPD’s responsibility to audit the Department’s compliance with this provision and to provide documentation evidencing compliance to the OIM. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should conduct audits to determine whether relevant personnel have been trained on the Department’s policies, whether all complaints are being resolved in writing, and whether complaint numbers are being provided to complainants. The VIPD should then provide documentation relating to those audits to the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
45. Copies of all allegations of misconduct against the VIPD filed with the Zone Commands will be referred to Internal Affairs Unit (“IAU”) within five business days.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 45 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
During the Fourth Quarter, the IAB implemented a “Complaint Investigation Review” form that requires IAB investigators to ensure that complaint investigations comply with Consent Decree provisions, including that all allegations of misconduct are referred to the IAB within 5 business days. The VIPD reports that a majority of complaints are filed at an IAB office or left in a drop box located at a Zone or substation. In addition, the VIPD contends that inspections by the Citizen Complaint Process working group and Supervisors will help ensure that the 5 day requirement is met.
OIM Report:
The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the 5 day requirement is being met. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 37 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 37
Recommendations:
The Complaint Process working group should develop a process for auditing whether copies of all allegations of misconduct are referred to the IAB within 5 business days. The Department should then provide documentation relating to those audits to the OIM.
46. Complaints will be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, for which the Territory will develop and implement appropriate training.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 46 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
During the Second Quarter, the Compliance Coordinator requested that the VIAG draft test questions on the preponderance of the evidence standard to be used during in-service and Roll Call trainings. The VIAG ultimately provided questions (and a corresponding answer key) to test Supervisors’ knowledge of the preponderance of the evidence standard during the Fourth Quarter. The VIPD reports that the head of the Citizen Complaint Process working group and the Director of training will “determine the most effective means of administering the test to Supervisors.”
During the Fourth Quarter, the head of the Citizen Complaint Process working group reviewed the results of the tests that were administered following in-service training on the citizen complaint process from the Third Quarter. According to the VIPD, all Supervisors from the St. Thomas District who completed the exam passed with at least a minimum score of 70%. The VIPD will conduct a similar review for the St. Croix District during the next quarter.
OIM Report:
While monitoring during the Fourth Quarter, the Police Practices Experts asked Supervisors about their understanding of the preponderance of the evidence standard. On St. Croix, Supervisors continued to show substantial improvement because 100% (8 out of 8) of Supervisors correctly explained the preponderance of the evidence standard and how it differs from the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. The VIPD must conduct its own audits to ensure that Supervisors understand the preponderance of the evidence standard and correctly apply it when conducting investigations.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 38 of 104
38 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that Supervisors are proficient in the preponderance of the evidence standard. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The Citizen Complaint Process working group should coordinate with the Training Division to offer training to Supervisors on the preponderance of the evidence standard on an on-going basis and to ensure that relevant VIPD personnel are attending those programs. The Citizen Complaint Process working group should also work with the Director of Training to evaluate posttraining examinations to help assess the degree to which Supervisors understand the preponderance of the evidence standard and the lessons conveyed during training. The Citizen Complaint Process working group and Director of Training should then schedule follow-up training based on the results of those post-training examinations. In addition, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate. The Citizen Complaint Process working group should provide the OIM with any documentation that it conducted such audits during the Fourth Quarter. The OIM also requests that the VIPD provide the number of VIPD personnel who have received training, and the number of VIPD personnel who have yet to receive training.
47. The VIPD will explicitly prohibit from investigating an incident any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to the injury to a person, or who authorized the conduct that led to these reportable incidents.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 47 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
During the Fourth Quarter, the Director of IAB issued a Directive requiring his staff to complete a newly created Complaint Investigation Review form to track the quality and completeness of citizen complaint investigations conducted by the Zones. The form also assesses other Consent Decree related requirements, including whether leading questions were avoided during interviews, and whether complainants are periodically updated about the status of their complaint. At the suggestion of the Compliance Coordinator, this form was forwarded to the Citizen Complaint Process working group with the intention that Commanders would also use the form when reviewing citizen complaints in the Zones.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 39 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 39
The Director of IAB also stated during the Fourth Quarter that the IAB will audit investigations from 2011 and 2012 in which the disposition was sustained, but the investigation exceeded the 50 day statute of limitation even though no stay was requested. In those cases, the VIPD would have had difficulty disciplining offending Officers because of the 50 day statute of limitations.
OIM Report:
In 91% (10 out of 11) of the completed use of force investigations reviewed by the Police Practices Experts during the Fourth Quarter, Supervisors who were involved in the use of force incident were not responsible for investigating that same incident. With respect to the outlying investigation, the reviewing Police Practices Expert reported that the investigation was entered into IAPro without indicating, as required, whether the investigating Supervisor was also involved in the use of force incident. Additional documents relating to the case did not provide any information regarding whether the Supervisor was involved in the incident.
During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department is in compliance with this Consent Decree provision. This lack of documentation included, for example, the lack of audits of use of force investigations. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The Department should conduct and document periodic audits of investigation files to ensure that Officers who are directly involved with a use of force incident (including Supervisors who authorized such force) are not investigating such incidents. Based on those audits, the VIPD should attempt to determine why certain personnel are failing to comply with the requirements of ¶ 47. The VIPD should then actively address those issues at Roll Call and Commanders Call training, and with individual Officers as appropriate. The VIPD should also develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply with Department policy. Once those individuals are identified, the Citizen Complaint Process working group should work with the Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, the IAB and the Training Division to provide remedial training or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions if necessary. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
48. The VIPD will investigate every citizen complaint. The VIPD will establish a clear policy and procedure regarding the intake of any complaint, including anonymous and confidential complaints, against a

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 40 of 104
40 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
VIPD officer. This policy and these procedures will include instructions to an officer for taking a complaint and prompt delivery to a supervisor.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 48 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
Supervisors from IAB conducted Commanders Call training in the St. Thomas District during the Fourth Quarter to address reoccurring deficiencies in citizen complaint investigations conducted by the Zones. The VIPD is hopeful that noting deficiencies with Supervisors and Commanders will improve the quality and completeness of citizen complaint investigations.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy on August 2, 2011. While monitoring during the Fourth Quarter, a Police Practices Expert noted that Officers showed improvement in their knowledge of the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy. In St. Croix, 67% (8 out of 12) of the Officers responded correctly when a Police Practices Expert asked them to explain the process for filing a complaint, which is an improvement from 36% (4 out of 11) during the Third Quarter. The remaining Officers responded incorrectly when asked how a citizen is kept informed about the outcome of their complaint. Despite repeated training on the policy, the Department has not provided any documentation to the OIM demonstrating that Officers are proficient in the citizen complaint process. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should develop a process to audit whether complaints are being adequately investigated within the allotted time period. The Citizen Complaint Process working group should also consider drafting a policy/directive for the Police Commissioner’s signature that requires the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to monitor the progress and due dates for completing the complaint investigations that are assigned to their Districts by the IAB, and to hold their subordinates accountable when they do not complete investigations in a timely manner. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
49. The VIPD will institute a centralized numbering and tracking system for all complaints and each complaint will receive a tracking number as quickly as possible. The IAU will be designated as the primary and centralized agency to determine whether the investigation will be

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 41 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 41
assigned to zone (one of the seven zones located throughout the Virgin Islands), retained by the IAU, or referred for possible criminal investigation. If the IAU refers a complaint to a zone, copies of all documents, findings, and recommendations should be immediately forwarded to the IAU for tracking and monitoring. For complaints alleging the excessive use of force or violation of a person’s constitutional rights, the Police Commissioner should be notified no less than twentyfour hours after receipt of a complaint.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 49 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it continues to use a centralized numbering and tracking system for all complaints. The VIPD also reports that the IAB continues to notify the Police Commissioner about and document any citizen complaints alleging excessive use of force or a violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights by VIPD personnel.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy on August 2, 2011. That policy addresses the requirements of ¶ 49 of the Consent Decree. Though the OIM is aware of individual cases where the Police Commissioner was notified of such complaints, we have not routinely been provided with reports of all such notifications. The VIPD has not demonstrated that the Police Commissioner is being notified of all complaints regarding the excessive use of force or violations of constitutional rights within 24 hours. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The Citizen Complaint Process working group should develop a process for auditing whether the Department has complied with the requirements of ¶ 49 of the Consent Decree. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
50. The VIPD will adopt a single policy concerning the investigation of misconduct complaints, regardless of whether the investigation is conducted by the IAU or a zone.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 42 of 104
42 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 50 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD contends that it has complied with ¶ 50 of the Consent Decree because it developed and “implemented” the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy, and that training is “being provided on an ongoing basis during in service and roll call training.”
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued its Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. That policy specifies a uniform process for investigating complaints, whether by the Zones or the IAB and addresses the requirements of ¶ 50 of the Consent Decree. During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of the policy or that the Department has fully implemented the policy. According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The Citizen Complaint Process working group should continue to test whether VIPD personnel adequately understand and comply with the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy. The VIPD must provide VIPD personnel with additional training on the citizen complaint process and then conduct and document periodic audits to ensure that VIPD personnel are complying with the relevant policies. The VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training as appropriate.
The Complaint Process working group should coordinate with the Training Division to offer training to Supervisors on the preponderance of the evidence on an ongoing basis. The Complaint Process working group should also evaluate whether: (1) Supervisors use proper interview techniques (i.e., they are not asking leading questions) during an investigation; (2) complainants are informed about the outcome of their complaint; (3) the preponderance of the evidence standard is properly applied; and (4) investigations are completed and returned to IAB within the timeframe specified in the policies. Based on its audits, the Citizen Complaint Process working group should identify any trends or areas for improvement.
51. The VIPD will establish policies and procedures and train all of its investigators on the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 43 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 43
witness credibility; examination and interrogation of accused officers and other witnesses; identifying misconduct even if it is not specifically named in the complaint; and using the preponderance of the evidence standard as the appropriate burden of proof. VIPD investigators will ensure that all officers on the scene of an incident provide a statement regarding the incident. The policy will require that all interviews be mechanically recorded using an audio or video tape.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 51 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it has “implemented” the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy, including disseminating and training on the policy and the preponderance of the evidence standard. The VIPD has also reportedly installed webcams at all Zones to record interviews and may purchase hand-held audio recorders. The VIPD acknowledges that ongoing inspections by the working group, Supervisors, and other VIPD personnel within the chain of command are “required to ensure continued department wide compliance.”
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued its Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. That policy addresses the requirements of ¶ 51 of the Consent Decree. While monitoring during the Fourth Quarter, the Police Practices Experts asked Supervisors about their understanding of the preponderance of the evidence standard. Supervisors continued to show improvement. On St. Croix, 100% (8 out of 8) of Supervisors correctly explained the preponderance of the evidence standard and how it differs from the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which is a marked improvement from 60% (3 out of 5) in the Third Quarter.
Recommendations:
The Citizen Complaint Process working group should continue to test whether VIPD personnel adequately understand and comply with the complaint process. The VIPD must provide VIPD personnel with additional training on the citizen complaint process and then conduct and document periodic audits to ensure that VIPD personnel are complying with the relevant policies. The VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training as appropriate.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 44 of 104
44 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
The Citizen Complaint Process working group should also coordinate with the Training Division to offer training to Supervisors on the preponderance of the evidence standard on an ongoing basis. In addition, the Citizen Complaint Process working group should also evaluate whether investigators correctly: evaluate complainant or witness credibility; examine and interrogate accused Officers and other witnesses; and identify misconduct. The audits should also evaluate whether VIPD investigators take statements from all Officers on the scene of an incident. Based on its audits, the Citizen Complaint Process working group should identify any trends or areas for improvement. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
52. The policy will require that the investigative findings include whether: 1) the police action was in compliance with policy, training and legal standards, regardless of whether the complainant suffered harm; 2) the incident involved misconduct by any officer; 3) the use of different tactics should or could have been employed; 4) the incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and 5) the incident suggests that the VIPD should revise its policies, training, or tactics.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 52 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it has “implemented” the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy, but acknowledges that ongoing inspections by the working group, Supervisors, and other VIPD personnel within the chain of command are “required to ensure continued department wide compliance.”
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued its Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. That policy addresses the requirements of ¶ 52 of the Consent Decree. During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of the policy or that the Department has fully implemented the policy. According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The Citizen Complaint Process working group should continue to test whether VIPD personnel adequately understand and comply with the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 45 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 45
Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy. The VIPD must provide additional training on the citizen complaint process and then conduct and document periodic audits to ensure that VIPD personnel are complying with the relevant policies. The VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate.
The Citizen Complaint Process working group should coordinate with the Training Division to offer training to Supervisors on the preponderance of the evidence on an ongoing basis. The Citizen Complaint Process working group should also evaluate whether investigators correctly evaluate whether: 1) the police action was in compliance with policy, training and legal standards; 2) the incident involved misconduct by any officer; 3) the use of different tactics should or could have been employed; 4) the incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and 5) the incident suggests that the VIPD should revise its policies, training, or tactics. Based on its audits, the Citizen Complaint Process working group should identify any trends or areas for improvement. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
53. The policy will provide clear guidance to all investigators regarding the procedures for handling criminal misconduct allegations, referring them to the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office or other appropriate agency for possible criminal prosecution, and the entity or individual who should make the determination of whether the complaint should be investigated criminally. The policy shall continue to require the completion of an administrative investigation, irrespective of the initiation or outcome of criminal proceedings.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 53 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it has “implemented” the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy, but acknowledges that ongoing inspections by the working group, Supervisors, and other VIPD personnel within the chain of command are “required to ensure continued department wide compliance.”
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued its Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. That policy addresses the requirements of ¶ 53 of the Consent Decree. During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 46 of 104
46 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
requirements of the policy or that the Department has fully implemented the policy. According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The Citizen Complaint Process working group should develop a process to audit whether allegations of criminal misconduct are referred to the VIAG or other appropriate agency for possible criminal prosecution, and whether administrative investigations progress in a timely manner and are completed, irrespective of the initiation or outcome of criminal proceedings. Based on its audits, the Citizen Complaint Process working group should identify any trends or areas for improvement. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
54. In each investigation, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. There will be no automatic preference for an officer's statement over a non-officer's statement, nor will the VIPD completely disregard a witness' statement merely because the witness has some connection to the complainant. The VIPD will make efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 54 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it has “implemented” the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy, but acknowledges that ongoing inspections by the working group, Supervisors, and other VIPD personnel within the chain of command are “required to ensure continued department wide compliance.”
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. That policy addresses the requirements of ¶ 54 of the Consent Decree. During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of the policy. According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 47 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 47
Recommendations:
The Citizen Complaint Process working group should develop a process to audit whether VIPD personnel consider all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible, in all investigations. Audits should also evaluate whether preference is given to an Officer's statement over a nonOfficer's, and whether the VIPD makes efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. Based on its audits, the Citizen Complaint Process working group should identify any trends or areas for improvement. All audits should be documented and shared with the OIM.
55. During an investigation, all relevant police activity, including each use of force (i.e., not just the type of force complained about) will continue to be investigated. The investigation will also evaluate any searches or seizures that occurred during the incident. The VIPD will not close an investigation simply because the complaint is withdrawn or the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of injury or the complainant will not provide additional statements or written statements; rather, the investigating agency will continue its investigation as necessary to determine whether the original allegation(s) can be resolved based on the information, evidence, and investigatory procedures and techniques available. In each investigation, the fact that a complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense will not be considered as evidence of whether a VIPD officer used or did not use a type of force, nor will it justify discontinuing the investigation.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 55 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it has “implemented” the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy, but acknowledges that ongoing inspections by the working group, Supervisors, and other VIPD personnel within the chain of command are “required to ensure continued department wide compliance.”
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. That policy addresses the requirements of ¶ 55 of the Consent Decree. During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of the policy. According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 48 of 104
48 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Recommendations:
The Citizen Complaint Process working group should develop a process for auditing whether VIPD personnel comply with ¶ 55 of the Consent Decree. Based on those audits, the VIPD should attempt to determine why Officers are failing to comply with the requirements of ¶ 55. The VIPD should then actively address those issues at Roll Call and Commanders Call training, and with individual Officers as appropriate. The VIPD should also develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work with the Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, the IAB, and the Training Division to provide remedial training, or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions if necessary. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
56. The complainant will be periodically kept informed regarding the status of the investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, the complainant will be notified of its outcome, including an appropriate statement regarding whether any non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action was taken.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 56 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that the IAB notifies complainants about the outcome of their complaints, including whether any non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action was taken against the involved Officer(s). For complaints investigated in the Zones, there is no evidence that complainants are being kept informed about the status of their complaints. The Compliance Coordinator suggested that the Zones adopt the “Complaint Investigation Review” form used by the IAB to track this information.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. That policy addresses the requirements contained in ¶ 56 of the Consent Decree. During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of the policy. According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 49 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 49
Recommendations:
The Citizen Complaint Process working group should continue to audit whether VIPD personnel adequately understand and comply with the complaint process. The Citizen Complaint Process working group should evaluate whether complainants are kept informed about the status of their complaints and notified about its outcome. Based on its audits, the Citizen Complaint Process working group should identify any trends or areas for improvement, and develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply with these requirements, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
57. Each allegation in an investigation will be resolved by making one of the following dispositions: a) “Unfounded,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that no facts to support that the incident complained of actually occurred; b) “Sustained,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person's allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the incident occurred and the actions of the officer were improper; c) “Not Sustained,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred; and d) “Exonerated,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate VIPD policies, procedures, or training.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 57 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it is in compliance with ¶ 57 of the Consent Decree because complaint investigations completed by the Zones are returned to the IAB for review. The IAB then reviews the investigation, for, among other things, whether the investigation includes a disposition and the appropriateness of that disposition. The IAB will reportedly return the investigation to the Zone if correction is required.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued its Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. Among other things, that policy requires the Department to resolve all allegations with one of four findings: “unfounded;” “sustained;” “not sustained;” or “exonerated.” With respect to the specific

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 50 of 104
50 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
requirements of ¶ 57, the Offices of the Deputy Chiefs on both Districts were required to review use of force investigations and provide final dispositions.
The VIPD reports that it received 13 citizen complaints relating to excessive use of force Department-wide for 2012. In the St. Thomas/St. John Districts, 9 complaints were received—2 of the complaints were sustained, 1 complaint was not sustained, 1 complaint was unfounded, and 5 investigations were still active at the end of the Fourth Quarter. On St. Croix, there were 4 complaints relating to excessive use of force—1 complaint was sustained, 1 complaint not sustained, and 2 complaints remained active.
Recommendations:
The Department should develop a process for auditing whether VIPD personnel comply with ¶ 57. The VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply with these requirements, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM. The VIPD should also provide further training to reinforce the meaning of and differences between the four disposition findings.
58. Unit commanders will evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command to identify underlying problems and training needs. Any such problems or needs will be relayed in the form of a recommendation to the appropriate VIPD entity.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 58 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
Supervisors from IAB conducted Commanders Call training in the St. Thomas District during the Fourth Quarter to address reoccurring deficiencies in citizen complaint investigations received from the Zones. The VIPD is hopeful that noting deficiencies with Supervisors and Commanders will improve the quality and completeness of citizen complaint investigations.
OIM Report:
During the Fourth Quarter, the Police Practices Experts reviewed 11 completed use of force investigations. Unit commanders identified underlying problems and training needs in 30% (3 out of 10) of the completed use of force investigations reviewed by the Police Practices Experts. There was evidence that these problems or needs were relayed to the appropriate VIPD entity in 33% (1 out of 3) of the investigations. Evidence in 67% (2 out of 3) of the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 51 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 51
completed use of force investigations indicated that the recommended corrective action was taken.
According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The Department should develop a process for auditing whether VIPD personnel comply with ¶ 58. Based on those audits, the VIPD should attempt to determine why Officers are failing to comply with the requirements of ¶ 58. The VIPD should then actively address those issues at Roll Call and Commanders Call training, and with individual Officers as appropriate. The VIPD should also develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work with the Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, the IAB, and the Training Division to provide remedial training or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions if necessary. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 52 of 104
52 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Management and Supervision
Joint Action Plan Requirements
During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD was required under the Joint Action Plan to complete intermediate steps for ¶¶ 59-61, 63-67, 69, and 70-72 in furtherance of its efforts to achieve substantial compliance with the Consent Decree. Specifically, the VIPD was required to begin monthly Commanders Call training pertaining to Consent Decree compliance. The Management and Supervision working group was also required to begin conducting weekly inspections to ensure that Blue Team is fully functional in all Zones. The VIPD further agreed to submit to the DOJ an action plan for achieving a sufficient number of staff to input current and historic data, and to separately submit revisions to the Disciplinary Matrix.
On November 30, 2012, the VIPD submitted to the DOJ a Management and Supervision Action Plan, which, in part, designates the division within the VIPD responsible for hiring qualified personnel to input current and historic data, and sets a June 30, 2013 hiring deadline. On December 31, 2012, the DOJ provided comments and requested that the VIPD clarify how a June 30, 2013 deadline will allow the Department to meet other deadlines that require the Department to have adequate staff prior to that date (i.e., the Joint Action Plan requires the VIPD to implement audits to ensure that applicable personnel are complying with Department policies by June 30, 2013. To assess compliance and meet this deadline, the VIPD must have sufficient personnel to input data prior to this date). The DOJ also requested that the VIPD clarify the remaining historical data that must be entered into IAPro, and that the Department amend the “Problem Statement” in the Management and Supervision Action Plan to reflect that the purpose is to input (not analyze) data.
In addition, the VIPD is required to maintain documentation of how the Department identified and addressed patterns of Officer conduct based on prior databases and resources, and to provide this documentation on a quarterly basis to the OIM beginning in the Fourth Quarter. The VIPD, however, did not provide the OIM with any documentation that the Department is in full compliance with this Consent Decree provision, nor has it explained the extent to which it relied on existing resources while the Department fully implemented the new RMS.
As required by the Joint Action Plan, the VIPD submitted a final Audit and Inspection Policy to the DOJ for review on November 30, 2012. As of the First Quarter of 2013, the VIPD has not completed training on the Audit and Inspection Policy. Finally, the VIPD and the DOJ have engaged in numerous exchanges of comments and drafts of the Disciplinary Matrix. An exchange of drafts and comments has continued into the First Quarter of 2013.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 53 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 53
59. The VIPD will develop and implement a risk management system to include a new computerized relational database or paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for supervision and management of the VIPD. Priority will be given to the VIPD obtaining any established program and system. The VIPD will regularly use this data to promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 59 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
During the Fourth Quarter, the DOJ approved the Department’s Risk Management System (“RMS”) Protocol. The protocol, which addresses the requirements of ¶ 59 of the Consent Decree, was submitted to the Planning and Research Bureau and the Police Commissioner for his approval prior to being disseminated Department-wide. The VIPD reports that the protocol will not go into effect until January of 2013 to afford the Department more time to obtain approval from Property and Procurement for a training contract. The contract—which includes training related to the Early Intervention Program and the Audit team—was submitted to Property and Procurement for final review and approval prior to the end of the Fourth Quarter. While the contract is pending, the Director of IAB is coordinating with the Director of Training to familiarize VIPD personnel with the RMS Protocol and EIP Policy prior to training.
The IAB also provided IAPro-generated use of force and citizen complaint reports to the Department’s leadership during the Fourth Quarter. These reports are a critical component of the VIPD’s risk management program. According to the VIPD, these efforts, in combination with training Supervisors and Deputy Chiefs in both Districts on the EIP Policy and Data Input Plan, will help the Department promote best police practices by identifying areas for further training.
OIM Report:
As previously reported, the VIPD has chosen the computer program IAPro as its RMS. The RMS will help the Department track incidents and identify patterns relating to potentially problematic behavior by VIPD personnel. VIPD personnel use Blue Team—a companion computer program to IAPro—to enter force data, including RRRs, directly into IAPro. Blue Team also allows Supervisors and Commanders to review and sign-off on use of force investigations, and to monitor use of force patterns.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 54 of 104
54 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
During the First Quarter of 2013, the OIM learned that Property and Procurement has not approved the EIP training contract because of business licensing issues. As a result, the Department cannot schedule EIP training. The OIM also learned that technical difficulties on St. Croix prevented the VIPD from providing Blue Team in that District during the Fourth Quarter.
The VIPD has not provided the OIM with documentation that the Department is in compliance with this Consent Decree provision. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
Even though the Department has implemented certain aspects of IAPro, the RMS Protocol needs to be fully implemented by, among other things, issuing the RMS protocol and conducting the required beta test (i.e., an initial full scale test) of the RMS. The Department must also remedy any outstanding technical issues relating to IAPro and Blue Team, including conducting Blue Team training for personnel in the St. Croix District.
60. The new risk management system will collect and record the following information: a) all uses of force; b) canine bite ratios; c) the number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers; d) all injuries to prisoners; e) all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with “resisting arrest,” “assault on a police officer,” “disorderly conduct,” or “obstruction of official business;” f) all critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty; g) all complaints (and their dispositions); h) all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the Territory and its officers, or agents, resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel; i) all vehicle pursuits; j) all incidents involving the pointing of a firearm (if any such reporting is required); and k) all disciplinary action taken against officers.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 60 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it continues to enter uses of force into IAPro through Blue Team, including the items required by ¶ 60 of the Consent Decree. According to the VIPD, reports entered into Blue Team are immediately accessible through IAPro to the IAB and other authorized personnel. In addition, in compliance with Joint Action Plan jointly submitted by the Parties and approved by the Court during the Fourth Quarter, the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 55 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 55
Department will conduct bi-monthly reviews of the Department’s compliance with subparts a through k. The VIPD will report on the results of these reviews in future Status Reports.
OIM Report:
The Management and Supervision working group reported at the end of the Fourth Quarter that it was creating forms, drafting procedures, and developing a system to verify the accuracy of the data collected under subparagraphs a through k. One way the VIPD intends to ensure that accurate data is entered into IAPro is to emphasize the importance of completing use of force forms in their entirety.
60 (a) In 2012, the Office of the Deputy Chief of St. Thomas was required to review 47 use of force investigations. Forty-nine percent (23 out of 47) of these investigations were reviewed in 2012. In addition, the average number of days to review a completed investigation was more than triple (105 days) the amount of time allowed by Department policy (30 days). Of those investigations reviewed, 61% (14 out of 23) of the uses of force were found to be justified and within Department policy; 9% (2 out of 23) were found to be justified but in violation of Department policy; 17% (4 out of 23) were found to be justified, but required remedial training; and 13% (3 out of 23) were found to be not justified.
On St. Croix, the Office of the Deputy Chief was required to review 63 use of force investigations in 2012. Thirty-eight percent (24 out of 63) of the use of force investigations were reviewed in 2012, and the average number of days to review a completed investigation was more than double (63 days) the amount of time allowed by Department policy. Of those investigations reviewed, 88% (21 out of 24) of the uses of force were found to be justified and within Department policy; 8% (2 out of 24) were found to be justified, but required remedial training; and 4% (1 out of 24) were found to be not justified.
60 (b) According to the VIPD’s Annual Use of Force Analysis (“Use of Force Analysis”), the St. Croix District reported 2 K-9 deployments and 1 canine bite for 2012. The St. Thomas District reported 19 K-9 deployments and 0 canine bites for 2012. IAPro, however, only indicated that there was 1 deployment. The importance of accurate data under ¶ 60 is demonstrated in the VIPD’s Annual Use of Force Analysis Report 2012 (the “Use of Force Analysis”). That discrepancy is unacceptable and demonstrates a breakdown in the Department’s efforts to effectively monitor uses of force (which include canine deployments and bites) using IAPro. In order to remedy this discrepancy, the IAB has recommended amending the Canine Policy to include a definition for “deployment,” and to require that Officers enter all K-9 deployments into IAPro as a use of force regardless of whether the subject is injured.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 56 of 104
56 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
60 (f) The VIPD also provided a report of critical firearm discharges investigated by the IAB in 2012. In the St. Thomas District, the IAB investigated 4 critical firearms discharges—2 discharges involving animals, 1 accidental discharge, and 1 discharge in the line of duty. Two of the investigations are complete—the accidental discharge was sustained and a discharge involving an animal was determined to be justified and within policy. The investigation relating to the firearm discharged in the line of duty is currently suspended pending ballistics reports. The final investigation remained active (and overdue) at the end of the Fourth Quarter. In the St. Croix District, the IAB continues to investigate 2 in the line of duty discharges. Both investigations remained active (and overdue) at the end of the Fourth Quarter.
60 (g) The VIPD provided the OIM with “Quarterly Pattern and Trending Data” for citizen complaints filed in both Districts during the Fourth Quarter. In the St. Thomas District, 2 citizen complaints were investigated and sustained, 2 complaints were exonerated, 5 complaints were unfounded, and 33 complaints were not investigated to a final disposition by the end of the Fourth Quarter. In the St. Croix District, 3 citizen complaints were investigated and unfounded, 1 complaint was not sustained, and 14 complaints were not investigated to a final disposition by the end of the Fourth Quarter.
60 (j) In the Department’s Use of Force Analysis, the VIPD reports 6 instances where an Officer pointed a firearm at a human being in the St. Thomas District, and 14 instances in the St. Croix District in 2012.
The VIPD has not provided any update on the remaining provisions of ¶ 60 or any documentation that the Department is in compliance with this Consent Decree provision. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
Even though the Department has implemented certain aspects of IAPro, the RMS Protocol needs to be fully implemented by, among other things, providing training and conducting the required beta test (i.e., an initial full scale test) of the RMS to ensure that the data required by ¶ 60 is entered. The Department must also remedy any outstanding technical issues relating to IAPro and Blue Team, including conducting Blue Team training for the St. Croix District.
61. The new risk management system will include, for the incidents included in the database, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (e.g., name, badge number, shift and supervisor) and civilian (e.g., race, ethnicity or national origin, if available).

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 57 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 57
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 61 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that there has been improvement during the Third Quarter with VIPD personnel in the St. Thomas District using their Personal Designator Number (“PDN”) on police reports. The VIPD reports that the Department has received the 400 new badges ordered with PDNs imprinted on them.27 The IAB has also reportedly begun entering PDNs into IAPro.
OIM Report:
To help track VIPD personnel (who may change job functions, names, etc.) the Police Commissioner issued a directive during the Fourth Quarter of 2011 ordering that a PDN be assigned to all sworn personnel, including designated civilian personnel with assignments as agents, auxiliaries, and forensic technicians. The PDN is a four digit number assigned by the Virgin Islands Territorial Emergency Management Agency (“VITEMA”). Officers are required to use their PDNs (which personnel will have for their entire career) on all police reports, rather than their badge numbers as was the previous practice. According to the Department, all VIPD personnel in both Districts have received PDNs.
The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department is in full compliance with this Consent Decree provision. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
Even though the Department has implemented certain aspects of IAPro, the RMS Protocol needs to be fully implemented by, among other things, conducting the required beta test (i.e., an initial full scale test) of the RMS. The Department must also remedy any outstanding technical issues relating to IAPro and Blue Team, including conducting Blue Team training for St. Croix. The Department should also audit whether Officers are using their PDNs on all police reports, rather than their badge numbers as was the previous practice. These audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM. Supervisors should not approve reports unless
27 Given that VIPD personnel typically receive new badges (signifying their new rank) each time they are promoted, the Department should clarify whether it plans to buy new badges every time an officer is promoted.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 58 of 104
58 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
PDNs are affixed. If, during an audit, the Department finds that a PDN was not included on a report, the Supervisor should be held accountable.
62. Within 120 days of the implementation of the new risk management system, or later with the agreement of DOJ, the VIPD will prepare, for the review and approval of DOJ, a plan for including appropriate fields and values of new and historical data into the risk management system (the "Data Input Plan"). The Data Input Plan will identify the data to be included and the means for inputting such data (direct entry or otherwise), the specific fields of information to be included, the past time periods for which information is to be included, the deadlines for inputting the data, and the responsibility for the input of the data. The Data Input Plan will include historical data that is up-to-date and complete in the risk management system. The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final review and approval within 30 days after it is presented for approval.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 62 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
During the Fourth Quarter, the Early Intervention Program (“EIP”) Coordinator held a meeting for all divisions responsible for submitting reports to the EIP Coordinator (i.e., Human Resources Bureau, Payroll Bureau, Traffic Bureau, Management and Information Services (“MIS”), Behavioral Services, Legal Counsel, and Training) and reemphasized the importance of receiving timely reports.
The VIPD also reports that the Arrest Database is operational on both Districts, and that the Records Bureau in the St. Thomas/St. John District received training on the Arrest Database during the Fourth Quarter.
OIM Report:
The DOJ approved the VIPD’s Data Input Plan on March 22, 2011, but the Department had not provided training on the plan as of the end of the Fourth Quarter. The Data Input Plan identifies information about VIPD personnel (including, but not limited to, uses of force, disciplinary issues, motor vehicle accidents, and sick days) that the Department is required to enter into IAPro to facilitate its risk management function.
The VIPD has made progress implementing certain aspects of IAPro, but the Data Input Plan still needs to be fully implemented. Once training is held on the Data Input Plan and EIP Protocol, the VIPD reports that divisions

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 59 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 59
responsible for providing data to the EIP Coordinator will better understand the purpose of and need for timely reports. For example, during an EIP meeting in the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD reports that there was some uncertainty about the information that the Training Division is required to provide. The EIP Coordinator explained that the Training Division is responsible for providing training certificates for Officers and requested that the Training Division provide that information going forward because it had previously failed to do so.
The VIPD has not provided the OIM with documentation that the Department is in compliance with this Consent Decree provision. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
Consistent with the Data Input Plan, the EIP coordinator should outline the reporting requirements for each responsible reporting division, including all required fields, and then provide VIPD management and the OIM with a monthly report detailing the completeness and timelines of the data that was received for that month. The VIPD should also provide the OIM with documentation that the Data Input Plan is fully implemented and that the specific fields of information and other data required by the Plan are entered into IAPro.
63. The VIPD will, within 120 days, prepare for the review and approval of DOJ, and thereafter implement, a protocol for using the risk management system. The VIPD will submit for the review and approval of DOJ all proposed modifications to the protocol prior to implementing such modifications.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 63 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
During the Fourth Quarter, the DOJ approved the Department’s RMS Protocol. The VIPD reports that the protocol will not go into effect until January of 2013, allowing the Department time to seek approval from Property and Procurement for a training vendor contract. Assuming that the contract is approved, the VIPD intends to hold training in March or April of 2013.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 60 of 104
60 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
OIM Report:
After several years of work, the DOJ approved the Department’s RMS Protocol on October 2, 2012. As previously reported, the RMS Protocol provides various thresholds that trigger supervisory review. For example, if an Officer receives more than X number of complaints within Y period of time, IAPro will alert the Officer’s Supervisor (and other appropriate personnel) to the potential issue and need for review. When reporting arrest and use of force data, the Consent Decree requires that the VIPD use ratios based on the conduct of VIPD personnel (the total number of arrests where force was used divided by the total number of arrests) to identify potentially problematic behavior. The VIPD, however, currently uses numerical thresholds based on historic norms (X number of uses of force within a twelve month period). The DOJ and VIPD have agreed that, for the time being, the VIPD may continue to use thresholds rather than ratios until such time when the VIPD can rely on its arrest and force records. For now, IAPro will notify an Officer’s Supervisor when the Officer reaches two uses of force within a six-month period. The EIP Coordinator will then conduct a review and determine if further supervisory interaction or analysis is required. The Parties agree that the Department will not be in compliance with the Consent Decree until it implements a ratio-based RMS Protocol.
During the First Quarter of 2013, the OIM learned that Property and Procurement has not approved a contract to provide training on the RMS Protocol because the vendor does not have a Virgin Islands business license as is required. As a result, the Department is unable to schedule training and fully implement the protocol. Considering the amount of time that has already passed since the VIPD began working on the RMS Protocol, the Department should seek to have the contract approved and the policy implemented expeditiously.
The VIPD has not provided the OIM with documentation that the Department is in compliance with this Consent Decree provision. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
Even though the Department has implemented certain aspects of IAPro, the RMS Protocol needs to be fully implemented by, among other things, providing training and conducting the required beta test (i.e., an initial full scale test) of the RMS. The Department must also remedy any outstanding technical issues relating to IAPro and Blue Team, including conducting Blue Team training for St. Croix. Once the Department can rely on its arrest and force records, the VIPD must begin to use ratios, rather than numerical thresholds, as triggers for supervisory review of Officers’ conduct.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 61 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 61
64. The protocol for using the risk management system will include the following provisions and elements: a) The protocol is comprised of the following components: data storage, data retrieval, reporting, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation and audit; b) The protocol will require the automated system to analyze the data according to the following criteria: (i) number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; (ii) average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and (iii) identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; c) The protocol will require the system to generate reports on a monthly basis describing the data and data analysis and identifying individual and unit patterns; d) The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors will review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, system reports, and will evaluate individual officer, supervisor, and unit activity; e) The protocol will require that VIM deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors initiate intervention for individual officers, supervisors and for units based on appropriate activity and pattern assessment of the information contained in the risk management system; f) The protocol will require that intervention options include discussion by deputy chiefs, managers, supervisors, and officers; counseling; training; and supervised, monitored, and documented action plans and strategies designed to modify activity. All interventions will be documented in writing and entered into the automated system (appropriate intervention options will be employed based on the evaluation described in subsection (e) above); g) The protocol will specify that actions taken as a result of information from the risk management system be based on all relevant and appropriate information, including the nature of the officer’s assignment, crime trends and crime problems, and not solely on the number or percentages of incidents in any category of information recorded in the risk management system; h) The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors will promptly review the risk management system records of all officers recently transferred to their sections and units; i) The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors be evaluated on their ability to use the risk management system to enhance effectiveness and reduce risk; (j) The protocol will require that the system be managed and administered by the Internal Affairs Unit of the VIPD. The IAU of the VIPD will conduct quarterly audits of the system to ensure action is taken according to the process described above; k) The protocol will require regular reviews, at no less than quarterly intervals, by appropriate managers of all relevant risk management system information to evaluate officer performance territory-wide, and to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all VIPD units in order to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 62 of 104
62 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 64 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
During the Fourth Quarter, the DOJ approved the Department’s RMS Protocol. The VIPD reports that the policy will not go into effect until January of 2013, allowing the Department time to seek approval from Property and Procurement for a training vendor contract. Assuming the contract is approved, the VIPD intends to hold training in March or April of 2013.
OIM Report:
On October 2, 2012, the DOJ approved the RMS Protocol. As previously reported, the RMS Protocol provides various thresholds that trigger supervisory review. For example, if an Officer receives more than X number of complaints within Y period of time, IAPro will alert the Officer’s Supervisor (and other appropriate personnel) to the potential issue and need for review. When reporting arrest and use of force data, Consent Decree requires that the VIPD use ratios based on the conduct of VIPD personnel (the total number of arrests where force was used divided by the total number of arrests) to identify potentially problematic behavior. The VIPD, however, currently uses numerical thresholds based on historic norms (X number of uses of force within a twelve month period). The DOJ and VIPD have agreed that, for the time being, the VIPD may continue to use thresholds rather than ratios until such time when the VIPD can rely on its arrest and force records. For now, IAPro will notify an Officer’s Supervisor when the Officer reaches two uses of force within a sixmonth period. The EIP Coordinator will then conduct a review and determine if further action is required. The Parties agree that the Department will not be in compliance with the Consent Decree until it implements a ratio-based RMS Protocol. During the First Quarter of 2013, the OIM learned that Property and Procurement has not approved the RMS Protocol training contract because the vendor does not have a business license as required by the Territory. As a result, the Department is unable to schedule training and fully implement the protocol. Considering the amount of time that has already passed since the VIPD began working on the RMS Protocol, the Department should seek to have the contract approved and the policy implemented expeditiously.
During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department is in compliance with this Consent Decree provision. According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 63 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 63
Recommendations:
Even though the Department has implemented certain aspects of IAPro, the RMS Protocol needs to be fully implemented by among other things, conducting training and the required beta test (i.e., an initial full scale test) of the RMS. The Department must also remedy any outstanding technical issues relating to IAPro and Blue Team, including conducting Blue Team training for St. Croix. Once the Department can rely on its arrest and force records, the VIPD must begin to use ratios, rather than numerical thresholds, as triggers for supervisory review of Officers’ conduct.
65. The VIPD will maintain all personally identifiable information about an officer included in the risk management system during the officer’s employment with the VIPD for at least five years. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis will be maintained indefinitely in the risk management system. On an ongoing basis, the VIPD will enter information into the risk management system in a timely, accurate, and complete manner, and maintain the data in a secure and confidential manner.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 65 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that the EIP Coordinator is responsible for overseeing that data is collected from across the Department, entered into Blue Team, and made accessible through IAPro. The EIP Manager helps the EIP Coordinator analyze the data, but the Department reports that it requires 4 (2 per District) additional analysts in order to conduct “more meaningful data analysis.” The Department has created a job description for these positions, but salaries and a timeline for hiring have not been decided.
With respect to the requirement that the Department “enter information into the risk management system in a timely, accurate, and complete manner,” IAB agents reportedly enter reports into IAPro as soon as they are received. To maintain data in a secure and confidential manner, IAPro provides varying levels of access, but only the IAB has access to all levels beyond a “read only” mode. In addition, any information not maintained electronically is maintained in locked cabinets accessible to IAB personnel only.
OIM Report:
Officers are required to use their PDNs on all police reports, rather than their badge numbers as was the previous practice. According to the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 64 of 104
64 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Department, all VIPD personnel on both Districts have received PDNs. The VIPD reports that the Department has received 400 new badges ordered with Officers’ PDNs, and that dissemination is underway. In addition, the VIPD notes that the IAB began entering PDNs into IAPro, and that the transition to using PDNs on all police forms continues.
During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department is in compliance with this Consent Decree provision or any documentation that it began quarterly reviews to ensure compliance with ¶ 65. According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
Even though the Department has implemented certain aspects of IAPro, the RMS Protocol (approved by the DOJ on October 2, 2012), and the Data Input Plan needs to be fully implemented. The Department should demonstrate for the Police Practices Experts during an upcoming monitoring trip that the Department maintains personally identifiable information about an Officer for at least five years in IAPro, and that information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis is maintained indefinitely. The Department should enter information into IAPro in a timely, accurate, and complete manner, and maintain the data in a secure and confidential manner.
66. The new risk management system will be purchased off the shelf and customized by VIPD. Alternatively, the new risk management system may be developed and implemented according to the following schedule: a) Within 150 days of the effective date of this Agreement, subject to the review and approval of DOJ, the VIPD will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP); b) Within 270 days of the issuance of the RFP, or later with the agreement of DOJ, the VIPD will select the contractor to create the risk management system; c) Within 150 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the VIPD will submit the protocol for using the risk management system to DOJ for review and approval. The VIPD will share drafts of this document with DOJ and the Monitor (a position described in Section VII) to allow DOJ and the Monitor to become familiar with the document as it develops and to provide informal comments on it. The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final approval within 30 days after it is presented for review and approval; d) Within 14 months of selecting the contractor, the VIPD will have ready for testing a beta version of the risk management system consisting of (i) server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the VIPD's existing automated systems; (ii) necessary data base software installed and configured; (iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and (iv) the use of force information system completed, including historic data. DOJ and the Monitor will have

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 65 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 65
the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version using use of force data and test data created specifically for purposes of checking the risk management system; e) The risk management system computer program and computer hardware will be operational and fully implemented within 20 months of the selection of the risk management system contractor.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 66 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
During the Fourth Quarter, the Compliance Coordinator received information from the MIS Director for the St. Croix District identifying all locations where Blue Team is operational. Similar information for the St. Thomas District was not provided to the OIM during the Fourth Quarter.
OIM Report:
As previously reported, the VIPD has chosen the computer program IAPro as its RMS. The RMS will help the Department to track incidents and identify patterns relating to potentially problematic behavior by VIPD personnel. VIPD personnel use Blue Team—a companion computer program to IAPro—to enter force data, including RRRs, directly into IAPro. Blue Team also allows Supervisors and Commanders to review and sign off on use of force investigations, and to monitor use of force patterns. Although the Department held Blue Team training on St. Thomas during the First Quarter, by the end of the Fourth Quarter Blue Team training was not yet offered on St. Croix.
During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department is in full compliance with this Consent Decree provision. According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
Even though the Department has implemented certain aspects of IAPro, the RMS Protocol needs to be fully implemented by, among other things, conducting the required beta test (i.e., an initial full scale test) of the RMS. The Department must also remedy any outstanding technical issues relating to IAPro and Blue Team, including conducting Blue Team training for St. Croix. Once the Department can rely on its arrest and force records, the VIPD must begin to use ratios, rather than numerical thresholds, as triggers for supervisory review of Officers’ conduct.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 66 of 104
66 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
67. Prior to implementation of the new risk management system, the VIPD will continue to use existing databases and resources to the fullest extent possible, to identify patterns of conduct by VIPD officers or groups of officers.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 67 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it has completed entering historical data into IAPro and that it continues to enter new data on an ongoing basis. The IAB has used IAPro to run various performance reports.
OIM Report:
As previously reported by the OIM, after prior technical issues with IAPro, the Department implemented a manual tracking system in which all Zone Commanders received log books with sequentially numbered pages to record use of force events and citizen complaints. It is unclear whether these log books would allow the VIPD to identify patterns of conduct required by ¶ 67 of the Consent Decree. The VIPD, however, did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department is in full compliance with this Consent Decree provision, nor has it explained the extent to which it relied on existing resources while the Department fully implementing the new RMS. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The OIM requests that the VIPD provide information regarding the system, if any, that existed prior to IAPro, and to what extent that system is still operational.
68. Following the initial implementation of the risk management system, and as experience and the availability of new technology may warrant, the VIPD may propose to add, subtract, or modify data tables and fields, modify the list of documents scanned or electronically attached, and add, subtract, or modify standardized reports and queries. The VIPD will submit all such proposals for review and approval by DOJ before implementation.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 67 of 104 Office of the Independent Monitor | 67

Compliance Assessment: N/A
VIPD Report:
During the Fourth Quarter, the DOJ approved the Department’s RMS Protocol. The VIPD reports that the policy will become effective in January of 2013, in order to give the Department more time to obtain approval for a training contract from Property and Procurement. Assuming the contract is approved, the VIPD intends to hold training in March or April of 2013.
OIM Report:
Because the VIPD’s RMS Protocol was only approved by the DOJ at the beginning of the Fourth Quarter, this provision is not yet applicable.
Recommendations:
Once the RMS Protocol is fully implemented, the VIPD should submit to the DOJ for approval any proposals to add, subtract, or modify data tables and fields, standardized reports and queries, or the list of documents scanned or electronically attached.
69. The VIPD will develop a protocol for conducting audits. The protocol will be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol will establish a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all VIPD zones.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 69 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD submitted its Audit and Inspection Policy to the DOJ for approval. The VIPD also submitted a contract for approval to Property and Procurement that would allow an outside vendor to conduct training on the policy.
OIM Report:
As required by the Joint Action Plan, the VIPD submitted a final Audit and Inspection Policy to the DOJ for review on November 30, 2012.28 The DOJ provided technical assistance on the policy on January 10, 2013. During the

28

The Consent Decree does not require the DOJ to approve the Department’s Audit and

Inspection Policy.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 68 of 104
68 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
First Quarter of 2013, the OIM learned that Property and Procurement had not approved the training contract for the Department’s Audit and Inspection Policy because of business licensing issues. As a result, the Department is unable to schedule training. The VIPD will be unable to ensure that it has substantially complied with the Consent Decree’s substantive provisions until it fully implements an audit policy.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should implement its Audit and Inspection Policy so that the Audit Team has the tools to become fully functional and to monitor the Department’s compliance with the Consent Decree. Documentation of VIPD audits is the best way for the Department to demonstrate compliance with each Consent Decree paragraph. In addition, the Department should also provide additional audit-related training (parts two and three of the three-part series referenced above, or some other similarly comprehensive training) to relevant personnel.
70. The VIPD will continue to utilize a disciplinary matrix to take into account an officer’s violations of different rules, rather than just repeated violations of the same rule. The VIPD will further revise this matrix to increase the penalties for uses of excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, or dishonesty, to reflect the seriousness of those infractions. he revised disciplinary matrix will provide the VIPD with the discretion to impose any appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes the officer’s misconduct exhibits a lack of fitness for duty. This revised matrix will be subject to the review and approval of DOJ.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 70 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it continues to work on the Disciplinary Matrix, and that it submitted a revised draft to the DOJ in November for approval. The DOJ provided additional comments during the Fourth Quarter, and the VIPD submitted a further revised version of the Disciplinary Matrix to the DOJ during the First Quarter of 2013.
The VIPD also reports that the head of the Use of Force working group and the Director of the IAB have begun tracking Officers who fail to submit RRRs. According to the Department, this will allow the Department to identify and discipline Officers who fail to submit RRRs for use of force incidents.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 69 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 69
OIM Report:
As previously reported, the DOJ approved the Disciplinary Matrix in the Second Quarter of 2011. The Disciplinary Matrix provides guidelines for the different sanctions depending on, among other things, the misconduct. The VIPD subsequently decided to further revise the “charge and penalty section” of the Disciplinary Matrix, which will require another round of DOJ approval. The Management and Supervision working group reports that the VIPD continues to work on the Disciplinary Matrix. Because the OIM has observed first-hand that the Department inconsistently applies disciplinary sanctions, the absence of a finalized Disciplinary Matrix is negatively impacting the Department’s efforts to comply with the Consent Decree. Since the beginning of the First Quarter of 2013, the DOJ and the VIPD have engaged in numerous exchanges of comments and drafts of the Disciplinary Matrix. DOJ provided its most recent comments on the matrix on March 18, 2013; VIPD’s revisions are due on April 8, 2013.
Recommendations:
The VIPD has received substantial technical assistance on the development of the Disciplinary Matrix from both the DOJ and the OIM. The VIPD must exhibit leadership and move this issue forward. The constant delays are inhibiting the Department from successfully implementing consistent and fair discipline. The Management and Supervision working group should promptly finalize any revisions to the Disciplinary Matrix and submit it to the DOJ for final approval.
71. VIPD policy will continue to identify clear time periods by which the various steps of a complaint adjudication process should be completed, from complaint receipt to the imposition of discipline, if any. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions will not be granted without the Police Commissioner's written approval and notice to the complainant. In the limited circumstances when an extension is necessary, appropriate tolling provisions will be outlined in the policy.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 71 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that the 50-day statute of limitations set by the Police Union’s Collective Bargaining Agreement continues to be in effect. Despite VIPD efforts to extend the time, the Union continues to oppose these efforts.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 70 of 104
70 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
OIM Report:
As an initial matter and as the OIM previously reported, the VIPD appears to be confusing the time period in which the Department can initiate administrative charges against an Officer with the timelines set forth in the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy. The Union’s reported refusal to extend the 50 day statute of limitations has no bearing on the Department’s ability to comply with internal investigative deadlines.
The VIPD provided the OIM with the Quarterly Pattern and Trending Data for citizen complaints filed in both Districts during the Fourth Quarter. In the St. Thomas/St. John District, 2 citizen complaints were investigated and sustained, 2 complaints were exonerated, 5 complaints were unfounded, and 33 complaints were not investigated to a final disposition by the end of the Fourth Quarter. In the St. Croix District, 3 citizen complaints were investigated and unfounded, 1 complaint was not sustained, and 14 complaints were not investigated to a final disposition by the end of the Fourth Quarter.
During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department is in full compliance with this Consent Decree provision. According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The Management and Supervision working group, together with the Citizen Complaint Process working group and IAB, should audit and document the Department’s compliance with the 50 day statute of limitations. As the OIM has previously cautioned, the Department cannot afford to let complaints of potential misconduct linger in light of this statute of limitations.
72. Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD will not take only nondisciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix indicates the imposition of discipline. In a case where discipline has been imposed on an officer, the VIPD must also consider whether nondisciplinary corrective action is required.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 72 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD did not provide a separate report for ¶ 72 of the Consent Decree and instead referred to its report on ¶ 70 of the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 71 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 71
OIM Report:
In the absence of a final Disciplinary Matrix, the Police Practices Experts continue to observe that the Department inconsistently applies disciplinary sanctions. While monitoring on St. Croix during the Fourth Quarter, a Police Practices Expert learned that internal politics has impeded some Supervisors’ ability to properly counsel or discipline Officers because the Officers are believed to be politically connected and the Supervisors fear retaliation. The IAB provided the Police Commissioner with a memorandum of suggested steps to address this issue. The VIPD told the Police Practices Expert that it would provide the OIM with a copy of this memorandum, but the OIM had not received the memorandum as of the date of publication. The VIPD should finalize its Disciplinary Matrix and encourages the IAB and the Training Division to agree on the appropriate resolution of these investigations. To the extent that Officers are receiving preferential treatment based on political connection (or any other factor), the Department needs to address this issue immediately and impose discipline as necessary. Avoiding disciplining Officers violates the Consent Decree and undermines public confidence in the entire Department.
During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department is in full compliance with this Consent Decree provision. According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
Because the VIPD cannot impose discipline once the statute of limitations expires, the IAB should use IAPro to notify the Director of IAB when investigation due dates are approaching. The Director, or his designee, could then follow up as appropriate. In the event that a due date is missed, the Director should report that fact to the Police Commissioner on a monthly basis. In those instances, the Department should also consider appropriate corrective action, including discipline, for offending Supervisors. The Management and Supervision working group should also finalize any revisions to the Disciplinary Matrix and submit it to the DOJ for final approval.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 72 of 104
72 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Training
Joint Action Plan Requirements
During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD was required under the Joint Action Plan to complete certain interim steps towards achieving substantial compliance with ¶¶ 73-79 and 80-81 of the Consent Decree. As required by the Joint Action Plan, the VIPD submitted a final Audit and Inspection Policy to the DOJ for review on November 30, 2012. The DOJ provided technical assistance on the policy on January 10, 2013. During the First Quarter of 2013, the OIM learned that the vendor contract for training on the Department’s Audit and Inspection Policy had not been approved by Property and Procurement because of the vendor does not have a business license as required by the Territory. As a result, the Department is unable to schedule training. The VIPD will not be able to ensure that it has substantially complied with the Consent Decree’s substantive provisions until it fully implements an audit policy. Consequently, during the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with any documentation that the Department has finalized and implemented its Audit and Inspection Policy in compliance with ¶ 69 of the Consent Decree.
In addition, the Director of Training was required to develop and implement a tracking system to track training attendance and begin periodically testing VIPD personnel’s proficiency with Department policies. The VIPD further agreed to implement a tracking system to ensure that all required personnel are trained on the Department’s policies. While monitoring in the St. Croix District during the Fourth Quarter, a Police Practices Expert observed that the Department is unable to electronically track VIPD personnel who have attended training. The Department did not provide the OIM with any documentation during the Fourth Quarter that the Department is in compliance with this Consent Decree provision.
The Joint Action Plan also requires the VIPD to provide the Police Practices Experts with training curricula and schedules at least 15 days in advance of training. In November, the VIPD issued a revised training schedule, but did not provide it to the OIM until the First Quarter of 2013.29 As the OIM has previously requested, and as is now required by the Joint Action Plan, the VIPD must provide the OIM with training schedules, lesson plans, and curricula without prompting from the OIM.
As required by the Joint Action Plan, the VIPD reported that since November 31, 2012 the Department has used the firearms simulator training
29 The schedule does include any definitive dates for Consent Decree related training.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 73 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 73
lab to train Officers in critical decision making scenarios. So far, the SRT team in St. Thomas has completed training on the firearms simulator.
73. The VIPD will continue to coordinate and review all use of force policy and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy. The VIPD will conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 73 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that its Compliance Coordinator developed a form to document reviews of the Department’s Use of Force policies and corresponding training. Once approved, the form will be the Department’s mechanism for documenting these reviews.
OIM Report:
The VIPD first reported during the Third Quarter that it would periodically review its use of force policies in consultation with the VIAG; the Department has not announced a similar review for its use of force training. To formalize the review of use of force policies (and corresponding training), the VIPD developed the “Use of Force Policies/Training Review” form. The form requires that the reviewer include any comments, recommendations, and/or corrective action and the Training Director (or his designee) must sign the form upon review. At the beginning of the First Quarter of 2013, the VIPD reported that it reviews one use of force policy every two weeks and said that it would provide the OIM with the completed review forms, but it has not yet done so.
Recommendations:
The Department should develop a process for reviewing all use of force training (as it has done for the use of force policies) to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy. This process should include consultation with the VIAG to the extent necessary. The VIPD should also conduct at least semi-annual reviews going forward. These reviews should be documented, become part of the training records file for that lesson plan, and be shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
74. The Director of Training, either directly or through his/her designee(s), consistent with applicable law and VIPD policy will: a) ensure the quality of all use of force training; b) develop and implement use of force training curricula; c) select and train VIPD officer trainers; d)

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 74 of 104
74 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service training; e) in conjunction with the Chiefs, develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures; f) establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and g) conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 74 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
74 (a) The VIPD reports that the Director of Training continues to review student evaluations completed after Officers attend use of force training.
74 (b) The VIPD contends that a training curricula has been implemented within the Department since March of 2011.
74 (c) During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD held an instructor development training for 20 Officers in each District.
74 (d) The VIPD’s Director of Training continues to develop, implement, and approve all in-service training.
74 (e) The VIPD has not fully implemented the Roll Call Policy because the Department has not selected Training Coordinators in the Zones (who are responsible for overseeing all Roll Call training in a particular Zone). However, the Training Bureau updated its records to reflect recent Roll Call training on both Districts.
74 (g) The VIPD reports that it continues to maintain training folders for Officers, which includes questionnaires that Officers complete after attending training to assess their understanding of the material presented.30
OIM Report:
The Department did not provide the OIM with documentation during the Fourth Quarter that the Department is in compliance with this Consent Decree provision. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.

30

The VIPD did not provide a report on ¶ 74 (f).

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 75 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 75
Recommendations:
The VIPD should develop a procedure to ensure that the Director of Training, in consultation with the VIAG if necessary, is a) ensuring the quality of all use of force training; b) developing and implementing use of force training curricula; c) selecting and training VIPD officer trainers; d) developing, implementing, approving, and overseeing all in-service training; e) in conjunction with the Chiefs, developing, implementing, approving, and overseeing a patrol division Roll Call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures; f) establishing procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and g) conducting regular needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained. Such reviews should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM. The VIPD should also fully implement its Roll Call Policy by selecting Training Coordinators in the Zones. Additionally, the Training working group (which has historically not included members from outside the Training Division) should expand its membership to include VIPD personnel from other parts of the VIPD given the vital role that training plays throughout the VIPD.
75. The VIPD will continue to provide training consistent with VIPD policy, law, and proper police practices, and will ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by instructors. The VIPD will make best efforts to train each work shift as a team in their use of force training.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 75 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that the Training Director reviews and approves training lesson plans, and that lesson plans conform to “the established and approved lesson plan format.”
OIM Report:
With respect to the Audit and Inspection Policy, the VIPD submitted a final policy to the DOJ for review on November 30, 2012. During the First Quarter of 2013, the OIM learned that the contract submitted to Property and Procurement to allow an instructor from outside the Territory to conduct training on the Department’s Audit and Inspection Policy was not approved because of business licensing issues. As a result, the Department is unable to schedule training. Without this training on the Department’s Audit and

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 76 of 104
76 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Inspection Policy, the VIPD will be unable to conduct thorough audits and satisfy the requirements of ¶ 75.
A Police Practices Expert observed the Field Training Officer (“FTO”) instructor training conducted during the Fourth Quarter on St. Thomas. Even though the Consent Decree does not specifically require the VIPD to develop an FTO program, the VIPD has recognized that such a program will help the Department comply with the Consent Decree by providing more comprehensive training to new officers. The instructor engaged the class and was effective in demonstrating the importance of an FTO program. The instructor referred to the VIPD’s policy, and also suggested a number of amendments.31 In addition, the training was designed for a three month FTO program, while the VIPD’s program is six months long.
A Police Practices Expert also observed a Commanders Call training conducted on St. Thomas during the Fourth Quarter. The training focused on preparing the Commanders to train their Supervisors on the requirements for reporting uses of force, the importance of completing RRRs, and the consequences of not completing RRRs when required.
The Department did not provide the OIM with documentation during the Fourth Quarter that the Department is in compliance with this Consent Decree provisions. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
As we have emphasized in previous reports, the VIPD should continue to develop lesson plans for all training programs in advance of the corresponding training so they can be vetted appropriately, including review of all lesson plans by the Director of Training and the VIAG, if necessary, without delaying training. The Training Division should work closely with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to arrange further training (in-service, Roll Call, and Commanders Call) on certain policies for which compliance has been problematic, including among others, the Use of Force Policy, Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy, and Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy. The Training Division also should work closely with the Use of Force, Citizen Complaint Process, and Management and Supervision working groups to identify areas that require additional training, either through additional inservice, Roll Call, and Commanders Call training, to ensure that VIPD personnel adequately understand their obligations. Moreover, the VIPD should obtain sample lesson plans from other well-respected law enforcement agencies (the Police Practices Experts have previously provided recommendations), and
31 It is unclear whether the VIPD is considering these amendments.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 77 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 77
should develop a standardized format for instructors and lesson plan developers to follow.
Also, the VIPD’s limited internal training capacity continues to impede its ability to provide adequate training because the Department relies on external vendors to provide training services. Because of the Territory’s complex procurement procedures, the Department has little control over when training programs led by external vendors will take place. The Department would save money and have much greater flexibility (in terms of scheduling and content) by improving and relying on internal training resources to a greater extent.
76. The VIPD shall continue to keep adequate records of lesson plans and other training materials, such that the most current training documents are maintained in a central, commonly accessible file, and are clearly dated.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 76 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
As the VIPD reported last quarter, the Training Division in both Districts maintains records of all training, lesson plans, instructor certifications, and other training related information. That information is maintained in paper form in both Districts.
OIM Report:
Although the Department maintains lesson plans and other training materials, that information is not maintained in a central file for the entire Department. As a result, if personnel are transferred from one District to the other, their hard copy training file would need to be sent to the new District. While the Department previously reported that it was working to create a central database for its training materials, the VIPD did not provide an update on that project in the Status Report.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should move forward with developing a unified training database. Once that database is operation, the VIPD should demonstrate its functionality to the Police Practices Experts during future monitoring trips.
77. The VIPD shall continue to maintain training records regarding every VIPD officer that reliably indicate the training each officer has

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 78 of 104
78 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
received. The training records shall, at a minimum, include the course description and duration, curriculum, and instructor for each officer.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 77 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD again reports that the Training Bureau in both Districts continues to maintain an electronic database of training records.
OIM Report:
During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that it is in substantial compliance with the requirements of ¶ 77. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
VIPD should demonstrate to the Police Practices Experts during future monitoring trips that the Department maintains records for every Officer detailing the training received, including a course description and duration, curriculum, and course instructor for each training.
78. The Training Director will review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure compliance with applicable laws and Virgin Islands Police Department policy. The Training Director will consult with the Attorney General’s Office on any additions, changes and/or modifications regarding use of force training or policies to ensure compliance with applicable laws.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 78 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that its Compliance Coordinator developed a form to document reviews of the Department’s Use of Force policies and corresponding training. Once approved, the form will be the Department’s mechanism for documenting these reviews.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 79 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 79
OIM Report:
The VIPD first reported during the Third Quarter that it would periodically review its use of force policies in consultation with the VIAG; the Department has not announced a similar review for its use of force training. To formalize the review of use of force policies (and corresponding training), the VIPD developed the “Use of Force Policies/Training Review” form. The form requires that the reviewer include any comments, recommendations, and/or corrective action and the Training Director (or his designee) must sign the form upon review. At the beginning of the First Quarter of 2013, the VIPD reported that it reviews one use of force policy every two weeks and said that it would provide the OIM with the completed review forms, but it has not yet done so.
Recommendations:
The Department should develop a process for reviewing all use of force training (as it has done for the use of force policies) to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy. This process should include consultation with the VIAG to the extent necessary. The VIPD should also conduct at least semi-annual reviews going forward. These reviews should be documented, become part of the training records file for that lesson plan, and be shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
79. The VIPD will continue to provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on use of force. Such training will include and address the following topics: a) the VIPD’s use of force model, as described in this Agreement; b) proper use of force decision making; c) the VIPD’s use of force reporting requirements; d) the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements; e) examples of scenarios faced by VIPD officers that illustrate proper use of force decision-malting; f) interactive exercises that emphasize proper use of force decisionmaking; g) de-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without using force, and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest maybe the appropriate response to a situation even when the use of force would be legally justified; h) threat assessment; i) appropriate training on conflict management.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 80 of 104
80 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 79 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
During the Fourth Quarter five instructors who received certification on the firearms simulator participated in a two day workshop to develop a standard operating procedure (“SOP”) for the simulator. The Director of Training approved the SOP, which includes training modules for defensive spray, expandable baton, and defensive tactics. The Department also intends to use closed use of force investigations (reviewed during the Fourth Quarter by IAB) for scenario based training. Following approval of the SOP, Officers in the Special Operations Bureau in the St. Thomas District were able to use the firearms simulator.
OIM Report:
While the OIM welcomes the Department’s finalization of the SOP for the firearms simulator, the Status Report does not explain how the SOP satisfies each of the requirements of ¶ 79 of the Consent Decree.
Recommendations:
The Training Division should work closely with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to arrange further training (in-service, Roll Call, and Commanders Call) on certain policies for which compliance has been problematic based on the results of post-training examinations, Department audits, and OIM audits. The Training Division also should work closely with the Use of Force, Citizen Complaint Process, and Management and Supervision working groups to identify areas that require additional training, either through additional inservice training, Roll Call, and Commanders Call training, to ensure that VIPD personnel adequately understand their obligations. In light of the Department’s limited financial resources, every Officer who attends instructor certification training should intend to serve as an instructor. The Department should also ensure that all instructor candidates have exemplary disciplinary records and performance evaluations. Finally, the OIM recommends that the VIPD develop formal criteria for selecting instructor candidates, including reviewing an Officer’s disciplinary background and performance evaluations to ensure that appropriate candidates are selected.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 81 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 81
80. The VIPD will continue to provide training to all its officers on the VIPD citizen complaint process. The VIPD will develop a protocol for all its officers on appropriate conduct and responses in handling citizens’ complaints and will train officers in the protocol.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 80 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it has issued the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy, and that it continues to provide corresponding in-service, Roll Call, and Commanders Call training.
OIM Report:
The VIPD has issued the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy pursuant to ¶ 42 of the Consent Decree. Officers showed improvement during the Fourth Quarter in their knowledge of the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy. On St. Croix, 67% (8 out of 12) of the Officers questioned responded correctly when a Police Practices Expert asked them to explain the process for filing a complaint, which was an improvement from 40% (4 out of 10) during the Third Quarter. The remaining Officers responded incorrectly when asked how citizens are kept informed about the outcome of their complaint.
Recommendations:
The VIPD has made significant progress issuing the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy. The VIPD should continue to provide Officers with additional training on the complaint process and then conduct and document periodic audits to ensure that VIPD personnel are complying with the relevant policies. The VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate.
81. The VIPD will provide training on appropriate burdens of proof to all supervisors, as well as the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility (to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform, and legally appropriate). The VIPD will also continue to provide training to supervisors on leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training will be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of assuming

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 82 of 104
82 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
supervisory responsibilities, and will be made part of annual in-service training.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 81 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIAG provided the Compliance Coordinator with the requested test questions on the preponderance of the evidence standard to be used during inservice and Roll Call training. The Compliance Coordinator forwarded the questions to the Citizen Complaint Process working group, the IAB, and the OIM.
OIM Report:
While monitoring during the Fourth Quarter, the Police Practices Experts asked Supervisors about their understanding of the preponderance of the evidence standard. On St. Croix, 100% (8 out of 8) of Supervisors correctly explained the preponderance of the evidence standard and how it differs from the beyond a reasonable doubt standard which was an improvement from 60% (3 out of 5) during the Third Quarter. The Complaint Process working group, however, did not provide the OIM with documentation that it conducted similar audits to assess the proficiency of Supervisors with the preponderance of the evidence standard.
During the Fourth Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that it is in substantial compliance with the requirements of ¶ 81. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The Training Division should offer training to Supervisors on the preponderance of the evidence and other responsibilities within 90 days of Supervisors assuming supervisory responsibilities (and on an ongoing basis thereafter). The Director of Training should evaluate post-training examinations to help assess the degree to which Supervisors understand the preponderance of the evidence standard and the lessons conveyed during training. The Director of Training should then schedule follow-up training based on the results of those post-training examinations.
The VIPD should also attempt to determine why some Supervisors and investigators are failing to comply with the requirements of ¶ 81. The VIPD should then actively address those issues at Roll Call and Commanders Call

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 83 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | 83
training, and with individual Officers as appropriate. Additionally, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply with Department policy. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work with the Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, the IAB, and the Training Division to provide remedial training or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions if necessary. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 84 of 104
84 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Conclusion
In order to achieve substantial compliance (and demonstrate substantial compliance to the OIM), the Department must (among other things) put in place a rigorous audit process to determine whether VIPD personnel are complying with the Department’s policies, and to memorialize the VIPD’s progress towards substantial compliance. This will require the Audit Team to be fully functional and to work with the Training Division, the IAB, and the working groups. As we have previously reported, a robust auditing function is essential to the Department’s ability to ensure that policies are implemented, that personnel understand and comply with Department policies, and that remedial training or other required action is taken to ensure that VIPD personnel are equipped to carry out Department policies and procedures in their daily policing activities.
While the VIPD continues to make progress in certain areas, a tremendous amount of work remains. The OIM is hopeful that the Joint Action Plan approved by the Court during the Fourth Quarter will reinvigorate the VIPD’s Consent Decree compliance efforts. For the Joint Action Plan to succeed, the VIPD must strictly adhere to the deadlines agreed to by the Parties and approved by the Court, and the VIPD must demonstrate the steps the Department has taken to meet those deadlines. In addition, consistently reporting uses of force is essential and an issue of paramount importance under the Consent Decree. Completing timely and adequate use of force and complaint investigations is essential for the Department to assess whether VIPD personnel are following Department policies, and for the Department to evaluate the need for further training or other corrective measures.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 85 of 104

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 86 of 104

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 87 of 104 Office of the Independent Monitor | i

Appendix A Summary of Consent Decree Requirements
Below is a summary of the requirements imposed by each substantive section of the Consent Decree. Because these summaries of the substantive requirements significantly lengthen our reports, we include them in this Appendix to provide the reader with context concerning the VIPD’s progress in implementing the broad range of reforms required under each section of the Consent Decree.
I. Use of Force Policies (CD ¶ 31)
A. Requirements
Under paragraph 31 of the Consent Decree, the VIPD is required to review and revise its use of force policies as necessary to:
x Define terms clearly, including establishing a definition of force that is consistent with the definition of force under the Consent Decree;1
x Incorporate a use of force model that teaches officers to use, as appropriate, strategies such as disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, or calling in specialized units to assist with a situation;
x Advise VIPD officers that, whenever possible, individuals should be allowed to submit voluntarily to arrest before force is used;
x Reinforce that the use of excessive force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and potential civil liability;
x Ensure that sufficient less lethal force alternatives are available to all VIPD officers; and
x Explicitly prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized.2

1

Under the Consent Decree, “[t]he term ‘force’ means any physical coercion used

to effect, influence or persuade an individual to comply with an order from an officer.

The term shall not include ordinary, unresisted handcuffing. The term shall include the

use of chemical irritant and the deployment of a canine and/or pointing a firearm at or

in the direction of a human being.” CD ¶ 21.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 88 of 104 ii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

This provision requires that the VIPD implement its revised use of force policies immediately after the DOJ has reviewed and approved finalized versions of the policies.
II. Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force (CD ¶¶ 32-41)
A. General Use of Force Events (CD ¶¶ 32-38)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires that the VIPD document in writing all uses of force and develop a use of force reporting form on which officers are required to record each and every type of force used in an incident. The use of force reports must include: (1) a narrative description, prepared by a supervisor, of the events preceding the use of force; (2) a narrative description, prepared by the involved officer, of the event relating to the use of force incident; and, (3) audiotaped statements, as appropriate, from those officers.3
The Consent Decree requires officers to notify their supervisors following any use of force or allegation of excessive force. The supervisor must respond to the scene, examine the person who was subjected to the use of force for injury, interview him or her to determine the extent of any injuries, and ensure that the person receives medical attention, if necessary.
A supervisor must conduct a review and evaluation of each use of force by a VIPD officer. The Consent Decree contains the following requirements relating to these evaluations of uses of force:
x The supervisor must prepare a detailed narrative description of the incident that includes all of the facts and circumstances relevant to determining whether or not the involved officers’ conduct was justified.

2

The Consent Decree defines “deadly force” as “any use of force likely to cause

death or serious physical injury, including, but not limited to, the discharge of a

firearm.” CD ¶ 20.

3

The Consent Decree defines “supervisor” as a “sworn VIPD employee at the rank

of corporal or above (or anyone acting in those capacities) and non-sworn personnel

with oversight responsibility for other officers.” CD ¶ 27.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 89 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | iii
x The supervisor must evaluate the grounds for the use of force and determine whether the involved officers’ actions were consistent with VIPD policy.
x To filter out potential bias, reviews of use of force incidents may not be conducted by any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized action that led to a use of force or allegation of excessive force.
x Supervisors are required to interview all witnesses of a use of force, as well as all witnesses of any incident in which an injury results from a use of force. Supervisors must ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident, subject to any limitations imposed by any applicable provision of collective bargaining agreements or law.
x Supervisors are not permitted to ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that might, for example, suggest legal justifications for the officers’ conduct.
x Supervisors must consider all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence, as appropriate. Supervisors are required to make reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between statements provided by witnesses and make determinations with respect to the credibility of witnesses when feasible. The VIPD is required to train all of its supervisors on methods and factors for evaluating the credibility of a witness.
x Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that use of force reports identify every officer who was involved in a use of force incident or was on the scene when the incident occurred. Supervisors must ensure that use of force reports reflect whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided to an injured person, and, if not, whether the person refused medical treatment. Supervisors also must ensure that use of force reports include contemporaneous photographs or video of all injuries resulting from the underlying incident. These images must be taken both before and after any treatment of the injuries, including the cleansing of wounds.
x Supervisors are required to evaluate the performance of all officers under their command who use force or were involved in

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 90 of 104 iv| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

an incident that resulted in a subject being injured due to a use of force by an officer.

x Finally, the Consent Decree requires a Deputy Chief to review and evaluate every use of force performance review prepared by a VIPD supervisor. The Deputy Chief’s review must include the identification of any deficiencies in the supervisors’ reviews and must require supervisors to correct any such deficiencies. The Consent Decree requires the Department to hold supervisors accountable for the quality of their use of force reviews, including subjecting a supervisor to appropriate corrective or disciplinary action in cases where the supervisor failed to conduct a timely and thorough review, or failed to recommend or implement appropriate corrective action with respect to a subject officer.

The VIPD also must investigate all critical firearm discharges.4 These reviews must account for all shots fired and the locations of all officers who discharged their weapons. In connection with the investigation of all critical firearm discharges, the VIPD is required to conduct, as appropriate, ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue and bullet trajectory tests.

B. Specific Force Policies (CD ¶¶ 39-41)

1.

Requirements

The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop a Use of Firearms Policy that is consistent with applicable law and current professional standards. This policy must:

x Prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition and inform officers that any such use may subject them to disciplinary action;

x Establish a single, uniform system for reporting all firearm discharges;

x Prohibit officers from obtaining service ammunition from any source other than official VIPD channels;

4

The Consent Decree defines the term “critical firearm discharge” as “each

discharge of a firearm by a VIPD officer with the exception of range and training

discharges and discharges at animals.” CD ¶ 22.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 91 of 104 Office of the Independent Monitor | v

x Specify the number of rounds VIPD officers are authorized to carry; and,
x Require that all discharges of firearms by officers, including unintentional discharges, whether on duty or off-duty at the time of the discharge, are reported and investigated.
The VIPD also must develop a revised policy regarding officers’ offduty conduct that:
x Provides that, absent exigent circumstances, off-duty officers must notify the VIPD or the relevant local law enforcement agency before taking police action; and
x Requires that an officer who responds to an incident while offduty must submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests if it appears that the officer had consumed alcohol or was otherwise impaired at the time of the incident.
Finally, the VIPD is required to implement a policy that provides for an intermediate force device that falls between the use of chemical spray and the use of a firearm on the use of force continuum. This intermediate force device must be one that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The VIPD must incorporate the use of this intermediate force device into its use of force continuum and train officers in the device’s use on an annual basis.
III. Citizen Complaint Process (CD ¶¶ 42-58)
A. Public Information (CD ¶¶ 42-43) & Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints (CD ¶¶ 44-45)

1.

Requirements

The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop and implement a program to inform members of the public that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any VIPD officer. The Consent Decree contains the following requirements with respect to this public information program:

x The VIPD must develop and distribute complaint forms, fact sheets, informational posters, and public service announcements that describe its citizen complaint process.

x The VIPD must make complaint forms and informational materials available at government facilities, including VIPD

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 92 of 104 vi| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

stations, substations, mobile substations, and libraries. These forms and materials also must be available on the Internet and, upon request, with community groups and at community centers.
x Each VIPD station, substation, and mobile substation must permanently post a placard that describes the complaint process and includes relevant contact information, including telephone numbers. These placards must be displayed in English, Spanish, and, where necessary in light of the local community, in French or French Patois.
x VIPD officers are required to carry English, Spanish, French, and French Patois5 versions of complaint forms and informational brochures in their vehicles at all times while on duty.
x If a citizen objects to an officer’s conduct, the officer is required to inform the citizen of his or her right to make a complaint.
x Officers are prohibited from discouraging any person from making a complaint concerning an officer’s conduct.
The Consent Decree imposes the following requirements relating to the availability of means by which members of the public may lodge complaints against VIPD officers and the tracking of such complaints:
x The VIPD must be able to receive complaints filed in writing or orally, in person or by mail, and by telephone (or TDD), facsimile, or electronic mail.
x The duty officer at the front desk of each District station shall be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints. At the intake stage, an officer taking a complaint is permitted to describe facts that relate to a complainant’s demeanor and physical conditions but may not express

5

The OIM notes that paragraph 43 of the Consent Decree does not expressly

require VIPD officers to carry French language complaint forms and informational

brochures in addition to French Patois. However, in light of the third sentence in

paragraph 43 (which requires French language placards describing the complaint

process), the OIM believes that this was an inadvertent omission. For future printings

of brochures and other similar promotional information, the OIM suggests that the

VIPD create versions in English, Spanish, French, and French Patois to satisfy the

intent of the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 93 of 104 Office of the Independent Monitor | vii

opinions regarding the complainant’s mental competency or veracity.

x Upon receipt, the VIPD is required to assign each complaint a unique identifier number, which must be provided to the complainant.

x The VIPD must track each complaint according to the type of misconduct alleged in the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, and improper search).

x Copies of all allegations of misconduct against a VIPD officer that are filed with the Zone Commands shall be referred to the IAB within five business days.

B. Investigation of Complaints (CD ¶¶ 46-58)

1.

Requirements

The Consent Decree establishes numerous specific requirements relating to the investigation of complaints against VIPD officers, including the following:

x Complaints must be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. The VIPD is required to develop and implement appropriate training regarding application of the preponderance of the evidence standard in internal investigations of allegations of officer misconduct.

x The VIPD must explicitly prohibit an officer from being involved in the investigation of a complaint or incident if the officer used force during the underlying incident, was involved in conduct that led to the injury of a person during the incident, or authorized the conduct that led to the reported incident.

x The VIPD must investigate every citizen complaint and the resolution of each complaint shall be documented in writing.

x The VIPD must develop a clear policy and procedure regarding the intake of complaints, including anonymous and confidential complaints, against VIPD officers.

x The Department must implement a centralized system for numbering and tracking all complaints.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 94 of 104
viii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
x IAB is responsible for determining whether each individual investigation of a complaint will be assigned to a Zone, retained by IAB, or referred for possible criminal investigation.
x If IAB refers a complaint to one of the Zones for investigation, the Zone must immediately forward to IAB copies of all documents, findings, and recommendations so that IAB is able to track and monitor the investigation.
x The Police Commissioner must be notified of all complaints alleging excessive force or violation of a person’s Constitutional rights within twenty-four hours of the VIPD’s receipt of the complaint.
The VIPD also is required to develop a single policy governing the investigation of misconduct complaints, regardless of whether the investigation of such complaints is conducted by IAB or a Zone command. This policy must:
x Provide guidance concerning factors for investigators to consider in evaluating the credibility of the complainant and other witnesses, examining and interrogating accused officers and other witnesses, identifying potential misconduct that is not specifically referred to in the complaint, and applying the preponderance of the evidence standard. The VIPD also must train all officers who perform internal investigations on these issues.
x Require that VIPD investigators ensure that all officers present at the scene of the underlying incident provide a statement and that all interviews be recorded, as appropriate, on audio or video.
x Require that investigation findings include conclusions regarding whether:
 The police action was in compliance with policy, training, and legal standards, regardless of whether the complainant suffered harm;
 The incident involved misconduct by any officer;
 The use of different tactics could have, or should have, been employed;

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 95 of 104 Office of the Independent Monitor | ix

 The underlying incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling, or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and
 The incident suggests that the VIPD should revise its policy, training, or tactics.
x Establish that each allegation investigated must be resolved by a finding of either “unfounded,” “sustained,” “not sustained,” or “exonerated.”6
x Provide guidance to all investigators regarding procedures for handling allegations of potential criminal misconduct, including the referral of such allegations to the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office or other appropriate agency for possible criminal prosecution. The policy must establish the entity or individual responsible for making the determination as to whether a matter should be investigated criminally. The policy also must require the completion of the VIPD’s administrative investigations of potentially criminal misconduct, regardless of the initiation or outcome of any criminal proceedings.
x Require that all relevant police activity, including each use of force, be investigated, even if the activity or force was not specifically complained about.
x Require that investigations evaluate any searches or seizures that occurred during the underlying incident.
x Prohibit investigators from closing an investigation solely because a complaint is withdrawn, the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of an injury, or the complainant will not provide additional statements or written statements. The policy shall require that, under such circumstances, investigators must continue the investigation as necessary to determine whether the allegations

6

Under the Consent Decree, a finding of “unfounded” means that there are

insufficient facts establishing that the alleged incident actually occurred. A finding of

“sustained” means that there is sufficient evidence to determine that the alleged

incident occurred and that the officer’s actions were improper. A finding of “not

sustained” means that there is insufficient evidence that the alleged misconduct

occurred. Finally, a finding of “exonerated” means that the alleged conduct occurred

but that the conduct did not violate VIPD policies, procedures, or training. Each of

these findings must be based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. CD ¶ 57.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 96 of 104
x| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
can be resolved based on available information, evidence, and investigative techniques.
x Prohibit investigators from considering the fact that a complainant pleaded guilty to, or was found guilty of, an offense as evidence of whether or not an officer used a type of force or as a justification for the investigator to close the investigation.
The VIPD must keep complainants periodically informed of the status of the investigation of their complaints. Upon the completion of each investigation, the VIPD must notify the complainant of the outcome of the investigation, including an appropriate statement regarding whether any disciplinary action or non-disciplinary corrective action was taken against any officer.
Finally, the Consent Decree requires that unit commanders evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command in order to identify potential problems or training needs. Unit commanders must report any such issues to the appropriate VIPD entity in the form of a recommendation that appropriate action in response to the identified issues be taken.
IV. Management and Supervision (CD ¶¶ 59-72)
A. Risk Management System (CD ¶¶ 59-68)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop and implement a Risk Management System (“RMS”) that includes a computerized relational database or a paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for the supervision and management of VIPD personnel. The VIPD is required to use this data regularly to promote respect for civil rights and the employment of best police practices, manage risks, and potential liability for the Department, and evaluate the performance of VIPD officers and personnel across all ranks, units, and shifts.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 97 of 104 Office of the Independent Monitor | xi

The Consent Decree specifically requires the VIPD to collect and record the following information in its new RMS:
x All uses of force;
x Canine bite ratios;7
x The number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers;
x All injuries to prisoners;
x All instances in which a VIPD officer used force and the subject was charged with resisting arrest, assault on a police officer, disorderly conduct, or obstruction of official or police business;
x All critical firearm discharges, whether they took place on duty or off-duty;
x All complaints against officers and the dispositions of those complaints;
x All criminal proceedings, civil or administrative claims, and civil lawsuits resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel;
x All vehicle pursuits;
x All incidents involving the pointing of a firearm;
x All disciplinary action taken against VIPD officers; and
x For incidents included in the database, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (e.g., the officer’s name, badge number, shift, and supervisor) and member of the public (including race and ethnicity or national origin, if such information is available).
The VIPD has the option either to purchase the RMS “off the shelf” and customize the system to VIPD’s requirements or to develop and

7

A canine bite ratio relates to apprehensions in which a canine unit participated.

It is the ratio of incidents that involved the canine biting or otherwise coming into

physical contact with the suspect compared to the overall number of such

apprehensions in which a canine unit participated.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 98 of 104 xii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

implement the RMS pursuant to a contracting schedule set forth in the Consent Decree.8
Within 120 days of the effective date of the Consent Decree, the VIPD is required to prepare a protocol for the use of the RMS, which must be submitted to DOJ for review and approval. Any proposed modifications to the RMS protocol also must be submitted to DOJ for review and approval prior to the implementation of the proposed modifications. The RMS protocol must contain:
x Provisions regarding data storage, data retrieval, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation, and audit;
x Requirements that the automated system be able to analyze data according to the following criteria:
 The number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit;
 The average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and
 The identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit.
x Requirements relating to the generation of reports on a monthly basis that describe data contained in the RMS and identify patterns of conduct by individual officers and units;
x Requirements that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors initiate appropriate interventions with individual officers, supervisors, and units based on activity and pattern assessments derived from the information contained in the RMS and that the VIPD has the following intervention options available:
 Discussions among Deputy Chiefs, managers, supervisors, and officers;
 Counseling;
 Training; and,

8

See CD ¶ 66.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 99 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | xiii
 Documented action plans and strategies designed to modify officer conduct and activity.
x A requirement that all interventions be documented in writing and entered into the RMS;
x A provision that actions taken as a result of information derived from the RMS be based on all relevant and appropriate information—including the nature of the officer’s assignment, crime trends, and crime problems—and not solely on the number or percentage of incidents in any category of information recorded in the RMS;
x A requirement that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors promptly review the RMS records of all officers who transfer into their sections or units;
x A requirement that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors be evaluated based on their ability to use RMS to enhance the effectiveness of their units and to reduce risks associated with officer conduct;
x Provisions that IAB shall manage and administer the RMS and that IAB shall conduct quarterly audits of RMS to ensure compliance with the RMS protocol; and
x A requirement that appropriate managers conduct regular reviews, at least quarterly, of relevant RMS information to evaluate officer performance across the Virgin Islands. The purpose of such reviews is to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all VIPD units in order to identify significant patterns or series of incidents.
Within 120 days of the implementation of the RMS (or later with the agreement of DOJ), the VIPD must prepare, for the DOJ’s review and approval, a Data Input Plan for including appropriate fields and values for new and historical data entered into the RMS.
x The Data Input Plan must identify the data to be included in the RMS and the means for inputting the data, the specific fields of information to be included in the RMS, the historical time periods for which information will be inputted into the system, deadlines for inputting data, and the persons responsible for the input of data.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 100 of 104
xiv| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
x The Data Input Plan must provide for the input of historical data that is up to date and complete into the RMS.
x Once the RMS is operational, the VIPD is required to enter information into the RMS in a timely, accurate, and complete manner and to maintain the RMS data in a secure and confidential manner.
The VIPD must maintain all personally identifiable information about individual officers that is contained in RMS for at least five years. The VIPD shall maintain information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis in the RMS indefinitely.
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD, even prior to the implementation of the RMS, to use existing databases and resources to the fullest extent possible to identify patterns of conduct by individual VIPD officers or groups of officers.
Following the initial implementation of the RMS, the VIPD may propose to add, subtract, or modify data tables and fields in the system, modify the types of documents entered into the RMS, or modify the standardized reports generated by the RMS. The VIPD is required to submit all such proposals to the DOJ for review and approval prior to implementing the proposed changes.
B. Oversight (CD ¶ 69)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop a protocol for conducting audits within the RMS, which must be followed by the VIPD personnel responsible for conducting audits. The protocol must establish a regular and fixed audit schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency and cover all VIPD Zones.
C. Discipline (CD ¶¶ 70-72)
1. Requirements
The VIPD is required to use a disciplinary matrix to take into account a subject officer’s violations of various rules, as opposed to considering only repeated violations of the same rule. The VIPD must revise its disciplinary matrix to increase penalties for uses of excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, and dishonesty. The revised disciplinary matrix, which must be reviewed and approved by DOJ, is required to provide the VIPD with the discretion to impose any

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 101 of 104
Office of the Independent Monitor | xv
appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes an officer’s misconduct reflects a lack of fitness for duty.
x Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD is not permitted to take mere non-disciplinary corrective action against an officer in cases in which the revised disciplinary matrix indicates that the imposition of discipline is appropriate.
x In cases in which disciplinary action is imposed on an officer, the VIPD is required to also consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action is necessary.
The VIPD’s policy must identify clear time periods by which each step—from the receipt of a complaint through the imposition of discipline, if any—of the complaint adjudication process should be completed. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions of these deadlines must not be granted without the Police Commissioner’s written approval and notice to the complainant. The policy must outline appropriate tolling provisions in the limited circumstances when an extension of these deadlines is necessary.
V. Training (CD ¶¶ 73-81)
A. Management Oversight (CD ¶¶ 73-77)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to provide training to its officers that is consistent with VIPD policy, the law, and proper police practices. Accordingly, the Consent Decree requires that:
x The VIPD review all use of force policies and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy;
 After completing its initial review of its force-related policies and training programs, the VIPD must conduct regular reviews of its use of force training program at least semi-annually.
x The VIPD must ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by training instructors; and,
x The VIPD must make best efforts to train each work shift as a team in its use of force training.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 102 of 104
xvi| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Under the Consent Decree, the VIPD’s Director of Training, either directly or through his or her designees, is responsible for:
x Ensuring the quality of all use of force training;
x Developing and implementing use of force training curricula;
x Selecting and training VIPD officer instructors;
x Developing, implementing, approving, and overseeing all inservice training;
x In conjunction with the District Chiefs, developing, implementing, approving, and overseeing a protocol for patrol division roll calls that is designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in law, policies, and procedures;
x Establishing procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and
x Conducting regular training needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
The VIPD must keep complete and accurate records of force-related lesson plans and other training materials. These lesson plans must be maintained in a central, commonly accessible file and must be clearly dated.
The VIPD also must maintain training records for every VIPD officer. These records must reliably reflect the training that each officer has received. These records must include, at a minimum, the course description, duration, curriculum, and instructor for each training program in which each individual officer participated.
B. Curriculum (CD ¶¶ 78-81)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD’s Director of Training to review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure that the training program complies with applicable laws and VIPD policy. Moreover, the Director of Training must consult with the Virgin Island Attorney General’s Office concerning any additions, changes, or modifications regarding use of force training or policies to ensure compliance with applicable laws.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 103 of 104 Office of the Independent Monitor | xvii
The VIPD must provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on the use of force. This use of force training must address the following topics:
x The VIPD’s use of force model;
x Proper use of force decision-making;
x The VIPD’s use of force reporting requirements;
x The Fourth Amendment and other Constitutional requirements;
x Examples of scenarios faced by VIPD officers that illustrate proper use of force decision-making;
x De-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without using force;
x Instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a suspect, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying an arrest may be appropriate responses to a situation even when the use of force would be legally justified;
x Threat assessment; and
x Appropriate training regarding conflict management.
The VIPD also is required to provide training to all officers regarding the citizen complaint process. The VIPD must develop a protocol, to be used by all VIPD officers, that sets forth an appropriate process for handling and responding to complaints by members of the public. The VIPD must train officers regarding this protocol.
x The VIPD also is required to train all supervisors with respect to appropriate burdens of proof in conducting misconduct investigations. This training also must include a discussion of the factors investigators should consider in evaluating complainant or witness credibility.
Finally, the VIPD must provide training to all supervisors regarding leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices.
x This training must be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of the officer’s assumption of

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 68-1 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 104 of 104 xviii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

supervisory responsibilities. This training also must be made a part of the annual in-service training of supervisors.

IV.

Monitoring, Reporting, and Implementation

(CD ¶¶ 82-102)

1. Requirements

The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to appoint a full-time Compliance Coordinator to serve as a liaison among the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office, VIPD, the OIM, and DOJ. The Compliance Coordinator’s responsibilities include:

x Coordinating the VIPD’s compliance and implementation activity relating to the Consent Decree;

x Facilitating the provision of data and documents and access to VIPD employees and materials to the Monitor and DOJ as needed;

x Ensuring the proper maintenance of relevant documents and records relating to the Consent Decree; and

x Assisting the Police Commissioner and his designees in assigning compliance-related tasks to appropriate VIPD personnel.

In addition to fulfilling these functions, the VIPD must file with the Monitor and the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office, with a copy to DOJ, quarterly status reports describing the steps taken during the reporting period to comply with each provision of the Consent Decree.

Finally, the Virgin Islands and the VIPD are required to implement the provisions of the Consent Decree “as soon as reasonably practicable” and, in any event, no later than 150 days after the March 23, 2009 effective date of the Consent Decree.

8846207

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
- against -
THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.

3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM NOTICE OF FILING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Independent Monitor for the Virgin Islands

Police Department submits the attached First Quarterly Report of 2013 of the Independent

Monitor for the Virgin Islands Police Department pursuant to a Consent Decree entered into by

the parties in the above-captioned case and filed with this Court.

Dated: New York, New York August 8, 2013

FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP

By:

s/ Steven M. Witzel

William F. Johnson

Steven M. Witzel

One New York Plaza New York, New York 10004-1980 Tel.: (212) 859-8000 Fax: (212) 859-4000 william.johnson@friedfrank.com steven.witzel@friedfrank.com

Independent Monitor

8943983

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 1 of 116
012123145369787248832

9
28
449148888

28414
7
22484
19917 0
883
874!
481"4
82314#89
21&(.3$2%1L%4&M'M-N(5O?)P3$%P(6-*@Q+4(GQ1(AD?1)GQ&,(7-1H@3RI5.N8J3(SAK+?/T)UH1(VAI1&-W59EX.(DE>1(SEEB-:Y4E*CUEM4;0SF4Z)R'S-)Z&<[*)7)1-==>
\]^]7*_3GED`

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 2 of 116

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 3 of 116
8884
14
21a87
8884
14
23 2b1&&B(B&.43c2124H-;5)3+6-471)1-&734-8.+18&9*((19(:-;04H'b)<&7*C)(-B==>
0218027d
14
21a87 ;e)B&7C+4]<(4*+gH>hH)f*)+CB)@75&

918274183i

2174
2 ejB+^&&(-%lj,B+B&4-1)B(&77m\>H)Bk&'1(]<g((1/41*c(-*l1(*&1(.m

918274183no8243 q8])7/*()1-&-l*0(-4.77(4-'*+\]-7-(*0*74m1>&()Bg&')(+g(1(*/p41*c(-*l1(*&1(.m j$+1c&()%-h.)<q((14*'=+H8l2*B()@1&4.14*m>)B&'(g(/41*c(-*l1(*&1(.m

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 4 of 116
r18
488884
14
2s
a7t98
i
4843 no8641"8!672
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuv 42
641
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuw i
9178x3383384uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 
y38
0
28uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu i141#8i
97142
833uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuz 778847!682"131
uuuuuuuuuuuuuz a2711uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu{ i
9631
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu|w x81ox!672

i
38482888}6128843uuu1

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 5 of 116
r18
488884
14
2sv
no8641"8!672
 ')9(1&+,--&&^71.^*(&&+7/-((*,-+7.(]B4(42--1&.1**(7701*>)~()--]B&&.*4'&)(1-1*^g(l1*()+Bp/-(4h01($*4c/,1)0('1-+**))`l1%D*+G*3+(EG(DE`D0,`%>1H)g)D-c&*))*11+*(m+%$()%1%g&*'+(((/)4%1-**+c&*(((.-*8m*34*(7
e*g@$/141@bg/(((-11,(-&],(B'B+>)&*0(.4/(/c&+1)9&g/*5*(&B41(&*-((74+1.*.1+.7.+B*1^*),&*7&)(7&c---+(/-8HB*-*3p^01.(+1&*(j*^44',)4(+(<-*-7)4)&^*/c(7(-4*-(B-,1'@((4B7>&77()&2p7+--.*((g7*-(&)g-^..14.B17-&B1&]37&(7-3*&(/7')**4)*-44/.77&41-17g)*1-~*]4(3B&)*(--.//1(*<4*(]4B+*3+.'^)((1777c411B(*1'&(17*7(p1*7+(4*&*((1&*9)>'7>(17(-78(&-&.])/H))*1(714***4-&B(B773&@c4'-&&4-)7&''**@&*'.B+(*%+]('(-)4*(-'(((;(+7^4>BB>)1**B(](]*4+1(p$1Hhc'/)74473.(B(,%+)*'/7']0&</&,*7)*(*'B>(17,&)&&(-7(>'-4*'7*g1.7+4@(((-g&*lc>*7&*3(77&('(.'+)-1./(((.e)e((B(9-4(-'&-%.'(8*%1)**%/)+/(7(*(7g7(c*+1*(*.()4(1>&$(*'1(1(-c*^711$*)\*(-;4-4c77-]7*/,'*'()0,&m*-7&1()*>B)3@-4&/3&7&<B-g&*'&'4&4(1)-+7-(J<4*^-1<%(((74&3(*&.&)*&71B.&--**G()7e>-9(@*7.7E-&41)&,77-c(794D*B7/4]*(&B&4&7+`'4)*(--(-<417+(--(1.^(-7l(c*&*.7>*7>77.+j<)4(771)4(*4h',-)(4]cB+>-l)7-*&('**/'g&((.-&+(/*7-4.(,1.&-.(()>'^B*4h/>*-]1+(g7'*@*()17*())'()34/B47*%&B(cg&e**((')3'11*++B*.(1((+1/p&(*'&/'B(4**1&)(()m@4-(H-711-(.)*p7'*+3(mH( ;c17''*(/*44')+(])))71]1)/(()*ccc5<'-(*)^()74&%(-///11)&.*c*1*(BBB74-`&pp7&7*&*4-/-E*)H+++7@@-B^*-33*((((&\3'&&&4G**7c*@(+j4('+B+E&^'-(()),('D**-)>4'1.]]%)`+4%1(4g1&c)B1%.('*&1.&&.*1--*+'&/')*j(-4*944&&7)B%)-4&(^(&)-%H--4*%.9^7]1(*+**-(*B\(4)'&1&%(&4.-'-)*^*]..(*]]1j4(1.7&.+.**((&.])&&&(<71&&***.)(-*<(7&(]&4)4-177)'**\(<-(.,()*4-+>)47&]4-B]4B(&%]cg*-&B-.*&B7*B%&-*p3p&(4()g1@&*3^3(4,&15**(&>)c'B@)*(4]'1g'(('%-51+(7'/)H44)(-*)&]*1c&c1((')Bc)**(B+(+7.@^4/c(.)*(/1-(&B&)--(-&7B4*g-/.4p7)).&447-B-*(7*@474+&%B/'7)*+7&&4p.&(-(-&4-*)7')c&]+143-;+@]$*1<]B(4)c&&*&B&5((BC--.'c*+&p-%+((9(**^())<p()&*-<*1B<*-j(+*4(\*4+$(+^7)7(F1*'(*1'+&((-G+*)7]g*&4`2(7H(*H));77&D+&(-<7%)1(g-,3)(17'(&--,>1')(*G*&(1>/]B%B*7E1g*~44`gB+(/7%D\&*-D)(]-7&&&`')@'1-*-33/44(*'H1%^^&G4)11&((*)&7**p-7E*(*(+-%3/7)D7&01174B+1(`((>**4434)%.+B&'-*4@**-]()*1+4.-4&&&']1*(B7+%((7)g4.7((1-$3*.);
&*D*)7/j1))-9&7.(+(-&'*7)gh-((*'/(1)(*1(*%))11(<%B((&%^1%(4)-1*&*')7(-7c7H44.B&(c<&*p(.*+-(]c,><g(1))]%*7(&9.((-*)7%**++4(*2)&1'7'*]~11](4.14*(%*1()1%0G4E1D'`+*`)D734G*&E7D%p`

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 6 of 116
zs19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89 **@*111.111)>++&((((((<&1c47777/7B(14B47*////&()('^]*]4))))B1*(&4p1-&7**----'*<($(^&*'<....(.())(-74)&(&&*.B----7p).(%7*e77^^^+&&%+*)-7&*)(]9+$$$)%).1/(-(1'4B*%%%&(4.(%%%+9(*-1g&&&-*&7&&H'''(*B-+../7((((4&]^('/)111**17)7774++-414('7cB((1(.9)).7&/7*7&&*&c1/&c-(*-/1B..B(4@],,/(^)((4.>>7-*'-(B1-*$g(&g)5(.@B&(.*.&'*.%79&+7%*..@-]&&<+](+@-'&]%^&.*)((7)B(&^1&&B*c(BB*11$&7'-*&+--'7%CB]+)4%)(()(^*%)%*'4<*&)*+')/1&.*%&'B(1)<+%(.(1&(4)*114'7((7)l-p-7'**('()+4(2p.7*7@.@.'&<())&]'&'4&1)+&--HB.4(*'7(1(+4B(987**(4-1*(-H]4~((*)4+)17.&B<-(,**)(]7*7<-&+-1(^14(4484]((H(4'*1*/*]*%/&p&+***)](7/1?(&<)4-(')%(m7111(pH*+c--H)((*9+./-''&'((**\%&4*1)&&+7^1-+*B&77]*.+)(4(*(]j+(77-&.*B3./(](&8()H*&^*7B]*7-(7]+(+-&@'1(-*77<4*)(]*)(97(&)+**.*7(-(3.$%(*/7'7.*)4+%*(.%)*]))-g%(&.7c(&@1@^7('(%('$4(<&4(-('()'*417(-,1)&&%07@))(B(*%/)*---4(++%@+7B)'((B&4p3&1p->-(7'*)*7&(+)*'B+&(4'(B( 1jgBl4*j)1)(-)()()@9.^cc/5&4744'cc(1%11))...*4&1-c7B7)@(]-7747(.*74*&7'-&)+((1*+-*.]41))&7(7**%(%*&19)1(j)/%4&+)--)4-.-14.B4B^)'&B573B'(&*m7-&*/11(+]/4^(4)7()<-/B&3@&-B7.('&*&+*'4+&-,4-*&*4>((+^-(^*7gH(.>(H*&9B*)b4(p-+(B-B)&(11((''*()(&*@)4.1]+/c/((j7^(1/+()'/'*(B7+)c4B4'&7-44]%*)c(]&(-.-.-*-1&')*7***4()&+7+-+%*&@(7(]+)('*1B-&&4)1>/*-1)(*+c)(^-1+B&&c*-^&&'7+,c->(%+4'()g)-)7j1Bj](c('.)/41()Bc.c94(.-*&1'+7c'+&7*'*((+())c)&-37-(B]1.*h(7(--g-&g)*)(**+(B]B4-(B/(*&<'9(j)141&1B)()(41(4c7%*BH(B%4'cB(H@('*4-((+-))-.-](*1*.(7*+.->17()*)4%4B<&&-'*&7(B.&*p D7.*g(~+]-G&,,(]7(>>'<3''4gg)71Gg]1](*3E*7$74((1\*D7-41;+//&7`*^)31()1&m&@-)43)%4-^7B'(*-G^1+(-'.E3^(/7()&)D47*17*c(&7$(-G+-.&9/.(-,@^4&0B)8-&&$@)%4*]*).+1c,(4-710.*@B'2j+(((p(&*471)*)1H1)1/@7-*(.)*(\7./&&H*1(~*&)c*+7^-)1*]'&4*+**-]<(4+5(g.]17,((*737<(&(B>B&'((.41*&14.%^-%(c))1&()-.(%*-41)&7-G(*7'17*&7E)(\+-4cD@*&(^-(-*`(%/).c)%1b(1B*%(&&-)')4-*4*(c&-+)&&-7p*91'(+(&&(^4*(k-&83&4H*-4*(&4(-]9^*-'-(&(*cC)(+.).7(1--(4.7^*.43)B.](]g7~-&11+771H&($]'(-j])1]B4]%^4cH/%71&*-***'c7(*)+(.(+&.)1(&&.(*-l-%*l&21^\7+7)4)'/(,*c@c]]>+1g&1(7()B**17-++D,(j4\*^(D')+9k7+-*((4(+1&7-m(p(3(9.-(*

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 7 of 116
r18
488884
14
2sw
42
641
 ')9(1&+,--&&^71.^*(&&+7/-((*,-+7.(]B4(42--1&.1**(7701*>)~()--]B&&.*4'&)(1-1*^g(l1*()+Bp/-(4h01($*4c/,1)0('1-+**))`l1%D*+G*3+(EG(DE`D0,`%>1H)g)-c&*))*11+*(m+%$()%1%g&*'+(((/)4%1-**+c&*(((.-*8m*34*(7
g4j&-7-()7.'&]]*1(&(1(c.(*/8m+(]B-)*((44-*c1$(**(10((,7(0-14.B*p14@<&'1*@+p4&^)17&*-G-&+*(`*(),7(37%*-BG4(43<E-4-/BE&'.&*]7K+(7+<H.7lB(*&]8.'++<*(1&47(-(**/(04;7)(-4)11g*-*-1&79&]&&*7*(.)4)*11(1/1p&p*1'&4)7*Gm&9BEj41&&-(7-D)&^E.])]-*1**&+*)1+((%()c).%1)(<**,+-1p>+1(&g(&***)+j)1@(1)&p'1&-j*^)7+7)&c(--'*-/)+7,*cB7((&gB-44/j-*(-B)'&'g.4-1(7-((7<'('(l1Hp*(-G+(**@((+&*(*)+ $4/>-(1,%4>4%1.&11'g'&**<(*&3&)(1p'4771(+*-pH+m)(.`4(%*j-)*(%+.4)1(-&('B*(7]7+7)(1(-7B-(9&&*9(**(,()g>4.%4(g)B8'.4119*(@'(4&()(7*](B]<4147&p(***(%g($B<.(B(p1%'/F%)*&*4G]'711(4^**1&++c-7H*(83()<H47-%jp]^**H1+/*)(+((%(1(Dc;9F]&&(71D7--^(F*&&3*&-*D'&(<-(.<,(97lp**(B8@4+7(*-((*4-&(.*^^-(7g447*^*>$(+4&)3-;B(BB4^&('m-^((l&.&'-1-g)1.^B&(4B*&*(/7)+/''414*4&p1/&**3*9B*c(*&*(-++B1(p(((--3**)+1( 74/1'%7/4)(()p--+))]'7-BB..(&&]]-*7''(D/&.&1*&&c-1(-&(E1*(79*.(^]F7c)+(9*)7%(l(/&(+lG))1*`-4-4&>1m-m^/*1*94*4c44171'(11(B*)^4)*%4&/(1*1&)-&--((4--()1^.7'/41&^1-*]*]^+'4(((&^'&)--&^.%-1j*)c(^*$(^1<(.)*c/c4+%1p-4%(&B-&4(--47'*.&.-*(+&(.--c-*.&1(&-7*77-4*(&73j]*71/9g*)('4/())14(),&7B-*(9B>/'+7-*1(7(&1g19(.^^*77()&&&4]]7(*j/-//]*&''(^-)&)'(**-+1-)B1^&H$&B)^7-'p74$-)%p(*]7%]-43-&%)7'%7&74*&(l-1(('D-g1)7(*)m%.%+1c()%4171('1((%&&)'<19^7B4((14&1+&'7'(7-)@)&*&(*4-.7--&7-.*3(^.)4l)9^/]1'*%(/1m4+<''-&*1-.)*9((+*)&1&^77(Bc7.l((*J',4^)/l&m>)F/(-*-1%g.7(mB'4&&7(3*(.-'/7]9()*)&)@(.<&-1%''BB)&7^&)]&(8*1'c*/+7'c*(4$&4(c--&%(&*-%-*1(^-&]&('*79*-(B(H&(4-^1&F**17^&(&(*.7p /)*&<1c)B&(9^&*474*&$<)&)B--(-$&7<-p']**-@+).<(+((&j'11+)*D-+3*7(+G((jE-D)*E-,g>37(g(*'+-1@(*()(gj]H()B'].11+(7*((]<>'74)+*1144*.&1-((^*71(&(4.7.B]B@p*<+&'7*(+)(c>(]4-/(1B%*-p)&(*1@B'7p&&-**%)+&^B((*).+4&-('4+*B*p&7,c>]/g(<1*)747/*<4)B-7(*(&)94-(
jG`F&-*(E1-E(D*jjjJ4Iggg*j+*K`*k/HHkWWb@+q@&7T@l~SgH/]jH)4)BH1&c,'*H((/G1cBEB4p)E&--hI*&m(3*H/))1YH1)*U1M3W^4B)-,M^M@W,&&-*+.R(*+LH(+W*$c,W0BZHZ7UMS/Z1&)S11M(L/W)1*UZ7[3U&Y749T4Y&B4<3B(?))-H`*+E(I

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 8 of 116
{s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89 7&464Jl*?)'-*+])1/-FK+,))*.(>c</G.39((@(g(71141c(14_)&(*c-(jc94-@G9c&..(*<-)4.4*1<4.-(B*(j37H&-&p1(.74-`<)14)(GB0&-p(*B-.--F+p)74B**^3(&(]7+'pc-g-G].)&<((1`(E*((c<p(7,(D('4D>g7.-/*81%3.E*g&)((B.4(-*GBp1'(&)*/-^E7-1+)*@**m]7(D(%+H4(&]&(&97'D*c*c(*('+2<+3%7(<)(7()/&(7(*c1(*,1*1474>41)7(%(<%+-g']9)]D*+B&*E&41(BJ41<&7*B*43.<cp3)77&+mB)B]H*GB~(c7/-4p7D<E]B-]7/l3((7'D.<+*(4**34)D(&c4'(14c-]-4H&*-B%.&j(.-(/&*I*'41'B.&)B_&G)%9)1p--))(.`c(B1p1%(.I7@4'/7/(GI4**(&((+1-*BE*D39*&)+7(+(*41D(I93<(-14<gDjIj&*Bpp7*'p34+3())&(;/***)'4(--@+(+]-1)(-77.+(((B7-((.&(&&,*'/---('>4pK)+**,,g<`*>I>B&7g+gB&cE*gHg&']++(73((&(<+4((''G/+j*7c711(4E14)((.)<*'D&.(-,()7/)B>D<(77c)cg*3p(&+7&4)-4c&/(*B(-7@-`7*+B.7(&))gG.((.g(*4].4.($'(j-JB4<1'.@;4I).(.B1(B]34&(BF%B*3&)*1_(+-K)(**1E+%(3.3H( /ll&jglB*/gj>GD-g(+1(1))((4mm*())(1-c''(...c^/'111873(11(]c((1(&](4477(((**-,7&%7&3c-Bp-7^*487*<&.7l-*jc-]j;g]<&(4)^]+4c.+&p7*(*-*-B&(&'4&3*-(c4-j((]1&-%*)c)*%1^()+&4*%)(*)4-((B41(4%2(%-')p7*78*)**(/-(.&+7G&+/1*Bc-B)&pH'4(E-8)(*-*((-&+&D^*<--8g*H+/D4l(4(4>**j()-B3H<.-4+)/'++c*B-B.*1()((*)&&@+((4'+B13c./((%7()7&4l*'-`4)mc+)4*4&j3(-7'1m%7('(44*)7)&4*'&4-)-*7]]c+')4+'-*c&.(1(]g/-+(c(471-;)4-.8&^4&@7-4**17*(4*'&14>H4-)*7-1-(*+<'&)j1&&]&^'-)'.)-5BHB114(&*I-&c&&^'])m-l1--3(F%(&p_&/^@)^1*m4j1B&0`&l&4c-^g73*g4)/+14^.4-&c)c&)/7-1-&-'))]%*()44c%.(*1*&/'(&*-+^+&-*&1)'@F(p(7()B(**1(3c1&71(m1-&*c34-&G.+@*()).^E(-&-%j,47)(-(D>**((711&*+Dg*5-1/*1&4@&-+(4&C&(-'l-)/^4*((&')@.-+1^-(77*-*&7)(1&8-^4917jc1)1(,](7^5)>)8)7%-(m-/&H7cg]/-]%*((-1'+)/^c.1/4+(/(-9cB+B^c(c4(4&7j71.()1&&(()j&&-7<-])*)>c]))B*-)B-()m-(/%-H7<B7J-%*&(7(7)'+-((1(1\(B-7****) 4-.4//+1()9$(,.0<&p7*++)(/j(%)]]B1**+.4]*1*&+-(^;*+)&(-2*)\]'1*&*)+-~>]B44-1*(1/1)@/&)BB71((.&-<9p&^*)+1(4*>(4*1+*&((7
c42jJ_I;1414*(+((c/B-)+&]7)1^7(+/.&7)14/-]1)-18*.&)&/B/(B&*H4*~7--4)-1H~17*)11]4*j20(]*&c&9-4-<8&++.)1&4'(1..)&(^B*((&1cBB*44(&/(&)*(***$j-*(.4@)11&(j&(1.B&&-g-,1B&p*/*4(704-4^)&*+&H/7/C7-7h17%^(H(*+3.*..(gG4-1)))@77&]/&E&7%-]-'(-j))c')D**(1(11]%+).G4&*45-*'c7>(%]37+-&1)^47)-**)@(/+.%(B+pB^*cB&B.&G)7+('4\7&^1E-&(&S*@'g-*51-/D++Y*)2]&^&)*(&D(-*(]-3&&/1+H>W1-^&/8^>]7(1Y*.*]2^*))7*=BM+4/p1(B)'c~(&(7*)4((1'4(j&]]]cW1.7(1..c7+7V7/4('(&j)Z*&11;*H)@)1W4(-7*)41&]W%&())3-c(--@1)-%14(3]&%c.5&**--.**(4+(&8++%X.-&11*)(7<*/(4p^H41X77p4&c&>j+BD^)cU1*7)M1(&K1*+4--()7)B(3*(&(+]&c'&)*G41)4j(/+%-E-)*74(+2>)D1.W&77144&)1YD2(79(c4<-1-H)%]4''').])1(1)c(*]]]&*@&X%1)'+*@(*c&&*](*+-.(+B*4)(7(7+(1.*)$~.1/((5](*8(,]-&<+78,0*1-*/>(4/Bp(7H]&^@(1g)-)7jc*(*1--^&+(*-c1>-/17c71()..))^(B&(&p1<B]&g]1c&)**(7&'/31h+B(^%g)&(&<H&/(]*(-*--&p(&+/]>B7^1-'14))1**47B(+11*14p]177+BB(&(*'4(3p'.j7(\*-*)*\&/h&(+-&''%..*('(*&(^B]G]'(*'&(/'7-&E*%4+.1)-))&^e&1D)9<4c1^-*(%E*-j(0^7(jc8/1^+'H4(*+((*7*(-&+(H1.&(&-9(.*(*%&7'(%-)*(7+^%.(

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 9 of 116
r18
488884
14
2s| @>.>@&4+j72c'-])^+4(B&4,,)++4&1*>>c14<177(-(7&(-(*gg.'771**7/&(*$+(&(*B+4(*.~cB&74.h7),&--(5*40-](1j)(+(*4.7-.*/4--]-)(&&g(%('(*4)1)-4.'4(***(1B+1.+'(7BH)./*',p44(1(7B'(>B1(&c/\(&-7)(-c'*g-7/./)(c7**((c+(1)71H7(gcl77&7)/)1@()**(4]((9&B*+]71-p+***('B(1+4&47&.*(1.%7-*(%&*)*)(1]%c;7^4%1p(<(74*))*)*B+((p']@71+&]/'&*-('-*))1.1*&41+)c**(+*(c'(<&+(c9-((4\&1B,)/-&(7>'.&*/)1'j,cB3+Bg(>B*]&B4*]&4)&4&(+-g-7)7%.]-.-@]4+(-j.(((1'.h*7B&*)%4B(B'>cH7p%3B.(-*.()/B(/+44)414b<71B(%)&'.4-**-(%-(-'47)1](*+-.B4&(*&1).%c(*-7+*^47*&*@+('17(4+1g(%(4*%(H3(c)9)]-44(.B**(1*7c*/B'(+)B)H5&1,%F-*.+-(@>&4(+*7-J4*(,+(&(g&(-B*.&3-(((;j-(,4%%4^.%)>7)]%.)-4-)),1mg&-*B(3&>%.-.11.B+14**7(g.**()@+(7+.(.*1(*c\(+4-4)(B@1c&%**'*7(-*)7)&*'**&B1*)(+g&717)B,&+7)7(->7*(c*((44-((+(g*4''*g//(].(>&/1>^+717B(&(c41BBp-&.&1%44(/c((p*1(&((]&+--9(*4.-/4@c&(.7(^1(.1.(**.&7)(47;cg@*-B]'&)4]9-*)-(&)()&1(..*<&p7</(&c---&+B(-7&-Hp&4))**.*-*^c**1%4-4*7\2)B+(*p+&**-&7c-7B]'(++**(H*+*4*<((&(&]4(-)-pB1-p*( D*>0/'*j&lb*@Dgj&*-+++)+47))&()@4&(&(cB1>*4-c'7B1(7*&&_17c)(474/&B9+c('B(B)J(B(,7B&&](])>&4-9\-'1744G4c4_(Bp7gp(1*^*---4117.(K7@*(g.*1.*3'()7.4m>+(-&((7@/-(]Bp(/)1+(**HB17')3c3&]+-+174/%11<B&4@g)(^(c(7&(c))j('-'1)+(c(+H-B^p(]4j&4&.(^('-&G7H1(,B1-7H>(*&>(B*-.^4&-+1--B*+g*)7&*p4)^(1*7(]&+74-11-*41.'17'H7.&4((44&4^1])7&*(1-7'&&&'7(*+>*7---(7*))&('c(D''&+%-(7&&'%.c]9/)--)]&(4^(&&)*177-^^7*71/%m-+7(-7&1,-77(*(B3)*(l>&)(7&&)e(-77-47>*.cg*G@H8HH+4@+*-^+(*(@/(4@(H('+(2+4*j-3''1/+(1&&47)()*.]**(4B(B(1(7+B17-&@1,-7*44'7>(*9(&.(D&&-/4&(4)*((7g9*-+/</-&]+174~@.-4&)(pBB(7]-4B&(&c]&]*B'7'BB/>(>&^(+/B4']'44<./&+-+4(1&/--]1***((B)14'4*(&&/(1)'7j7*))(^)77)73&4)7*H@-1-1)](((('&*B]3(<7-73)&+1+(1\`)'7*7(94-77&((&+c&%7--(&-^((77*'4(*j./'+3&-7@4*(+/-b^B+31()$1*p]&1(/)^)*4*1(>-(4g1,.+&3B-9*1g+0-%&47*7+&&'(B4()+-&7(&4+^j(47'(--*&('&c^7/&*)<11)7%.&-<*((()4---B&*(*(-^-(-(111@^+`77*,*@*4*)^>34*(&)4c(@1&-@)4g\-/h---1*(&+1(+(/&/*B*3*&)`B.4--+*+)+(BB/Bgg1&H*B/]*^4)/4'B4&j*(&H4H-(7774&7+'+&jq1'-)-(<^744(//*(1H(-(&.)B3*(.7/1)-*^(&7>7()()*)1B&<^7(/+&4-*7)9-']*-))1(&)-9@&1H.*&*(B&-4&4B&&$+7(>-7.('>&B&.-(4B7+p,^)+&0)*-3&-4+&4---777(^(H(1 7>c/]41()<149*7&-&(*7&47&-)-+^4-*%1(&]4()BB-m+,'B/>)p)1/gc@)(^/%@+]1B(&(&BB4-7B*-7+4&'*'4c(++*H4&4*(.+79(&(7'<)74pc]/<*//+7B1(&*)(44.-',*@+>&4g&@*B+'&@B)B4+c<B&BB(/(**+B*'&(14)(1--(4'*('/&-'+@])4]&&7*--+(^7*4H*%))j17)+*&--1(&7'9$(1(-(,0c%*)g1(4-(-*'.41B(*(l+<(]*

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 10 of 116

s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
!47463
!6t3474179i
9178

i8
238884 738¡
91




84*&7%&(.



84*&7%&(.



84*&7%&(.

£

84*&7%&(.

v

84*&7%&(.

z

84*&7%&(.

w

84*&7%&(.

{

84*&7%&(.

|

84*&7%&(.

£

84*&7%&(.

£

84*&7%&(.

£

84*&7%&(.

£

84*&7%&(.

££

84*&7%&(.

£v

84*&7%&(.

£z

84*&7%&(.

£w

84*&7%&(.

£{

84*&7%&(.

£|

84*&7%&(.

v

84*&7%&(.

a27117¢3n8o8¡641

84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(.

xi
9731313874481
¡4 ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 11 of 116

i8
238884 738¡
91


v

84*&7%&(.

v

84*&7%&(.

v

84*&7%&(.

v£

84*&7%&(.

vv

84*&7%&(.

vz

84*&7%&(.

vw

84*&7%&(.

v{

84*&7%&(.

v|

84*&7%&(.

z

84*&7%&(.

z

84*&7%&(.

z

84*&7%&(.

z

84*&7%&(.

z£

84*&7%&(.

zv

84*&7%&(.

zz

84*&7%&(.

zw

?\

z{

?\

z| ?)*84*&7%&(.

w ?)*84*&7%&(.

w

84*&7%&(.

w

84*&7%&(.

r18
488884
14
2s

a27117¢3n8o8¡641

84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(.
?\ ?\ ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(. 84*&7%&(.

xi
9731313874481
¡4 ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(.
?\ ?\ ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 12 of 116

s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89

i8
238884 738¡
91
 a27117¢3n8o8¡641


w

?\

?)*74*&7%&(.

w£

?\

?)*84*&7%&(.

wv

?\

84*&7%&(.

wz

?\

84*&7%&(.

ww

?\

84*&7%&(.

w{

?\

84*&7%&(.

w|

?\

?)*84*&7%&(.

{

84*&7%&(.

84*&7%&(.

{

84*&7%&(.

84*&7%&(.

xi
9731313874481
¡4 ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(. ?)*84*&7%&(.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 13 of 116
r18
488884
14
2s
i
9178x3383384 )*&b4c+1'(^(+/4W&&B(--(]9c'&1@+C&4B(X-&4]((177^*-B*W./B&(7Y*)(7(14(4M-]'H7'Z**.<W&*))c&&V*7)%7-)+S*)-'*4X(+(-])-)4%X)(&7**%'1*7&)jW++4^*&1Y+)4B)(&)--(--'j%^)&7h*C*)cM(++44U(--S4*'//(Y7*&**)B)(&7&g.19-4-]*&(*-(**<))7.&''g(7%'1((47*1(*7(47&+(@''<<7-H&11&&(p7**&7(7&<+8*(*97(+/4((*7*7+(-('+/1*'(*.($1(&+&))%j,4(&-90'],-)&4>&7)4-1B7g,&%B(B)7>pp>c*(-g3&C+-)-(7@((B7*7&-4)('hg'**'%(7/+)(+(*H>/1c(+'&D)(1)D1(/994(1&&Bj,*'(-.&>*4/)7(^&g-'-414(%'177](7(4(B/B-BeM(]B1(*4%&)%BM1-)7g/^(1.1(c(**(1+'7*7*(1&(77cY@-((.**&(7*3)]B+KH@p1D4E&4-71^.
y38
0
28
91183

14x41
978}6128843 )4q7*q*41$++(p---pp%9((7%..&&/*¤¤'(
/()/*(@

1c)+&B3(1""&B('1^&4*488'*&+&&B))(-&xB((.77](7,tt&(7lH-'4788&1B14H(7)4224
(B]%-HB&)-p312%.(4&)*%7-¥¥)(149*^717'1\B'*B(4b*(7'/*b)*)5/1411)&)8)-%-533%1%}B&&&^(5&('46-'cp-&&&711^(-(7(2/pk-7^8]k7B*'H((*1k11p-c((4)1c8(@&]()*-1+-m]/&4(*44*3B/+.3*7 &11c2**$.$¤/*7@1/**¤*)@+++%(((p(11&4

),/(1//'4(()7)*0)1'1447(*)(]*)(9*'(5&+$*1(@1]4B1&(33&9*@4&&.]cc)1*~.77,*-+*&B(7(*(0..((44&44](&(^]&H*.@.-*)-111*+5*1/(433*+Bg^B-+^((*7p)(11)1)'4.4((11H()1*^>)-%88)7*9(3/)'p(]$17*(4c(1&1(*47+)p*/&1%+,+(*]1.)')/74104.*.((1((%11*7*Bc<(&1((.(9!(G*g@%7@4++4'*cB/&]](4E&(](@(%)((()7&)7-1*11@.D4*&%'/+1()(194*(+**`5++&%*4.69](1&-)(+,4l7&'&1(.(.3>B*-(14.4^(*.4981+)']1g@c^4H&7*$(/'(4.)8(/--19](^%*)@]4/.*4>1/&p&-14%Bc2)1&&(1+'&)))H.*-*%)&'9m@)5(B1]-)(&*/&.&1*=c&-(.1'-)^/-)'B/4c47p)4('*(^1,1**4*)-><+.7)((**B+-3g91'((&@)((%((<&)-17-.4]1p77(*
*KDD(+1+(ED4*/(*'/)+%1]*7B7]B@\j<.*(+@g7(7(**@]*44jcH&-)BI)&%]*c-&J-*79^+H74*(&((1*'/+p-(j1(*H))^)g%9)-&*(9(77+1'(&1()1'-&(-1*j*()*)g)1/p4%-(1<§7'))*)(1+%9-](&(*.(**+¨((g&\777^(/*41'B+&(9114(4(^.*c(&&)-B4'1(§<](,*-7¨Bc+*(B]4H((4-&1-0*.(j*c77)g-('&-)*,)*c>K71g/&7H7B¦+&j4(4-gBB''¦&((E717`@/]*&G*((+`.4]4E-*K4.1H\/*/&(.c/1%BH(/p-B(@.c1&&(**-\(*H-43*\&/)']-)</)Bp&%')%

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 14 of 116

£s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89

q)%p2¤)
1'"(81(t9&8(2@7)¥-4]341'*)(-1.Bp]<'4*7&77H( 7*&4&/q/4cc)]'^B1p4)+1///]-(¤9&(BB7((&((H1
.(9ccc9"(&(&-+(87((g-^()--&17$***/77t4*)]*;B&8*4-+)%%&2@-%)1(^*&+-'&)/@7*&(](+].)&-¥B/*B/4B4&B*4'*&(&--((1-1-*&97'74]-&&(B]7'4c^]7*)<-3.H&+<1).((7)(-',1@*4*>*+7/)-g*&&B)7*)4%@-&4*-+&'%*B*)(B(&1-)-.7 q&)--p7/4¤(
'"]*&84)1-*7(t18)B2p%/<(417¥7&)7-H-(3B'@)-&*.+]1'(*/)1*

/g%.]*!¤*/*'4/*&c421*j*g4¤&8g4j14\-7)++++++(()--'-*)(11&7]78c,
)
)$$(1(17*9((44((>))-*4/B(.p4.8cc//(44(c&&/&];;*9*9*cg1.4*(')-88>244(+B)3(&&+33G/&cc(@**-41])..811)/71&1.**]%'(77++*7EB&71HHc'911&*)'((BH4-*1c&4%-44-7+8/©c&((4*5&**4&*j)j)]'-+117-*^)1*7**&^B&)-33-(139&*gg(4-)++(^4113H-).(~]¥'&-.&4$))-(G4--+1&)^((%*.11((7(7(-Bt']7*]&&+88BE]-*H*-.//H1(%lB7'$$H6&4*]4c+4/+(7D7.43-44']+8)-4\ggg4-1,,-)(`(BB11h^14%00(]'*4.'.c+.B**.&.H(&7&.1(\-&*(+87,cc)177/.)(''(41&1>&'>&8').**)c@@$-++j--(19&4(%*11((1g)4(-1\&)*(e1&(((^c&^(&&)&&'>--=+c^()71B-+%9''7**^.'Bh94c4@-3&++/'**%(p&**7'<&*G)@(&1()7*-)3(1&H(0B4&)
&&,,(@c&&)]E--4)1C*..774.*)>>)7@^$--1+%-&+D1-*4*^))%77-)]-gg-&*7'.7(777j47**``1(]''71)4(10^*p))->*3H7'*91)D]]'1)((/(..B@7-)]*4%)4+&&B(-4*ª4/3(7-).cc-)*-4*&&5B-.+-<..+&(1&1)G11'
D-7@'m]..(((4'c**c&/*7(EB/&2F7+--(-*--+&.])'+*7BBd'7D3&(4437())4^***]&*.j4]3&'GD<&*44*****G7'%-1&*)(&*+(*B3K&**3-(E'3&4+*B.^&&.-,&&**4+*))^D1&>(+%*(++%^)BB--p(*%`gBp(()11p&(-7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 15 of 116

r18
488884
14
2sv

````7`q<]HHHHH4pKDDID/7EG`(($.7188(%9%+4/-*&617'g&&&4'5/)7*]B&&1(2((-'7
*14&8p>-)B$*]>^-1$/1&)/)/(7¥1B&%(1]('4c1)&p**4%&4%*>)&&&'-))-(3-B7&1&-''77^p)4c/-)/.B(&'*(&(-7'p &*j7\*h-1+('(44'114%B&)9)1B-.&(1]*'&(/71-^(c+4)+^&41(p-4)1-.H&*-).-*(1'^/4h']H)&))c-BcqB&&B'(-p/&j-^((*47*()7B(.B&---3j6'*//)p7))(2cB>1<&
'&)4)c&B7(.&'4(7&('.-¥).&--(^1)7&-3^3
'4q''7])))-p---/4..*(B1p71]]479'''(&6**7*7&l)7H-*7+12m^7q
(-<p)*(411'B4(B)¥&&77*-7+72*&4&-('11^p7)H1*13)('(7¥1*/&1c(4)'&-(]-7*7&('<3(B4(--(%p)1

&&7'*&7/.%++'+j¤/G/¤*8*>**%74&<7.¤'4'----)1+1111(4*+])')--B]1E1)()444-,,,4


)4444144*'%%*((>>>))-c-&B('1777.D4))1cB&)444&&&&-B&*--*B99/1ggg(]----*)&-]'B11&`$/+---4(^1p&&733738*(*4(cc%p&((&c)...4G+-7(.C--(77*7,^))1/l+l-].1B'**04((&&4*('*4E44((444*(**(^^'-)(44+.)8/$(&..-B**7.111-7**D)--71p<//-17^9-333>((]&&)c'-74(/@]7-.jD4))*)<*(4111.4')-)4)*c-B4)4+7((111c--&4%3))194&p)Bp(pB<88889--*(-*(*1B()(&&<99**<*41*c7+&/c+&('47))1.*/&(%4.+(*7+-&&)c<&11-4/1+1($(9)..)]7*B771<*&Hc&-(((((/)44p&'&57B^(B&1*(&H((&7*),')\41&B'4c-7-15c(7%(\0)..2'4$=(*&1-(]7)-)*()B'-\)B(+(].(+-9+&&B7+*/3)))7-8%9.4-*7**15*,%**+''(74%H(@*(.(++@(+)^1&]>&1<7+.*(*()71G4.-7*44*(*41<Hg(B*+g)((&)]*(14@+*-11+-&'-E(&**9-1&7&4'(4%]c/4/~.(B]+*-*1m(*.,$$\(],7)&D.&&.(+3B->;7&>&H.)^()*(*B&*B]+7/-&`c.p,,4+&-j(4<9p4.+g4*+1-g7*%('1700]44*H.&4314(*9-4(^H-&(4<(4(<-%**&>*4<-179&.*&)(+)**1+&++BB+17p(B(]B*(^*+'(7(4@B@)+&B1^(-(&(((*&-('-4&1(4*<747+.'-)Bc(*7.'H1(*)&+&71747&'77(.++&(1-**1*4)(B'.-3)7(*]*((++.&4p$4()4))(p&%44+,/')1--*7%&,>c-/%.)/>,B7$`11-(4&>4(B'(0,gG)*])'h)])pE,>4&g-*%1&.->(%BE-9*%-3BB))&31*g]&&.&(+4c&g'D*^7''*B^+..B(BB+&(]3&(`B7(((4(11(&m)7.77*7

x4
¡2878a«88814¬84«8ª121993
2289"8
172872ª94
8¬77t«632888"
11388
12
423868378
3
4897
44247884248
7911318883317388183437132


Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 16 of 116
zs19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
43243988628124313
87
783467
8119949t

7717384
t989
48918463821327248188
9
8893726
3
178843¥ª341183¥"478861867o4
4
832641284
877
7
34281¥3823

1167
#"7d8t88"¬834774¢1
1«3917
4
277r92
9t9482
91"3881ª17"873742118
4929949¥988194731338973646917t172tt411"4­¥98r788811ª44991
327

94
922¬788189
7«
371
8812782"2
919¥8888134#"8ª2281683127281833841ª
¬4
663
14847339718171t43374
93
8¬86317¥«8o624381«89717"8o27181383114169"1¥281
t2
1ª

­1"
8446328398729
384218917¥833t43988 i
9178x3383384
/.&71&7`7)]'D9](&.).7%(7/.+*(+).(1B((&g<'Bj(4&((B)*/)7(-4@.&71-H(**c-1'4*)(+&c--g(&*1(/-('+B^%&144)3(17-<(('H]43('**++@&*&(&(*+9+4(,7.>g-`>)D+&*74)47-%'()*++*D&((p49(j-(*)..&-->G7+7(']4-)<7*c(7g*/`4(B&-''41*)-(&c4'(B(/4'<B-)&4(c.'-4/+']B4(&4774(-7'&*(+@4&7*+ 8
24¡
>7@((%1)%9)(1(*'5)1*4'H))B-+B/4*()+-B&(.',7&>(($g7/%%1)&1('(BB&(/4'1&)*(&,1-7-*37^9&)***B+)9/4(\B*4.1-*1+(>7(7)**7)j*=)18&(cc+9c&)&(*)@&7***&)*(-%+(^\(H&]7$%)*&-+1-'')(*(1+&/**(+p)3/(B&\1'j)&]()'.7(c&7**c7+3*4)&+**%*((4%&(1q-('4B])'B&(]cC&1-/1((B^(4-*c*(B7p&&*-7 r 8
24¡
g&h2.%%)b>2$7,c))-4%(1)]&)((/111(4*4'21/71/'47(&4&']c7&7()B*.-417/((]%,c411.*~&4c>)1'-&4**4>\&('-*g(c&(]*--^())7B*-&744&-)B>-'.l()$/&*/_*1-('-*)74-((l*16(m%p3FB**(.%h1(&.88&&))m'*1779)&'(h+/-/%p)7e&*(-)/])+(*)-&'1%B54)]7B()*h)-g&G>1(^®+('71'7(h*(1E/`*(B4&(&88B)p)(1-h/D)D*?)%*-*7^/^4`1171)-(1%&)*4(&13)/4)2/^7,&lB./**'1D>&+(c)+c()'))'F1mg*)71j)l&(1'D&(I(c@ll4]*])4-7/m(/*7)8(2B-Bc7H*.&.($)B(%9)-*13B+l)((1%-*&<$7&)%*'+)1-%4/h+)7%(+3&B7g*(*((-h(m2(+*b'17]]-+'jh)j)((l1m7*((()1D)4cH()p(,('B4m1-Dc>4-B7(//4l($m7*g*%7,B+1)c(+))(>8l(%((l-.1%%-4(G*+g-/8&(c(*'%/*m4(-*4l)h.&1.*h'(g74-*1ge,+)&1&7'>@B(.4(.1%Bj(((&/g\p('7B+''6/b-'g1)('/$1&(5(]((?41*)*(]-(-(/*&&-.*(*m%/9)4(1H)()*)(/-7&94<.1@1-lm/.]&(1J14B*(-*(*-)*1+4+m*%l4)(gc&K9&-*$%(--.)4&&+)/$m-(.*-(.77Hg1(B2*-j;(74*(7'+7&(l)*1(H'1D*](&4®)/((7c(++8*7G/&%<4(4+87(4(/m*///21]1(+/7)1*]81$cB/4)&c4(((%1)h/%711),c'(p]729*'(0Bh(((&c7&4(B.)4'-/('B(llBp1&HB4-&()@*D74('%l-h1/*m7E)`B7&(g^4***)1(mm4+7*&h]7)-2-&,(<*)7/c%1(@)7+&B&(-(/(/)%(-&(/B'-4)*).B^4*4`B+9117%)(7'(D*7**((7&*+(H4m(B

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 17 of 116
r18
488884
14
2sw 4*.)1*-/)+4'/^&(-])1).&&c--/(^(^91-&(*4)B*1-*)44(/*&c&-c*)1&)-4-(7&-^-7*H*+&)-))%^1@&*/)&7-]%]^/**7(*&(+-174^))*%&--*%-+)*1)(('BpH/(4B/41\')((BB*&<'+)(&)%(&-]743^^/+@7)](*B&+%'+%(&p4'g9&)((1(-/-/*B41)p)1**'1<c(((&.(-(]--%)1*(1/+'314(&)-.79'&/*.B+]1()1..)9&]-&@.^^&(+*.*++( c1)9$*.)1h*<*11@+)((((&%%&p,h%)%7(/74B(>%)%&*4B*&h-/*')7)+4g']*+8($)1)*17&*((41(')1]*-&-1$%<)(7l(B-$%7<4@.gB.&-(%+p7')<&%&%7.+B((--&%+((1pB).'*&'/&(19'^&1&%'()&*/+74-(](7+1***$,@171)*.)7++'1*>3*]7*B()%5&4c((.&gc4%'917^&)71&)&*7<'*/4(-7.1]+7+-(&(-*)H.]7^-(741&(.*%-*()&4*714-7444.77-)&&,B)'p)B-c-]B(]/]&]%@4)1%.-.<4&B7.1)/-2*7B+4&((+(](97/*8(7)(7()&&1(&-'41*)*(.(7.*((.)&'*1-/]*B4]']B.'('(7@*-B%4<)14+4-p<(](+>&%*(&B7c4-)*4*&B*&)4B1B)(+&&c*)+^7p]-(B1-<*3-&@7H(7B7'4*(.&*(&4*&+c(3p+71c7)?4<.H)*(@(*@)G/(-(4%4&.&%2(-..EB+]9*.-7)(1)()(D&(7)c'-(cB-1]7(&G(.(*9*)')B%H(1]++4&'&)*((H*--B*c(+(+%7(.4+*^B7.?44(+.(-&(~&&74&1%*7)(9(1.B4<*'7$c]47*(^('B4l43*11)4*.,&)%(*<((0+B747)13)]&m7%(B(*(*(*1]-p)((.-p'1)B3)1*71&(((*)@+@%8.(%*94*)%)+4.(%]4+2+&7%-)%2((^7<()*(+1G*@)%4)1)1')1)B&E*&(1&'(&(^((c1--5'D'/4(.+7'*(7*((7G]c1/(+B>*B+**pH>m*)p)+(&-)(DH4)'-)%1Gp&(.B((]]*(&B.*c&''&(+'BBB.4,'&+(.p(4'--)-(p(*)97((*(c'-7^<@(477*&1)*8*+7(4*7-(/-$444]+]&147*B&*&-9B%-p1(B/-@(B*<%(B%p(p*&*]74)'4'+(4(.(4-'7*4(-.*1(*'+&-**+.17(1-.*1*71].((.*4&)4(@-+'3*7**4&4+*^*4(4(-+*(*.7( *'8-*0gh))&+&&*-()cch(*4+(/&*/hC-*((c*g%+4(1B47(&p-1B(((c^(*4./(<c&4*,+<h&-c44>4-(((49h17g*.(1-*B((&hBc-77*BG&/<p77**-7(F9(&((&4^%&-]11*'))l4-7)&*&-*4BB47*)@%4B.7*]&)5*-&*92()@B7&(8(-.-c)(87@]&(19%-(44*&'/*B((B^+H/+-(-(((7(*(3514*>(&&&*9&^-71^c++)*&(497B](4(74c<&(&*'%(7)/&,&(7*p)(-(\-(/*1)--&1'q4()%^D7*&B4*%4).2(E7@+'1%*%'())7)4&(4l*-*1)*1&/+17'*@-)]*'(+4H(&-(-77)'44(H>]),&4*7'.-*)*&^)4p4*&14B%4%+H7*(&p&'+&((7%(17-p)$.&(@7$171474*('*4]%+&'%-7*B(%<*4B(B(&/m.+*')3711<H)((](17(.*-13(2*(+87(..71*4*(%]+/&&&*+&&-)7')<B](((&]'&^'-(71](17]*-(($^('&B7/79p7'*7%)*(()/%&)(@%](&B1)'.)p7%-*14(-)H%(7.<14]1.%/7'0)(7(7.&)(-B711()&)1)cm')77^-*@1('4'(&B)%$&)--p<)4)&%9-%.(1p9*'%%('(7&())1*'4(.11+c(*(3'+.)/(1@(/<(7-1&<B4&*(.94p+7*4&((.*..( 8'2*^2+)1))(((c'114'')(/*((-44.&>>17+))4<*~&BB*(]-&&&]''91g^pp4.(1$B(&&p*-7-;(71(&*c)-4+)-)/*&(%(%-/8-G22)1].E)&)11/(D917'.((`%*)(.1R*~91)>*'&]7+)(4+)4(B.&&(11'-h7.*ph'(1(<&1((4/.p7/-))(7)%1.-1(1*G'*&*h7)-E&]-H-(D^&/^'3`13)(&,---411,--*^-9.497(.(<(7414B7**(Bc*&+*B^+&(&^4)-(47*-'&*-()^B&,]()>-)7@-7g%)4&294c/-&()7-).(71.B'&]%h')(h(p,(1.>>(3'99g)(&*&(&+*B(@1&/('.@((p]9)1&)%1&,(7c%&>@)-g-/^777-)(@*%(7()+)()B1)(%]*%*+)B.4)*
DG WW)%¯GEDGEEFH

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 18 of 116
{s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
4c(.(+4]4-7]*&-7**^+&9(*(+74&'-*)9'/()(7c*)&^/%44&**17&4)&*--&979((*B+7p*4&-^c4c&*-&)))-11(&-]7(7/9(1(7)1/()%)]1%7)*&(1)'7-()*@%)%))*]+1B'(.(*H*pp//(&')4%BB%p)11'((]]&71((.B3(77 11.7&.'%1*'-)+(((*))((14799(cc*7']&1&(1&(()%*^/c1(c)@@-c-91B1((7(H(&(c%&(*-]9+(-)(*@g&*mB1(+.(()*7&c@(4.@(-%%47*4)4^&/,*&/-(-)>17+-)&-/.c^-g*4B1*)(8&*(&&17'@B**$%(1&Hp47B&'(&'(1]>*&71/)g].1(+&H(*(1c(77]9(94*1H($&.1+c&(*((&-()/7(-@@*(.%('+))^-(%1/(/)1).7,**(11\*%(+1&4)+)^'.2k(*,'-*]((&>))()H.2(1g/8'*7-]7&'+\)71)$7*(17&H(BB777&>&*%-3@>')%/&)~&^*)&1-4(47+1B]77*&(1c(*%'+*44&+14&-(1('()*(-*4+7),%(.>/B]*+1&./g+C11&&)))1()(141('.'%B+4.B*&4.](3&'G4/-*7~pc*E7(*17&+H)].D-)(-()`4'^(-)*%(1371+**h*7%4**,&((+/47(+>-&1-3<&19(g47)&&)B*1B(-&+g9%&471@C+^&(+(G&(.&-(-//)E(14&*)^-4.D-,)111>G]^7(*4**'g]7+-'c-*g)('+(&*B%.(&&++4B)41/($-(-(41**'49*c,'*-*&(04**/]&B)-*)/@141@./)@1B)l)('&)&]<*.('B+1B4B(7.47+774&7&-7&7-p $^*+1,)40]*/&@*>&7c*1]+&4<)&p1c*7*1&)(*/*.1(1).(1/49*&%))(*7&@-(*+.^*(+*1+((j9()2&c78&1&$)(c4->&17*3c***(+)7((*>%+))1(B7&''(2p)&)1-)%(7-42&.1')c((11'*74(+*>(&@))8)-B&1$'H5p>&3-+&@^7(+^'&1)'),c+>]g/*/+B(/+(*14(@)7H9)&&1-.5.(&.-&'^4*+*((. 1(]&1(bc&*(+-*17(7)/%('*`*D)*+(g(/41*c(-*7')c/B&4-'(@&*+*+(7/('&%&' *+(j)4-m7(+-(*g(7'(1)(%(2)1'(>)B&'p.(%&-(7*(1c7'B(41Bp4-.&-')c/B&4-'(@&*+ j)-7(-<m*g+(('1(7(()%2)1'(>)B&'p.(%&-(7%)1'(47*+4**(1c &7.(%&-(.&-*+( (-14*(*'$7(+(&77)-(%*'B/'(-%(].4+&4(.'*4@]-B'.((74*)&-&.1&&4'*7)*17'&m)B]'5*-)B*(]\p-&h(7c'))B773h*+*-%*7)1+.()h-7](1@&')1((7&77(+]9&(*<*.*]-+(@^-+p1&1+(&(7^+/3)47(44(&]]*B*3'-+^+-.8(74@(^((B(7(Bp(4(B41.p4)^^*-+((%-(47.(./'4c%(.54))]9B(-)7()1(**-]p'*+-&%4-7)-c(c(*2'*^3)@*')(&c&*.4c)71-)+(1'7(-)-*)(/7((4-*4)')(&&1]7>--1%-1''7&)*]+%7<)(*4)B*]]+&(-.+-14'/c&'*('p-*744((+(.g&&1H1&(%--9-)()(&4&c'?^1%1*/71B)'47(])1(4((1((9%1/-1..%/(77*&))*(-*1c431B7**&'1@*)+7'(74&4](.-4(3**+B11(&*&)(-]91%-(%7/4(^]74*7(7&-(-BB3'*1'BB*)44p)p@)(73c-*-H%*&(&1-*')(%<)42)4('-4/1&)31).7-'*(1114H&4(&/%$-)((-%)']1-.%*)1+%477'*&4-)(')H&c)*7*(*3](+&/1&-)177(*+B41](+1()^3&])-(-7c.(,.><(gp &-,.>&g9&.7.+]m)4]B7,B>3.g@'+)/(-(-177(&.)9(-(11-1/((B144]'1&*(1&'&--4)^<*B*(.+3)4*'*)]$7c]%%(&<'-c(*1&&-7*^*.)*(+74('1117&(<*7((*/7<7](*%'4)+51((7-*%()*/1)'7(4&B-&B7)*@]+7((h.hHh+(

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 19 of 116
r18
488884
14
2s|
(/%(%1)71)*7-(-*m)(B1+(*()&-.%),&7>1''g&(/+4B&4@-7(43-1(/)-)*(7/7717&)<9*B+(&.4'(*1.&*c+*+(&-(]4$7B(,/0)1)%@7((&*''+](*7.&7))&-'9]3(c4%)-(1.-'*(4)@*1&&)'B-B&97&7]B+B<&)4@(<'&&-*B&^*p,&>*7g 84B/B1/44p*3%1m<)B4+*))(%%-&'7(,3>147g-H.4/+/\((84e1,7h>g8*)3++*)4479$(&%7%/7&']1()(19.7&.B4((-7..77B/](1%*)%+&9'4&&B.(%(-).*1'B'(()71*71)(B)(7B*/7+3)4&--B.'4&BB-]*(^.1&*--144^*&-&$9&(H-j7^H*) 7&c&B41^m'4+1)(*&.7+())B.%72)(1''((/>*)B@&'+p((1(/.B(&'4&.*BBpp/%)11)'+(&<&7&*74]*+*+()]1&7C((.)H%'+)5(+)B.74-.
8
8741
3 7*@).g*/)g7(1+++-11(1,)((4(4>)4c)).1//&*9&cg-]]5/+-&44)&7&&BB.)11(&&---..'/--**B(&7^cc&^1(4^/+.4'*(*1*l&1B^B((+((77g('&&741---9))]()7))&*(--(**9-B(]$B4*7@&777-)*747-(/5,&/)(&*7-%%0-.))))))B14]4%-45)11%4-*+@''&@*/+21-/.@+*((((/&(B))1^*B)(&1g)+/111*4.B7()&(('+'(*-&(-^/4.(BB1(7*44(((*7717)7/7@+**&'-]77)')()(4(*(().]-1..%71*)%7(1()9&*7cg1%-75//H)&1*'*&')^&(1))+*11-&()%'+-.BB(44*&&^-(+')+(*(''&*-4*9(1-&&1^)1*((.)*(4&1(*17-h&771(p)&&)4B(-%H^^4)(]7)-p)&1&-.B/*(%&-/(-B((-*&1(..j-^)+)^4741%]^^44+-*74/c/2)11*B+)&/)B(4&)-)&]-)@B11-)c-1&&)]7B^',-1'+4.>^)7&B(^^*&(j*.1g-H'&'1)74)@*)+-4)*&3)-c/-c+&-)(4-+7(^(1(B*7-cH&1(5,&9-@--<>7.44&4,^)-+4]g17B--/H-](7^'7)(.1&+(-/44+7^)*'(*(.((3))1+(9)(11.B.)%B&47-(7@..]4/]&-2)**j(1))B&/&-%.)(-())174711--5]71**%B(/'(B)(++3c4(14*@BB)*4)1*)BBB1@B(+%)]4&B]*%p4*&.@&2()-)+B'1&-%.&-%(1)&.44&(5*]B&1-*(&B4(-+-,+'B&/1>^9B*-^((**7(714gm)^4)*&--4<&^-*-41*&.7+)-(](^./ &j*],)1--((%-,''*j7.(+1H*1],(-191&(b&(3*7,7--*7*](741*)%(B-4&1]c&)7(^&.B--3'+(&7)&*-*-&+/c*^)1^]()4%c&B447g&&)'-**(]&*((&-)+*-/1+-..44^'(7(*1*)l/*+/&*-c*4+j4)'1+4,B*((*&*4-c'1*7+(-*'m(H)&77<4-7]+('j4*<B(4)7<.,(-].)+1(Bc]74.4*c(*)9/447c(p*&.('.+H(&(-+B(-p.(4*'&7+()c4/,7(1)>71'/(%&g4%)c)&7,B1'174&>4&4(-**g-B1*p('&(7cHp(.7&%++$&4h*4+)-)(%(@4%].Fp'&-')BE*].(.^)1,7+B-'>7((1)&).g(C4]-)7&7-/%17/c)^&./)j.()(-)*(,c1+7.1B(7p(<7./4&H(<'&)1/c14B)$&/(7-B^/41]^4*1))*)14*&/17)*c*j(1)-4&-H14-&&.-*7'((*&(B7).p *%'g4&+)1-(1(14/(1B4(7&C7*1,7\(*/c.k+)43-((-*%-..)+g*&1-(/(&1^/c)g(47*9/(711&/B*4&((<c4@&c-B1((*&.(-c-]-]*^7(*177(-*&+-)7**^)+)7](+%*,+B>%).\)(g]114B12'./B((7&(17H)c71*7*%>)&)~-9)-(4B]-&B'4&(pC]1B(3*H&(&'**1\5+@7)B(p%&/\B*GB1)1E('19)&D(c&-7`)**H/]&>B-7($)]BcpB-(&'('1*p-(()/***)]++&*14-(*<*.(\p.@(113/141](17(7)-/7*9*)(&&>1.B-*)&**-B+&*'^()p&7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 20 of 116
s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
44a67

827831844
28662
2ª31"23ay878888433
118
8

6t2"
3
4
8

3
292"ª
¥r1882817¥"9ª9288ª¥18194422941282
438888942}678
}49
6
26148ª
123t1282878
473849477238±79ª9
839382
1626"ª38979438"114781899719432"8
98"6182
117°334

8«7918±62

2433824
48827283
817474t83474
8
98179
48t8
7t8818
41478
68884n"3268o1°18183
2
«²
88±87"
448427

842218"248173814
18
17"
"923y18848ª8
7333
2482811
847
813174613"88 i
9178x3383384
&/.71&7`7)]'G9](&.).7%(7/.+*(+).(1B((&g<'Bj(4&((B)*/)7(-4@.&71-H(**c-1'4*)(+&c--g(&*1(/-('+B^%&144)3(17-<(('H]43('**++@&*&(&(*+9+4(,7.>g-`>)G+&*74)47-%'()*++*D&((p49(j-(*)..&-->G7+7(']4-)<7*c(7g*/`4(B&-''41*)-(&c4'(B(/4'<B-)&4(c.'-4/+']B4(&4774(-7'&*(+@4&7*+ 8
24¡
&@\l*g&2.-+(1?)((9(1<1/-j((511477*,](&&*1j*-%&4*p^4c^]1+m4-p$(^((]*.7(1%D--%*)&`*2%&'],3))*3)>(%1/@*G11g')*c7+E()+'HD1&-@('(D1`++(/4\4*)))77@@+*1((%%*&4%(44B17)*B(4&')B%5*<&1c(%+B(2B(.&)p*4)B4<'.**]<1*)))('&(*4B*11+(1B7+(*(((&'+@.'7/g)*4H))*-(&*+1717.*5*(((*41&%<%&-%)&-))p'%^1,&*1->'*27*^+(3g^)1.3(*1)(]+74']c9((17?(/&(-1@\@34cp^*'&)(7&*4<B1)*7&B5+1(--]411&(^4-((77B7.2^>8)*j&)4^%1]11B71*&(&/c')*+c/((]~()(1(/jc19]*,&)<-47)7^c)1(%(1()*14^-c()174-1c(%-&.@17)24]4+7*%)**)c&)&G1())'.'E-%-(.4)D(<4B&1j`BBp*3((((*'.4*-.)*+***(()1 r 8
24¡
>)B&'p&-+(/41,*>&4gB+744*7&7&%747']*(&).-*+)%(`7G())%%2*+)(1'j()>-)7B(&'-p*4g-(.'1h(((/H)1*4<B(7()%2)1'( 42~&@&%*>--1+B)&)(]B199(B1c7((&4&('-&*771-(9***4]~9(&&(>^^-(]1*7)441)74*4)4**&**(<1^&&%&'4))9^*B4*GB((4--4&*E'1-B&*7*]()%&D)])&97-4B`%c)((.*7He1G7(13%<&4El%B&*(`1/@(-D++1)m7(`(1c@)*'1)+*%<g(l+]7G(1Bp*(&(*^m+'1/4/7*+(4+(+&7449)-8(j11'&]*(**4*+')>c&*@H'7)-4)*]((-(-7+B.+-&B'(@'(4KB*)-(41](hc7*<7>1*](g]((4&)1/)7'*477(-)(44](''41.7B]*1&*)-1&)(37'<*(%.%(+(('4c%K7(()1781((1(e*l*'*-'D.H)4)(]*m*j&c/)4-&*@111-(B+(/)(471-/(B&c***7()]+74>*(H1-*((cg)*-&.)7&B&&<-*&*-7*']&(^*@%4('11)7774&/(1>')77c1c*1%()474-744%'4'7.)/**%p*(&)&*]&/)'.'1<41-(B'(&(&7/.'(-7&34/']-^e*<4B1'+&*BB&'B'+(-(]/4](^.(<$B1(B42*,(*+.*0&71((*7&.)-7*

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 21 of 116
r18
488884
14
2s ~K/)~.2&@~4%&72--)&%-m(())&]]]^1.*17*]]).D'-+444+7&'%(11'E&111)&1((*%*m4-****E&&-D++9+(((/'*q&F³4-(-11*14(*~~4+B.&(-9]I))))&7l(]]B(-K*%%%K-4*(7144+9*GGG*.³.(*)&(11)((cEE&E(/]**.^)%7'((lDDD*)4**-I((B11p*`&GG1&*B9^)+/-*&&)mm*))(-4()%D+(((]%%-`.*-(K4*4&GG*4)+%*78)m-*11]7%/EE)(-)(]).l17/DD%%l4c%()/h4(%1GGJK-]91*&7()hBm+m7'&I&(1%/(&1)hB()³()97cG&4@(1%1^&%7&]³.]7'l/3+4%*l44)B)7&J.+*1)**]-1(1l(+)7&.(7K7.'-)).-B9(D(((&*](&.((.)^.7E4-l'>*c(47&+]('/E9-B)&17-71&)**-((³(-B&'%*&h)7./.-9)&('+1cK*%(*%(h*l&(&(7&K<%m7(^'D)h1%/*>*(4B41)h4)-D)&&17.)1'%*-^c*()m]4&c+()4*l()/9*&*'*+c%*-+-()+D**&%)(*c)&1(p1(E)+*'%%)E*-/-+&&]E((4((K-cB³(7*((79³-^<m97(7(+)1B*(2e)K9l(-(@%l&7%%)(DD--9*1*%(-]*7/&³D)))&)'+(1^7*1(c1]*B(/@74(])*('1l*4+1*]D*(*(./&K()&B74)-.E)*@(1~']%D%5-9.'(()42.7)³](D()'.7%p(])]-*7E4(-&+D.7@1*l*-.11m'D&&'D(&*)&-^^B)(&&-((E-]m--4-1%$1^*^&(.>*)D+-I*%&4)_(*)%]+*)'D(K+&%.+³B*'-)(**m&³+(G]&('(c&c*)2(E%p1-7l+2&]%l/)(DB(7I42&l(D7*]1B4BG)*+()7)p(7D)1m]*]%(*H*m](<)D*+%1,&.J%*)4*>-)+17)g%'&*%7K(+mm(
8
8741
3 %14j\c1jg@-)(((1))&(1/(/c*1'-)'/c+1()((1(4)7717.H).*('1**7+&1(*-(&-4h$4c4.(7+*14B-(7-((pjg4*/*.'-H)%1'+%())](41]*1'1&\1&c)(7B**41-BB+77%&(-B.7&)47()%-443.-(1-H7^*-])-g+(.*^c..*+)(()&&*+&1%/(-&2*&pg*-c(7]).+&)$-^&**&17((7+9,p^c+%B*0&7(jp)1.j)/(1&1H)]D'1]+(')'-(*\41(Bb&7)%/.(77B7H7142%))((71<*]-1-)4q(3)4(*1.*-1'&*41'-(..&*+(g(7*(&^(B)H9(&(((.*'@(@.)'(7,\(]\1%)1+/4-)'c(c1q%'()-'*()5*'&(3&)1&%'&-&0*)-&-'144)(+(.-(*-^B-4.)B(&3*p.-&*-3.^7+7&&4(1^*--(*(+4)4^+4]'4*-](((^B()4']]1./(@)B.4*.B1*1p(77)1&)&-**2-+4-+17)%(*(5&4*4^)3-+1<B&&1]*7*(-B.&((1)+-*B4*]^&..)\7()^1@4--'^'@'1+g1&(1*)/(p&*&),&&*--/'+1>B9]+G&(+*^)g&(-/&7E1*-4>&%1]+3*7))7]1()&G(+*-+p171(B+'E&)(])j7'*((*D]c]B)4())*G&B]B-7c(.7./47-'1)]</(.@**)%&(.B()9)&))*&49&&--+%1*%.(-57^(*B('+)3(/(47
*1''%*jj1@DDD&@'-&+)((`FJ)))-++&&99(ccc**1.&&-+&(]((((&&7///(&--%%(7@-*BB7B7]9^&((((jj7^*(7*B***.88((*4((((7++7.73+*&(-*..*&&-)4&&(((&(%))^4*'-1'@@%%,-14*-)h(4\4*@+&&*&c.(*B*+(/-q%&7((++&&-9/(/*4B9-H^&&&(+.^*-)(c.-(-1.+&&147q44(87-4+(*/***1--'44]1++&477B/%^]*'(<7*&/&(7.(41(91*7(47B(.4+&(*H(*1.%7*)p17&&Hp((4&)919@&),)7c*C'(-&--7-3]7)(4c((@)]17*@&B*)-*1(+5+1)4)+)(&%%-*&(*(7)11c%.-(+.*57*(1j2^(&(4]]&`)]-(1)-)/1%.7E74'71¯c^4B*(*4.4'('4.+1p(.7+c74G&)()4&-]7(4p7%E>%p477/&7p<D4%-)7*%*-3H)17c)4&%GHB^).c*1*&1**'+('9&('&*b)E*p71((&(++1(.E*4%+1((1/&&c'()&F'-((-(().'1h.'9]-1@9)14((((]%&1(7c7U))&4B/7(Y'7&9*47.111*7&)/*&(p1&7(.-Z3&/1'^B7'^7](*^*4))47]444+*<--c**4((*c*<+&(c'.&*+...))B/)47(&g(-/&-94/-(*&**7H-44(971&p^]%-&/D&91-&*77..7-)p]9(+4'()(()%(7.71(H4%--7*)**1(&7)*-&-Hc+*)'%^%&)*)4(^c(^24+(%*%174)*)*-&(&%&&1-*+714))-*&'>'(9]4)1--9(7(()'*-4)*.+7(B%&+1>4B&&-)*%9'*B'4-&&)&(](9((B-^)*B(1(B&4-*(943>.'c7)**('p1*4&)B7*B&)4&4*4-]-(^*4+-5'1&-4.'7B^(]*^(7*B&7%&4(])&*)4'&j&&)B+*)-*(1.(-&-/)(-*7)7&(](c417c-ge)1*+-c&7<)-3c/94(.(&<1)7//7*.4*((7++++](-(%<17()&(1(7*.7&(*1]p)<g7(((*%BB+1+--.((+4('/4*<*1(])9(7(*p

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 22 of 116
s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89 %j.)))]'c1]c@c(&(7(-75*&7)4H-*&()?1-(34*1+1(BB(p4*g7&&-(/^c4*1))*c-*+*(+4-7**4B74]*4.(]&1*3.H*&*+@(4$7,07]+/4/7)7-().**p)(*<1(('')(c&9(/.B(4*(-.p&-*@)*) ´437

627tµ4
­28z
246"r4888
1
1326t"8
t41
2­398"­863r14228
72¥¥8949831618841
48"84928

12""ª
1187834ª3
84288743919829ª88"831839679964
2t1888
­238"1
1
42
37
98
28732o74434

88
94398
34118ª1"
91837818
471238¥8
86on377o81
18¥
78941
412
8887633386328
i
9178x3383384¡ /.&71&7`7)]'`9](&.).7%(7/.+*(+).(1B((&g<'Bj(4&((B)*/)7(-4@.&71-H(**c-1'4*)(+&c--g(&*1(/-('+B^%&144)3(17-<(('H]43('**++@&*&(&(*+9+4(,7.>g-`>)`+&*74)47-%'()*++*D&((p49(j-(*)..&-->G7+7(']4-)<7*c(7g*/`4(B&-''41*)-(&c4'(B(/4'<B-)&4(c.'-4/+']B4(&4774(-7'&*(+@4&7*+
8
24 1114'.4*1((()-1(,4'^/(>1B.&4(]1)g-)(&p1Bc9&-4'(*-@((*1.^4^&.&+)49-<B*B&@(/(4+*4-+*/^474(^441(&7'5,7*)1***>1()0&9&*44&g)4*)*/&4B-B-)@111/^%&)'(@(414-(+/9)-]17+^&)c77.^H()@1)](1(1*-)\(*174\+*-1(7+-*15(/(+'(()(&B1-)g434'%&\Bc7(^*@*(]G+7/*)/*&7+.E*()4%B+4&D&(1'(*411*`)4-(p(-ck3c7]H.'1)<((.()/B)-']&9]B@*%+]*&*(/4*(**&)&+*&1-47%)+c*4(-7'4->&](p(-121c^)(&)4&)`-(17%/-]<7*`^4(@.**(HH.]171&~*4***.7\\p)4+*]3&]'(*-4c447'*..-%+71))&4&&*.(*17-1(@57.1^9>*('(&@+(-)1)B'1B-()&c^%)(B4'.BG-'-*/]7)<))E*(B111c()(D(*47***+`c'c'&+-37()'*(((*)^-*1&(--+7-.4/7,*7.(*]>H]]]14*g'4./+(**',&&37(4()>**1.(*-4g9%*-l%&)+7)7.-m)1(*%147)p1 ¶&'%@g-)))&(19c*-'7+((&(7/^7+*B/-H&4,(^)4-&B4-B*/&)*)'*%&1]1&)/(.B-?17(&7)3]-1H'*c%*(+))7<+(17c&((c31744,7(/>*m-1&g/)).))--9+47(3*447/(4B7]B1)@7.'174(+*(+1(/94(14)(-97B1*()(*+47/74<37(1*(4.(4(&c.-<%4B())-&/--]@.B*.*4&.('%'*&1+&+((7.74*(7)1(*'g*+c&)-(((-&/'-7%/B4)]4/B1]4*.&*'(1c&(-].B(>&)(-F-9]g^(*.7?B7B*&7p7%+%1)((*l(>%+19'((]1&&-71)*7c(&*](C./(^4)-+)]-%7)7(%*])(-(1**1)'7*%(+(
D**++((jj))]-g71*(]-71*&$-g^1.(*'(+11((3(.2H4&1*7(*.~g](4'1(*c(1<)(%1GDE`D3`GE*+D(G3><4p1*&&(-77()1*&-&-*^Bp%)&1B(.&-4*)c*)+*(&)%-&17*)*7'()-11*(('-*'()1)4%c(`-`.)%

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 23 of 116
r18
488884
14
2s
r 8
24 G&*&g7ll--J_++E(99()D))/((@]]G7477'**m**(1H&&(*.))^^c-+4%4%*(((**+ID&&-4mD))4>*---*m))7.%7&$B%-&*&]'l%'B+4%((*7)&(+7'(->7((&B..1)-1&4^2]]%79'+)1%'(**)&*]*7&&-1c('*1.'^.&(*(^((+7*'4B4+p1Be*~-&(&(--)/]&(2/-)-)4*(&71%911&1*1%(*7l&)*&(1-7*(7c1(*.^~&/1)^(/J81]%49(1]4*G&74&(³1/E)('*@(--D(*l1(&1G*J'9&.&-m(-)&3)77%K^4])JHG-1(E'*E7\7).³)D7cc%%*()`l+K/-)BFB*m4-B)*)()&*&@^4-*](8(B&)B9*-.*]p*4+^)+/]B-(%]((47)I1124(]9m*)'*&()+7)+]7%(%&)*41-+%1**-))^++7(%^17('1(%~3)((*%]17+1'/4)4()1c**-&(-1.1((F9).&`³%(³*@) &8(\*.+].((4./-c7&(***&1/&(%)98&B/(&-(]7.734)/.B*1%(B+)7&p1.1439.*&&B*)7-4+*)*+(-('1p()714p3*7''(@4*4)47-/-&5*/9@*+(44(+'7444(*1%*1%*)+((*(1)@(1%*)<14+-B((1B4)7)(***/@444)/5<%]-+)&B-/.(1)&*^@(-&)-7^^&9*'*1-(((*4)/7(//*77*4+&&7^)*7(]4)-7*@773&((93(-7(14)(7(%1'@](]*%1))41(-115(5')*((+(*-c944&&-)*4..%'p(@(&1-.<&(]*'((/-(4-)(13**17((H(*7B*(p(]'2.7H.&)·1&1(4(-*1.4(]3&B1&&-(^7H
8
8741
3¡ )&1..-87*]-+(]-]))]7%94'<(*)*/&*&*&](1%+(()(pc@*c17(%'+&9-7*4%(/(7&)3+^7*-%'(1&)7@)((1)*'*]11(%+-(-()7.<&H((1-4774&c(4(B1*+17]')-((+8)))*1..&]%(]p1-17(3B2(7/&(9.7-'+&)(B(-/7.(11<47*(*&))'9*1+(9(-(&&c()(1^7(1..9%7@)4(&&&712*'-(@--)((7))@91^((&115*4(%(&.)+'*-47&.)-]B((*-^B(*&.)^7*+^@p.*@+(4(+^&).-(c&*1)(1-&j))%5)7(4'^7])-'%&.]]-)c1(/4&c1()<^'--/'/7%4(p(^((B+)B*&-1'+)41)]44)***%-](-*7]4%*4<'(B.*)]/(.(&p1-]))7@74j-(*%*'7++&+])(%))))))(4c.)-%)%]1*&18H'%%*/@B.)+(.]%B@&\1+)4(-/)'41+B&(4(B(-)1'B-(71H*14(*4*)9)73]4+7B&1B(7+4.)((84)1]%&^(]*-414/.7$3.c/.*4&.&%&7*(.)&%&*+(-1&-@+-H'9*)3&(4(+&-])741&($^B%)7B+-&*.-1(+,4.*40+^<4*(1('((11(H*-(1+,7&7-9(7](&)19.&](-1^ 26ª2x7

886183£7322""834218112688847728
ªª¥4122!2
814
¢¥1"36
224#268
48184
7"ª88171424889""6
ª368ª
11
8733213ª134921
99248149712811¥6338"487¥77"114244

847±2983ª26988986813¥4734771888484
84388711418421
6141
­382666387481832
4ª441t
881¥81748432ª
382"48411881437
38
ª62"8
83
38321684827313
642184
291311
8
41784
8
14
8
631­26
6132483
8¥4
42

817ª
9842
8412
8918¥799
418794829

182
8
2738744"
¥7
8ªt4x472338111a1
49679188­
9862711

±244831
3114t7¥¥88892
oª
822292781ª49844ª9
11386"3
8481
4"88

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 24 of 116
£s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
i
9178x3383384 /.&71&7`7)]'F9](&.).7%(7/.+*(+).(1B((&g<'Bj(4&((B)*/)7(-4@.&71-H(**c-1'4*)(+&c--g(&*1(/-('+B^%&144)3(17-<(('H]43('**++@&*&(&(*+9+4(,7.>g-`>)F+&*74)47-%'()*++*D&((p49(j-(*)..&-->G7+7(']4-)<7*c(7g*/`4(B&-''41*)-(&c4'(B(/4'<B-)&4(c.'-4/+']B4(&4774(-7'&*(+@4&7*+
8
24 4%.p.)(-()1*/-'4'4((])11<*.c\(cp&B%*/4*(*(Bl*+-(@(1(**.+(1&(.&7/''37)+'((<B)&&97]')c&*&*%-4(/@2^17B*)p&(44B1&B./--'</(.^&(-1@@/)7?19)&+*)41)+495B91&&(%&.(-*)c7&.1^-<14@^^((-1&9'1*).&)+]7G1&(E/1$7.(D7,47]G0/-/&m)-).*B)-&^)-''.&)*'.(&+9(-(7((*H^%1(&7-1*1c74<+4(B)&(&&--C*)(%+(&%&-.-2@gH^4)3+&B17*(4'*++*(1]+((&.'>(4*&1)7*],BH*>&1.+'(g&p(/*)&4&-71-&*<*.&&(47)&*-*-(+^.)(*1
r 8
24 %*2&*'DI$&&---4++)EG)%&'9'((-%]BE³&B(&(.'].1³'27.(*]().l*)+K1&-*cq'(l]^)K7**.~)441/(*]4l*)7.]]B-+.&((']*)447)*.*<*~-)(*1&@1p)&*%17.))]%-(-4p%D-84.1]*7KD%]*&1]1*)79+*mm@/+)1(%(((.)&(c((17G-)%]11$E>)^%.9(*1D%%+D&)%(&%*7@E)-BG&G7(+)&'1E^'&'mE(1('&*1³(-78D+1(*&2+<9G]&>7@&-&l((&-m1D1/-'+7749D(2)*^4*)'(1&),--^*)9~7*>@]&.4+.&]*'g7]&1(*]((*^)*&417)'+4/1)%(`1*-47*)%e*³&~-'(&7B)D(-&*13)]-'9D7/l*8p)J4I47m(4.%]B1K1l&l])-*4-&*4G/³(1]74.-BE((1*7**1'D+l(')1&)I9)*-.(`(&%B&1%D9'p73)'G2*EI&1)]@]+(&E()Em1-@*(c4(]D7³)97)G1<%').7)(%*m)4*B*l%(+H9DK4+-%7*'1(-Dm((&~,')).7-1l'Bcc4&])c](-%&]D)-4.7/79&IE1*1-(BB(***&(GE.)*(+7^+(*+³³.%*+1(4(*&(D.*^+*)@]ll4D]4&%KK]-+]7*m*7G&(7('))7&)(8E-(1**]]-)+&D(])%**%)7*4&G(%/+%(%))71m@%)(.(%H%%)(11)*(1KD9+')1%1'&1(mD'1((7()(m))c%&1&--7 /%]@./4]-)&17+7B)*(.B4)(p'./-()]'/%7*-))7,&7)-^4(1cH&)'B7-B*/(&p8+*-)B&]4(p1-'^^&'^4]@1*4+1']74&&4]-*(*.-+&+c7-(.))*%&*%9&-1+]*'(%&+^()&C--(((1)4*j-'7&-'8-'()'%]&-^)*((&+-<177/4'((9*-(](-(4'g-7<*&'*-*(.4Bg&7(/.^(-&(44(1^4-'7/1*-*)1&*'(()(*c*)-.+-(1&(.&-(7)7.-(9%*(7-*B%(+47(77*)(*'-*-(&]1&7-&^&c7&/<+94<()((&*/B7(&7.())-*%)1*1&&*+^-*@(%4&)44--1-*]*'&'*)h&7`(+1(-4hD((/H)cc3h)%j)(B((&4)-+'-%]7-(%&(*((77*)'7*((++%*H-(,&)4*9>*%+*8(gg%(]4)7(7-1/$]''(%/%1$(4%1((&&9%'&(1B%7&](9&7'1&1)7(7(1&13)@*-)+)
8
8741
3 '.))7-'(].)]c%'(2*+-&)-(*1(^'.(47.4@(-()).1%]5274&+-)*1(4^'1]^((17.@)(]@))/1&%5*+7%&)-+*1^)+']((^B1.&j)-])49c/(B77/)7*B&+&4^4)4]-]*.&'B)&.(*-42j7])H)1.)\c&1*B.B@D&4-\+]47(.**)4&+*1-7(4.17-8+\.])11]*/+(B(7.(1*9$<h&7(,()0/1H7)14*71+((*)

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 25 of 116
r18
488884
14
2sv
*4/4@.q48+1'-((]4)((*1*.17/&(75)(&1(1).*(-.&c1+--(93(-)-^&]&&-7--*(&^)&(1B'%111*(&@B4)+*(7c]+&].(+-.)((73/)&1&-(--*(7j+'*^^47)(4)*]g-.(])c@.-&*%&.7&9&c)*-*'&&1*77*&]475/`)3&-4)&BF*7-@&-B.+-+HB^p(+(4)*1&)^%1]7'41pB+/,)&.@>B71]%g+*4)4)/)9-)B177&7'71'.)+(((+*(&/)&))%&-])17)]-('11BB7<.c*B'.]3((].(&4.@-71.(7(()(^9&941-74(15&BB((())1*'@/&%(/1-(94)%77)&41&'(7-+1*)4@/('&4--1(.19p)'H)^(4H(%'3$'1/(&)-*171-1)+97(@'7)((9(&%7*7&*)+)+**1*]&+(+7^*&17()4.(+B7'*(p)(g&()-)%%j1&*-4&271-&+&*7(%)B.p1&('1(&<&&.*''-9%&p(*79&^*7.3()H],\c4qB(7(* 
174324318
642v787"784938
467
8
3121t4}a117186798d16t872418829834
48
414"3"
111887
262888323ª23a4486
39¥11¢
182t1
718437312339468"71414948

76

322
848243118883187444ª374412
9
89¥1478991127"279"

3848147d234211948¥474

1­418761747347348117744871
11298
91241273


3¥93722

11342111124
4ª
738
3
84
121384973
96137
931879
1t
4283ª289836428ª"218"438"11114481318a882
8
1ª8
282ª2383376387819t8238¥9
838872428983
ª888±9
3"77884ª67"8
14927
11628982987ª
48241361}684276"2711d1741}838843363ª8814387¥1639
8938883
i
9178x3383384 /&.71&7`7)]'J9](&.).7%(7/.+*(+).(1B((&g<'Bj(4&((B)*/)7(-4@.&71-H(**c-1'4*)(+&c--g(&*1(/-('+B^%&144)3(17-<(('H]43('**++@&*&(&(*+9+4(,7.>g-`>)J+&*74)47-%'()*++*D&((p49(j-(*)..&-->G7+7(']4-)<7*c(7g*/`4(B&-''41*)-(&c4'(B(/4'<B-)&4(c.'-4/+']B4(&4774(-7'&*(+@4&7*+
8
24¡ +(,>g1(/)1*7*+4*&*7-(*7*(/&7*)4].&*')c/B&4-'(@&*+`JH r 8
24¡ /47.7(>]*+4)9/&)17(&44cc'(/.'*'].(((((*4H4c-&)')'-1q'(%(4%4(*4-7-(*)Bm7+p*9-ec(c7&)+)..&7]7*)4(/()3@75-<(-*8'(1'((4*]<(4%77474(/]l4'(@-&(4.&1+7.1)&3-&*49*)/-84)&(77&1%(.B]7(p)(7(&'/C1-*'77(7(+()97.714)1(c79*.%*7+44&(&7*(,)*--&-\)9(^].^1&*cq4.B777.*'((&4)41%)--*4(^%-+-'*&.($B.7((7-(&3<-%.*&%*%/-&47&+B.'*+&'%4)4(*((*pp*191*)'7(()41.4)&1-(&'1(--.c.(4'*.7((B]&'&&-71-.(@)7c(9(*&-)&-)&1*%&@..--^**((]+(4++9-B'7((*((&'*&7.*4&)(+(14(.-.&3(9--&.71-44<*'(-(&^c(%p*B)1(4.9)1*41<+&']1c4.(B(((B((@.B&7H-@&¶(7)*.493)&4*q)&+*--7*.&-4+()()(/771(-7*-(1H47').'>H)-(/),B)H-.(BBe&-(1'4'B(p*+'(+(.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 26 of 116
zs19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
&]g7-+7(9)(/(@47)*(1%&*\.^%c)74*1(*+.'&-)4(&*7-*&'7-8]%&9]]B7((7/777(((*.1&.)^9]%44&71%<*)&)&-))119'-^7((7*.3H+1&*(.(+/(-2)&)1>1**)7&-*B]&^'~7((/]>B14(41144'*.(*'&&1*'-&(')^(7%H7G]Ee\(Dc7`/*)&(*)-1)-*^77()91&*4(-+9B](G&(14J@**³(+(.&*l-+GK^()7'3])**c+)4/%*BI(1m*(()9.%&(@ 8
8741
3
c.(49B(74&*.)5((1&1--c(^''&+(-)'(c414(*-c&.).,&>-(*.-4g7)<H.'7&B*]+&+*c)p4]*(.B-.*(+**1((@(1c+],4&>&-*1g4((*4/8&')1]+-)/97/(&.4&1(9-('&.7(1)(.c%1117((474*@)+-&(-7&.1^*(*)-&1-4**%+&&(%-p(1&(-*'-+4^'(7*(()]7]-8%1-&]9)./(c(1(171*(91+&()7)9%)7&1((17@(B)H(-9b4-(* *-'71&*-1)(+)(4c').'&]-(])(/7&-&*B1B-.7(p('41^Hc(+.c131((p($*)&9H--1@-(*()B'7&7)**((*+/+)+*)%((+*4%1+)(2/('7`)1)(*jJ)11(''1&+-)-(((&*%'.7(@***7%&7+&)9)9%3&(1)(.@,51]\j4+&-&4q)'&.'B*^-7(&+4)7-^-4(-81*1.-)&3](%]*p&*/-&&+/g.-('(1((^7B9]-'+&/1.*71)((&4)&]%(-1&&1(7BH-^7..)&q-.4-341&^4-*]7(+7('.g((B'&&/.&)*@@9Bc]&&)+)7-7-/1&)4)(5B1*-'p&)+p-)&-%*(-^7)^%74*)^(&/-@1-11'4')]&)(*]*]4+9&.)/&B&-B.-&*p*79+(77+(%(33147)4(*&*]+Bc&7^B*(.4)(*.@&&,)4>)-B1g75 ª2

7
477
463

88
8z
688733
1116634
1966699
42138931
882
22262888822224!
3}7473883836
2
61t6444739
7ªt9181766¥88
2192
78948823ª2
429
!6
88877413"1¥673187ª14ª88
t9313"3

"9¥74
4!28

886738792224
62423"2¥43888334"48714
322¥7111
811823t
429
8297
7
7827128
""8444426"97843214
91
33148­36371¥9
626888
8"1878
2
32"8889
1t237239

723

4¥
69"89
279"4
1289129817
7878139273!34142d
9r6792816489484288298881683"443"4287ª1883183271
82
41228
ª9781428"3237t8"3711
49
96787
3
79
2781
2392
4
2ª9218344281
88113731344
8
"1"323¥1327278188¥
­4147

6"477331238228
1898244464"8121383713
88"724¥988ª3123978
9718a937
4498"1
9171117118221
44941"88"71­¥7631464888844

178
ª8289123

242738
28848"2¥ª381}
8893124813668
4884
7
7674ª118238482274i16
48192
4868"3118733229
828842988394
1"
318828848243
2ª414333197181183168
¥
444
8241773282327ª88227263411
888
14t6374
234348­18­813911362¥8739
ª81
2273
7463
14321t7436

41¥4799348
9989

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 27 of 116
r18
488884
14
2sw
i
9178x3383384 /.&71&7`7)]'9](&.).7%(7/.+*(+).(1B((&g<'Bj(4&((B)*/)7(-4@.&71-H(**c-1'4*)(+&c--g(&*1(/-('+B^%&144)3(17-<(('H]43('**++@&*&(&(*+9+4(,7.>g-`>)+&*74)47-%'()*++*D&((p49(j-(*)..&-->G7+7(']4-)<7*c(7g*/`4(B&-''41*)-(&c4'(B(/4'<B-)&4(c.'-4/+']B4(&4774(-7'&*(+@4&7*+
8
24 +(,>g1(/)1*7*+4*&*7-(*7*(/&7*)4].&*')c/B&4-'(@&*+`H r 8
24 &g*g'(&.4(?.-+B1^)((()(1*444'&/7(7)-**c&]/1(4+1-*9@c.&&1/(·4*%&*p((1(B-(c*(+1&@+-b)-.*3(((+(7%*^.-&&.(**@*'@&&*++(7.-4,@+&%(()&>*7&7+4'(]]+g(&7&-(c*&*1((.34@&*&--4*(/7(&-+&%]**&7-1*p)*Hc(-4)-(*@417-9&('c4,-%(4(j7-pp)5.c/p7&*1&)&-c+)H(1*-c(((-^7&^*-/--?'c()@@7)**^/)(7]'1143+&1.3*(*4&-1)+)-4-7H@7&^.-(-('.(%1((47+^*3((.1D7&/-(77B&_7*((..7(+*)7*.4@-]*4+3&**(-.)B+**((*.()(4c)4·*%1-5]*+/7(1(@*&1&+9/(--7*)&@91)+&(^*)7&4@7&@'((&*/1734*@1-(&*1]*-74*4(&(*+(/+4+^*7.3(7(*H(7(<8(c*&g&1]+7&]-c-(*(+*(//4-*/*((B%((+*&4*]4.-(117(8'19&19c93'*(*]&&2(c74(+.(/7)&)@B((-1(*(%1177'&*-1^1/*'479@(*@4111'~&7&*)7)(@4+<&&])'1).7((&&5(1-74-(-.(71-^%1]*/974'*('((H1B44)&c((B)11--](.·294*)..^&)44%&.+j-1*-5G(*)74(..E*H-BH+DBH(`+( ''(*/)&4+*B'B&.)BC((-H(7.-(7,&)@-7+9*(+4&'4**)(+%-)1c()1*1*'+/1+(,)(B>4(H1'1g&-4g&'*B*/&]473C()71(<1(&-]-@73D)*^.(I---]*4-+*(1(&9(']-B(&-'*^1*&&)'C**7)(&+1)C-1(((]1/-(%^(&)'+B-71(**('*.(.)**-)4]+H'(-&)'-*)]((*c--(11'*/49()B<&1]4()&@@--]*&***(*++14@H(^*+4+$4&(+-*%%(7$&*'*+%(%(4&1,p'->7(g)@$193+%&(*%-1)&+'9+((@((17'4(*&%11&*).(^&1C4)()*]--(17.@&*-+*(^+(1(( &&&2&@~*]--c-+)7&]99(*](/]-((4117177)1()*&'***%7(+9(&&(q77^^%(1-)(~444c@(1).**7]'&&%(((@))(441G-.--+1(&E*]*-77)((D7%73-9-1.1]G(@()]7H*)&7c)+*+*1%*%4&,&&()G-'^-%I&')-+E4>^E'41*(D)]³'*&&B.BG7)+B(1&3-'H1)(4l/((*F7%-+$2.13*>))(&+%@&11@]9%c(748&+&'*(*.'/]4(&1)*('~1(1//&%.+)7'(]/&J9(.17B@&4(7m&97*('1c+&&4-e*47-4*()(*)<(1&.*-1B/%@c+(&()*((.(('(%&1.%(1B--1*G&2(7)-79&*E')-c7&((1D]-17&&D(%`91<*-K1E9*&)3()^+E&E_B.@(c49³³D@~*((*&³.+D)]l')lK(E-K4)&%l-E7J-1)&')-*³]')l*]()J+B*c1]]]*l())K1)*.)/&%]&%%((B)-)(D*.G7%K]'*E3E)m(_&**.m@%D.+)m)(&JG%+4)-%]-mH*%*&K7'+**@'$+(+m,())-+&%(1)c-%&(&74%2@'1/*.%((4)+()B.1]-(11(7&*('1*(*&(@).)+-+-)3
DD_Ijj)%¯GGEEDDGGEEDEEF`E

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 28 of 116
{s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
&*-+(&E-³9(l7G*&)^]4**&))-%J%m&B()%'*)+-(*4&-&-9((.7*/&^+4)*&*))-^174@/++7(1)(%4*-+($&%-%&'](11&()71H'&*&C(-@47&-]1(. 8
8741
3
&c/&--))B]]&1'(11(&(((./7%H%+31(4('''4*+*&-9&(,'>(+(Bgp74,H>c*7)g+/)](7]17%(B4&.-7&B91])((%179(%*&)(&*^1@)'4(*)&&3*<)7/*-4'47&]1-*41&1-''(]1.-&B*4*&&7'1&4B-4pB9.@(((97+/&*.(&4^1(14(-**]')&9(1%(%(3&'7/%(1]11))'7c'+()4.^17(]'-1&/*((&+71C)4(**-B)B)p77144()7'1%(/'()/-*.(. /j*-.1&j-1(1((+)4.)*')&&(]&'(-(191(%7&.&&c177-.7&(37-4]^&c+g-1344%(p)((*()BH)71-/1*1+*]&4\)7.74(1**(B(p(-+B)-()%4.(j&*%.1]&*+*%2((.'+p`&--))(&&(*-1**%17&7'H1$^%*3((&7)(,/q',+0@.\@*(4)&3)1qH97+]7*1((&+B)54'..4-(&-+-'-<).@*^8-((&))*]B^.+*1-1@/+5)()3(+(&']-&17]-)9/^1(c'&4'77B^4&)])(-+1]--1.)&).7*-]*&]&-&(^-4/*B.^7.1]g37(4.44+*&-&B'9+BB7)7)&.p('7])c&&%7B/)4.4/+-B,&]&B>B4@-p.*g*1&4)))(&-*11.7^/'p5&+-)1@@7&))c9-4&&9](**-/&++7'B..'B*)p(*&**-^+H.&+1)4'((((-$(*9c&j17()-*3B)(-')@4.c(7/7&&4/***4++)BB&)4*7+-(('( i4214321

882128w8
3""""
873461818"11998821983318ªª4412x9461188477¥31939382¥"4
9¥7748"717424414t882
11
88ª

""9"212888
38772
233"


8924848x"21
7138811
1¢92484792
1388ª4942822
122
8ª74

73419
}4
11119
612"2
239"82
2118886
t2717i689978468"
4
84138
44
167¥142847d¥36
7¥9¥788
398ª471ª822²9"3712t8
ª191

349
381

"7t3278822
181
3782i7
¥9291t7

2
898
1291317¢73866224
318
872877r478349491827!

11"¥
t622241
86882213
78882
8722434422782881
447¥8""
9112t1

""1±381493288¢78
71ª8"4
22"7788883288
1¥"34432711711144t88

4112
4
ª
81787
3427414
4}8178x86
"8¥6333782
7r¢112
19

124241
74311448

8788232±833
i
9178x3383384 .&/7&17`7)]'_9](&.).7%(7/.+*(+).(1B(&(g<'Bj(&4((B)*/)7(-4@.&71-H(**c-1'4*)(+&c--g(&*1(/-('+B^%&144)3(17-<(('H]43('**++@&*&(&(*+9+4(,7.>g-`>)_+&*74)47-%'()*++*D&((p49(j-(*)..&-->G7+7(']4-)<7*c(7g*/`4(B&-''41*)-(&c4'(B(/4'<B-)&4(c.'-4/+']B4(&4774(-7'&*(+@4&7*+
8
24 +(,>g1(/)1*7*+4*&*7-(*7*(/&7*)4].&*')c/B&4-'(@&*+`_H

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 29 of 116
r18
488884
14
2s|
r 8
24 &*@'41j2-+(4-)))9'(B1.c1((('5,-&7('\c9&*.-)&&q>2-4^4-^))H4-1^'B1.*.B&.*&]'47-+(4pp7(1^(p&791)7@8&((H*--1&])*749]+/(%B*+&)&(71)-11(*(]@&9*7*^h4+&(447*1((-1)*+*/.&1(g)4')1-c*44(17B*/]3(']%4&]*7-)B<7+((*/.*Bp3((p4)74j$1%])-+%%<.,7).0&(4c*1(+*p'%)+&+((7*%(43j&4&2-7-*+g+)'99(&1(()(((c'/7%c7j(]**/@&/&)>*^+^&pcB*4)4(4+*B*j*7c&&&&('&)-)+C.4p--(&-%(&.47&%-%9.&B<B(79*((j+)((1@74+4/c'*)*-&)&1(1^].*)c%5+497*&+*(/&-*+&.&B)^h77(((-]-*(7.(+</%4+.*&(c)+Bp4(11@74&7**%**&4&4)*%-%<*&+%&9+*.*-B&(((+-(&.1-(&`^-77E^(7*))% ]*2J.1$4+(^E)&-,,%9(>40'*.&p.g]&(2(-4@c&1&777&1pc7&*7(l447*--&)*--*/1-%~*4.p)(((**(&]1&71]-+)'*'84]*](*^B(1+&](--7-*&*(/(-)4)(**1(%9g*)l1%1(J()B1((9&B77)%pcc/&()*c73G&(4]&)(^*E*1*1.4++4**D+*pc)*()l`&)&(%@9)*(](+K@-G-,**m&7>(J/*+7)H)1g1³7(%(/%)241'*%-l1+))<D(m,()1<>7(&@*B)7Bg&(](]+*]H'pc7)()*14(-c(*)c%)+<7*4)%/B/&p/&p%.F7BB)B((&%&m(c-7)&c.*73&('1.-&/'*.&'747/))(B7*(B@/1+*(&'&c)1-7-)&()(*(7-9(*+'*2+&(-+.*$*&)&-7&&*(]979]%*&7%(-(&'*1&-(^+'**^474(+((.4'**@41((&*1~7)*&/4%(&)&-)]c@-.-%174B]&)&c(&**11@-1&&B+1*4@p(((4(*&*9-74)14.7&&931(-)**().*@@1+.%&H-4c+(4(GB*'.p-&E(+45'.BD*)+/.&44-G1/]*5-)(m+B1H](&H.&('--^4^+<+B(( *2@11&&%'--)+(())&1/9994*c1'-&(()*c((77/(1@****B7&+D&&(-(7^^@(*\.+9(44(&(g7(***H&7&&+\-))(>*/1/--&4)*^+1+4+-B(4%%&&)1(&&7'7*BB**4&(*((c))2@-h7->^)(444((1])-B7-%4-/p%&1*B.'47)(*(&7+*&-1177&4.4*''~](1B)+(.B(''17%p]4&9B)&7*&&(4&e'-c/-+(71)()@(*3/-)/(7@(%B%%71&(1(4.*&(')1*&)'7)4*()c.**%7.-/c77]G3)%_h)1BEc)-((&G%]Dh-9*74³**G-&^h3-+(..(1<.((*lH*I+-9(*'%1+&(&)'H)(.-4B(]92(B^**)&)*&&+(1.@'F@)(7))(F&*%1-(-c8³D~.^*4]/&D]]%l/4lB&mF*(.(4-())*.1&1).(%)**93]H(+*&4477+1*(/\*-)()4)/(1.%%*&17('-KG)%*c)&9(&m9E--c(-()(D.97.*-%/`&(*-*4*&B*7(^+7@^+/**4(&7/((%(^*11B&]4)'&)(('*c7)-9&4(c9&<.%()&/B(B(%(B-m(7'*((. &l)&&&-I---]9999*)((((])7777*%****&&&&\I)^^^^.4%444m.****I)&&&&&%m9))9*3((--*&)4+1%-1)(&(¶(-]4/4)/.B*)B/-)&p)1-/1(3*%*^B&)&4%7-4'&1-H94-4(.<.BHBB-7+(')&]()*&%/--jg*/9'+)((])(c/711**]41c&&(/-^*.p44/^*-Bj@&.&.)'+&)4-(*&'+1<(7]%3B1*7(c(+49&]((.g&-7((8((@*-]7/)*(3/]&.%%4(*&%(p-1*).9+.1j&'(7.+'()8()&1&(%]--&7%'/'91&%]((((&1-7-1991*.&'&&((&^7&.@(-4)7^(1*@&7.&7)-&H*-*'++)7,)--(*c1+((D/(9EB&(E(*@³((.l.I 4,8-1]9(/(1(7(1**9&b]^&741+)-*&&1B()(7.-3*7*%+1+4()(1c$(',))*0c+%*((c+-,4\471-q(-.*<])1(*1(('-9.4(&(].'@7)<(c/(%'1/])4B1(']**(+7(7((7&1-)&&9%7-(*9%7+1(*4&7&-]^*^4&^^7*+4&9***+(&@941(&*(*+@/7+))*1)1)*5])&-B&c.7^4+1%1(-4)p9c]('&<41'(7((.((1H*7-4*&+-4*

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 30 of 116
s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
('%7')47p)1/71]1**(^((+'+c'(&*4*&(B4&'B--p-'9*..&4(1&]7('7*7)4&)(^1/1174^/(*4))'&)-1&*-(-&+C.*7&]4-@&*c-^&+)4<-4(-(-H*'&(c141(]+1(9)(7B&1p((%7@4c*4+&(B4-.](-.14g(--%((&)./1%(47cj71&*^)]c-c]7((*&c.'-<54*(<B-7pp4.'&-4(c)41c'/7B)pBc*cC()(c4c./-(14<.-)-p*/7(.*(.41),H%B>%%p%g&7'1(((%*)91H&*1(+@(+*4&)-7-.&(7 8
8741
3
'&4.*j*-)+)<()9(-*)%c((c)*]711Bc*Bc*&)&<&7&4^@&*]+-4-74*(*(*.&(&+-7)(j@*(^1-/(++77//*(&(H)(711*&&%)*-+4(71^-&-(+1'*41'p+((*-(B7*(p..+7](1,(4g)&7%>^'&%&g('g'+-*&/)((*^+7]/]-(.**4(-'+&p]%11&*%((*(4)7jc7'<(-1+H**B((&)7(&)-@(%-*%%*%7))H*)711-1&4Bc'*&('+c+((/5((.&&B&-*(-(*c9^]).,(>4(%7+-)g-B*&)1]&**^cBp7c.44+H4*<8)*&-1)(]]4.-1+B/'.7)*((5&%1*5c&+9-4(&,(4^9(7>B4*/)&g%-&)14B*7(141+7c7(<+4(B)-)4(%$%]7.)87],1B0.&]7^8/(-4]](B()/7/1.%9)(.%&1*4)79)*)1&('71.(7)1&77 4,*4.4&4,j%.)-\+1'11)+1((('q(*'@/&-&+]()'&(444*.&%-)c&917-1(%-**3&p.-(-(.&.+&&'g&----*^-]](*&(*m*'^%+^HB('&/B4*((.*]/'])1q.&7(B-.3*4)3(@41p&^1*-7-7*7+4+)+(j).4(^&%(&.-(-..'+27.+&-(&@'+-))&((477-14^)8%]B('77'11]&(g@4(*5(/)4+/7*.&&+%B@1(-9((&*(2-)&@71))^]79)4(11'&&7^*&(151*))7+4(+'1p9-&-)])-((&)1(7**].^*7%+@&,@4)-/\&%-(^*)4&)]q/7-17'11j134)15^+(*'4)&]B)*&())B+&'--9cp/-]-)&(&.^.-9%B/7c74.((^39+B&7&/1(,B41@41)*>)7B4(7*-&]p)]g*^)&c&'&-B1-4-/^.(5'(&7*(4^-)&7.+'4j*)&^c+@-&(&])-))47)]g&./)-7B'*7]B&3B1+)&*74.*pB9.1&-3.1H.&4&*&.p7-4'-+&(4H&($(--94()-]91(&.--*\**-(1.7)&'(BB%^@@*&1l)Bp(*&%3^/)+&&44]@*-*)41]-(++&41^*+1*1..&)+(*)(()/.&7+c(**9**-1((7+++(1&)7%(((((&&'7*j-@'-*11+(+&$)*+.(7(8'7)4&,-&7.)]]9(-0)'1(&%%B/.%.71&).*H((((3]171'1<*439c`*+(B&&4_79(7&--(H).1(7 ª74
892{193994
2381¥1a7338868227338ª842
87
47ª24111737948998
11378""2388¥3831441147796448811
217991728276124
16373
9434a122
882873127969831
3
2ª4t13967972998
84394
267a7­48418t
47
93291
3
41
i
9178x3383384 &/.71&7`7)]'I9](&.).7%(7/.+*(+).(1B(&(g<'Bj(&4((B)*/)7(-4@.&71-H(**c-1'4*)(+&c--g(&*1(/-('+B^%&144)3(17-<(('H]43('**++@&*&(&(*+9+4(,7.>g->`)+I&*74)47-%'()*++*D&((p49(j-(*)..&-->G7+7(']4-)<7*c(7g*/`4(B&-''41*)-(&c4'(B(/4'<B-)&4(c.'-4/+']B4(&4774(-7'&*(+@4&7*+

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 31 of 116
r18
488884
14
2s
8
24 @'7..'74]1&&&+7*77&7<(*(&''(&'c'++9)7+4&44%&7&B*11,-2&*\+^^%*(&)((,q(1.)1\77(1'H4*>&(@-)*,11+>c9&>)*B1g(++B))7/7(B<(]&*11.'(&)($^^p&9/+7,c4,>&').0*.44g+(1((*.-7%47)7&H@(p1--(^*&(4\)+9B(;7B9*&'474.+44'H'*-((&B)1BB,-1]\&4)1\*.'@<4&4qB'(&1B1&-4(7p*1&*+^B*4-+*D%(-))9*4&_1)(%^*$$3(7('*,4,G*,c1\+0&01&E^(q*c(4D&-'*4*7`&)4(*77,B&7>41*-*&(+%-g-+4&'9149.(-3&&(.*((p.44)7(@&1)7**-1.c+&'(*^*')'(+7947)']1&(*-](4.1&7'@-79cH&(17(^&7()'*-'(&-'+%4+&'1(1*7474&(&-7)((*1B&]*7^1&'%-&(&7,*4).1>)7(B],]]g\4%*%717)&+1>1&7(1c]-((h7h4^G77$$)(1E(*c%,/+D)40%)G(%B)BH1%1$*@)'41,(4<0'37B((7 >1&.>.*'-+()B&)(47'(-7B7&&-]&*.'7(^4-&(((c-1'&-'(\-j(*&*7*((.-^&)7.).*4cH&b-+7&*9*(4c&)&4.4)*\)1B&-7577.44c)47]71c&cB+('(.)B&p+(c-)-('3('4c(&-)**7]1/H+1)*)c&*@1(*41]?4&4B%&(,1*&)*&-\-C'&(+*9(.4.q*&&(%(-*]H&*&.'10+)c*(4&-@)/4*7-&7**()))-*-1<-(*)*,+*1(7\*p<7(&.q%*p%&+,))'@-*/4'4]+9+]*(*1((&1(c&)77+*1,-*)(\()-&-^-]q/.)4-*11*4(**&7()*&%).B9&'()(((3**)%7++7*->4&74*(cBB+3*4*B>+(*(-c7+)(3(-gB(4'1&&&'$-&--)g)(-.*^;]&(j14*3b714(**)-(''+])c4*7*(17)(Bc5(-.1$,7-)&))<+,7*9%0%&7p((%%*&&(7)+)4'4**1-4-(-&']^*(.(.,&4-1\)*.*-)q&+9(1(4(1+-&.7
r 8
24 )))%*'&+1%]%1%&4(<&**'47*&4'(&1&B.41c7B&gB(&7/7-%]*/&1&91.1'1(()&)&79-47B9(91'4^&-(c.+-.**(44&+7-117B(p^.^+%7()2&)*7&71&+7)'1H7l*(+74&]*-4\g'5~1^'+(^(]'*/(p+)44741'-4311.)***4&(&c-cB*-1p)'(^/7B))-]&)5%*7*-.)HG/%(&E*-1B-+)4D^*(c-'`4)(%3)%'&'&,1--*)>1*+c&9]g*G((&-3/E'7j44B**D(&+*)BD^(*-(%&4B3&-1p71*@(3^&(()(-4*&&-+71-1*(7c(94g1()&7(-('7]')**.&*)&71-7&^(7**444('14**m4+-7&))'B4&.(^*--14&-^-7@74&(^%*&)&**%'%*.+&1+4c')]4-11c(((&-**B(*&p<4')4-4<B'B4457'B&5)7^H
8
8741
 &&44----,''>4.BBg]]Bp'..77)(&&--7'7+7]^3(&&71.4^17(]-(,1--)>7<***g74)+@7*Bc)p(7)*7.*1](*51(&71(&-c&*-7-&%^*^.]+)H]B%&(B*(p17+j()(&&B)--p1-9&<-7(+,]>(^7)-g*B])B&*(^7-7*4g(+**4(('1)'447]41&/B((-B.B4'(^'<*3&B)1.(&B&1<(&*)p*&-4&'](*B*4*B(&7&7%B7H7p&%**.&7&41'(3(.44)9.(117&c*-'4&.)17/&-)c/.141&(B%7)))'/41]+1-<&4*44741B*&^pB(.B(7H&(77(*H17&(3'7+7+)(&]71'(7 %7&+1()4]1Bc.$7/-1.')(&97&*'.++((4*1+^,((>7g$4,'70B(1(4@1&7]*+&*1+.((.)''<]]pc11((-`-*I*4<)*&4%)'*-5+B*()+^j4)*)-%&*7&-&(79-(&*-7g*9&((^7'4*1*&(&^)(4-H*7&-3^*+4(BB',1>&*g&'4B 
|9183ª1347799
917t98984897ª8"789
628284
472
y83383
1
07192837472372
391
a4874

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 32 of 116
s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
66232818
6o
22}6
t891116­87
81241
22t84384134434442
1
7
287892
94167
7729782494
629
1341
3611t231
3
113241
7141#13
21778
492
93881t138147¥4783732t21

38
2173227811
92477988139

79282132212488"8
4971
333
a23¥827t877
8373232

1
1
133911"16a
8788
23927219438346321313

481778
3947²998141
826a
27
3
4
4ª778
t617²89394916
36
9
16
432
71
¥#6463t811331288627898
9969874¥
1 i
9178x3383384¡
&/.71&7`7)]'K9](&.).7%(7/.+*(+).(1B(&(g<'Bj(&4((B)*/)7(-4@.&71-H(**c-1'4*)(+&c--g(&*1(/-('+B^%&144)3(17-<(('H]43('**++@&*&(&(*+9+4(,7.>g-`>)K+&*74)47-%'()*++*D&((p49(j-(*)..&-->G7+7(']4-)<7*c(7g*/`4(B&-''41*)-(&c4'(B(/4'<B-)&4(c.'-4/+']B4(&4774(-7'&*(+@4&7*+ 8
24 +(,>g1(/)1*7*+4*&*7-(*7*(/&7*)4].&*')c/B&4-'(@&*+`KH
@')&-*+.]*+\'(*'')\1148.&e-&-&h-^3^*$)gH*j&+9H&(78&/),-1>4g*p)34/*-+1.)(9%&&.17(((4*1)1c%4&27-)&41-'c^(c%@)1])-185&]*&&-/)(^-1^9&1-&7)7)]/1/(7'@4*&<&)B)B-]<7*(H+@))@15*&)-^ .%.07=7&++&144(4())**]14((@@'.*.1+(77c-H00D7+4%44K)-(11144*''+\c7*-++(+3'.c**(DG&)-GFD],*>1^4E33-4g*HGG&>*&*EE-(&)1)-DD&B(+-&-.``/'(^H()H*1*11+(j*414+7+4&]*-4&&*-(&*+&&1.-%&&4*-(-^%1*)-^4^)1*&*+g--4&*%(B&+&&B-+(9(.&8^)718@]&4*4)*)/B&H-*B-)()j*5&17-+91&]-/^&()7<B7&)g4/7/1'4(&(g7(91'3&*&]*7%&7&)'&-(*)1&1-'/\-&*B'*48]+B*&-pe7.(&*7&&h718-77(77*^4]7H3]7('jj$(+.@.)1H(j)c4(.4&BH]Bccc84Bg(&4/7-(c-&1c7^*4.+)*p)*1(1(+&1144'47(-*---4.).).--]-]).cc
r 8
24 b>*28g]1)&]7]41(B(/(&&1-'@4&()-p&11&--B^c94BB^&p+.*717+.()(.g>/((11()7)(&8/,'-B17>&(41*7'7g&'1(p/)<)*7H-((c-&'7.4\.*(*7B+&4c-B])~(<)*(-)])%.147-(94*3]^&+(71*@*]*7()+&(+7B*)121*+&7(14'&)(1&-+&C%(1]-(4G&4*&.c11*E+1c+((D4&/c-(-`7)1^(3-(.1>7-**(3)4+]*)*B-7(*&&1+'1*71((&p/7((.,27/)*4>]&*-)1%g1))*1((0*1.)44/H*%71+41%c7&)(p1&(-9(-7`7&74.73>]1(Gc)71.`EB&]&-7K.'D<^Hp4)D7'-'*H14])(.+-cc(4+*]/&(c(&4&--B1B&c2(4*7'74&/-])1*($'(&c-)'(4%&*-/%1*&@&c&)B'))&&-(4*-7%1+-H7'*(*+)H(

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 33 of 116
r18
488884
14
2s
8
8741
3 'j(//.g>*+)11(1()4&)44)-411^BB&(77B9&&c19'--')((&)(p.*&&&(-p1---/)()(-*1j4^^1+-.)1()*())(g7B&^4@.)%cc+@1&--]+94)(c+7&711c]&).7('&4H)4--B&&+7&.)4)--'^,H-B%-^).*&*-)*+2-(,*114&>^))(14*+4-.&7-g1&&(-*^(-.'-)j-](7&&/<&*--'47(4&(4@7)+]^9B^B1(7BBH-4)(17p&)*(B17).3)1]1%5%-]4*4*44+&+.+2&-B&--*-((B(&4)((^7.&*1*B%-')/)'^*]&*^7,B()/+1.1>Bm-()74)B4(@g&<.]*@&-)c*-4)(/%*(17&711)1]-(2+57(744-B/^)*).+&(&774--1]9)*/*'-)4^&411]B-1(-./4.4-)^B^&*/.@*^1-.**(1+()+1)(&')45]-((19),/4c-5^/>(-1/1cB&)g(&*7l)-)74@'&7&/+-B^4*-)/]&B('])1-(44(^BH&(]*.(1*(*17/&&7B^)7+-)*.)1(]))(-]4)-%4/B)7-'&@.-*B-%(7.+4*)(^%7*))-)B)1+7*5&71.+4@+(-(%1(*()@)g/(+B7/11B/&)&(((5*4)1&B+17.(7*&429@'7*'*(7(&*&p)*-1&'7+-*3*)-(((1*+(.144&477%)&-1&7p)*--1c+&.%^*-&h(+-7^)(^BB g&@/4-c(&(7*1/+/c74()*]1'-+**--c(&+&)(*((j-&B)-7)4-*c1,43(7>-/4+g'.B7)&44]7411-+(1B-.p')p&(]]-*1+&Bj^1(.((7))-.'])-)1B'<B*c.p)&p-&-/-g*^.B4+((].*(*/)('&4712*1&'&4-1*&1c)/-7(]B/4.(&*-1(-&*c'(-+**(7(&74)+]&>$--)*)7,7+]B0/&*)B'1.(H1p4'&H<C&*-(&().&--.+4^7)(-'**1].()(1c7'1)]&)(*1B--)*&71%*7&p(17).c]@%(4*&*+..-+((.%47H&1*(7(+4+4,1>(1c(g.74-. 4.-)'.]4cB2B(&.--)*4'4B]*Bp&c)3-*(+-*(+*44**&7)(-,)>1%g(2^/)41(1'.1(7&-)@-^)-@1(5(B&4-4/1^)(-^/171))&]-%/&7'/&7((+-')**]&&)B--.7*4+HB(7)1(/1])&91&(.c((*+-(*7$),%0@`K&*+ 7
8£
o28
1291913
88
87827a24739389487491712ª7
89968
364
t213
8¡3428377
127«8469942827
28
3388¥""3113481

439
8
843413164
773784t4228431

9889t84178

²491¥
86
t8324287
28
82479

742
td7829231178918
31
2#¬
384t
23
«¥9ª187721²2849ª
9671"¢3741
8

4421811

t24

9¥
1
77
72481t1¥2²2738314486884¥134744
44d318
i
9178x3383384¡ &/.71&7F7)]'E9](&.).7%(7/.+*(+).(1B(&(g<'Bj(&4((B)*/)7(-4@.&71-H(**c-1'4*)(+&c--g(&*1(/-('+B^%&144)3(17-<(('H]43('**++@&*&(&(*+9+4(,7.>g-F>)+E&*74)47-%'()*++*D&((p49(j-(*)..&-->G7+7(']4-)<7*c(7g*/`4(B&-''41*)-(&c4'(B(/4'<B-)&4(c.'-4/+']B4(&4774(-7'&*(+@4&7*+
8
24 +(,>g1(/)1*7*+4*&*7-(*7*(/&7*)4].&*')c/B&4-'(@&*+FEH

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 34 of 116
£s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
r 8
24 +(/)B&+'(p4,.>.g1(&7777(]7(.4BB&*)7%$*+%%(g1(]*]p&$1(%c%&'(&-4B*7\7'(*&*)%-)1>*)+B&&'-p7)]-<0/4411*'7+4G<E3)G%EDFDEHH .g((Dc/E4)`1-*)7c+%*1((*4+-*(*(,&>j'7g))&-c-.7/&'(.B)-&c4-*-)g/'*B((&/4'H11-)('9((&3.@*(+&*(*++<(*]+$1&.7,0(j-)@&-7&*7+)(--.*)*+g'(](c'1(((1-(1*&/*4)1*1)&)p9-&47-*&)+.-4H**+*\(+'(',)>1g.&-*)^*)
8
8741
3 /4/7&*$g@+.+(11))()%&((1(41%B7B1-&&9/(&*'5'4B-&'*(&p'4**&4*&7@%(*31-)7pB(744&17^+&)-)\*&-(--+1()-.g'7^.&%*7h&7-*&-&/9+)/)^'7*^&(1-(B1+)7(4B1()*&-(g7&)j>+)9-9)-4&.)%&)4(&.-1cB-(72B(p&*(-B(^'^)')(&)(1p-1*.1/7((B1()'4)1+(-c1@.(j*)-)7&]*)+^(@))]])4%11.)-c)B&14-@&.-7(14'cc1H5^+))B*4*&74+-&+-**&-,'H-1-1-(*4+^44&^-&.*--&4&)^(--*]+.^7&111-&,&'(4).74-->*^+]B&)&^g^Bj*-(p/<H&()7&)4./4-%9(17-B]4(7B4^+3+.&B)&1*BB(7)/]7*%1&(7*+]4)1%442)'))(-&B*-)-&.B^(./7-B1.&)1((B-''(/4,&@c(*)B->^))c+-m]g(%7@)]4*7<*--24&)*/74-.)4*7711+17]**15(1(4114)('(1&(B44&.-]/((7-+*&**9/^B-(@&))4.(4-1&-^-B)5--)@^..1.1/-*^*)()5()+1)]9*1l&&-(@+'-5(4,/4)>B(*^B1*c)@((-7g+(//^.H+*&&7(*-1)&^]/)4-+)B$(4](&B]]'*/*1*%B)7&&&/%+.71)-(%))()g-74^*4'-%+7-]B(4&-7*(-7.-**+)(p)7.)B%7)(1 4>.-))B'.&]'*pc+H4(+*-(**4+*(&7)g(-()*/%+4241)**1c'((,>-@g*)+/145(7&1-7%^)]-B^B-1p)(&]Bc4//17(B(+/c)1]()-B%.&*'(4&.(B-7*)*+&(/-1$)*+%9%&(.g(1](**+p](&$1$(%%c,&0'(&4-@B*&7\*+')*%&)-FE ª£44

7811441812a74361838218tt188418344ª37187
6284293381188

7
922t988
78
7
1278471"11918366288374219747
t
8447
717392149
4384"812112
8888237721ª8741381
94
88
42
2148²688661847
"
4271888a
¥214
828741
12876"
916923784¥¥7899
i
9178x3383384¡ /.&71&7F7)]'D9](&.).7%(7/.+*(+).(1B((&g<'Bj(4&((B)*/)7(-4@.&71-H(**c-1'4*)(+&c--g(&*1(/-('+B^%&144)3(17-<(('H]43('**++@&*&(&(*+9+4(,7.>g-F>)D+&*74)47-%'()*++*D&((p49(j-(*)..&-->G7+7(']4-)<7*c(7g*/`4(B&-''41*)-(&c4'(B(/4'<B-)&4(c.'-4/+']B4(&4774(-7'&*(+@4&7*+

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 35 of 116
r18
488884
14
2sv
8
24 +(,>g1(/)1*7*+4*&*7-(*7*(/&7*)4].&*')c/B&4-'(@&*+FDH r 8
24 4<Bc4*/'(+)-1(1*)(()-(+-19-*4*1](&&1(-B74*4B&14(]B&)]4-*+B]<-*+&&(((-41c4.11(7(B(-cH&.47,%4)>-(3]4*1g-&.&-'91**(.(+(74&7m7(]*&&7c)7-**]7)++4(,]B()>7p.(1Fg&l.+*C7D,+4(]+>4(.)9'g4(%+e7*\*)*<j+/4)8('(1b7(e*(41-j%9h14&>1&1)H&c))(p--]4B)&717,'1(\4%cBp(-pB)8B7)*4-'e)m-/g)B%h@p/-%(0&7+1'4''3)4(((1B*/1(.1-&+7c'(1((&+4H.4)&*-*`b(*(,+\E.§>+]*438g+-&*-GeB(](.)E@hc-(*D&+1\BlBD<Bp)&8*H7(1'+e1)7j7(-h())+)]B%*c-(47&7-'¨*7((*,](]/>))-)(7)g*%%*(B+*%&%&)g'/())'p1(1(-(1'1(1'B17(7(4B1(p)7(-%+B7-()(4--'9*((7B 8
8741
3 7)*..]@2*)411+--]1(&)-)4474c)1*1.&&'*4&'+--]5+-&()-(/)&&&B1(&----.1B-7@)&&7^^^1*-^C+.-)*4(((l(1^((17-g'.4^159]4).)*&4)(&9*-7B(-]&Bc*7)*&-)*77^+4(5/&/&^]&-/(--))^)77]/4<%-)41%/+()1&4@**2)/-))+*&]7)BB))]1^/)(&&/\-)1'7B1.7(&.'8'&7&-4(-(^74((e-7)(4*7*7/7)@h(.B]74))*7(H7)++1-%7)1%g(1)94*(*&.5@&-&1+B**1'*/&+*()1(-&4(B+.4'41&4B^/(()5B(&**7-]))-1^$7B*@1&B(1*1(-h&)%)&7'4&%)7%%^*)&]7pp&%7'+-Bc)3&/(B(-*&-4*1j-+)1^7+774-41^(4+(c(/&.@'B-)./B()gB&&]/&(1(1-)B--B&)71B^*114.9^+)^)]1(*(j(91-4'&B7'p4)(&*)B*-+).(&-c)cc%-*().()17)B]*741cH1.&)@'@B-(*4.%]4((,c+]+1-B1-(*p*)(&&(1+.)'-44.+<*'+)((^.&)&()(-B1-4.7B*7-@.&B*H1&7-,*1*4j*>)'&&4)^1-&)1+4g-4&-+-5]-*B(&&B)-(3-(4/.*@*+.*&B^(](1-B+&(H1p94*B4^7(7(+4&e-%(-)B4)%]j*-.+&))&1-+,B4-Bb(%>B^(**)(2g(m)@B>)<7/1)4(])'B7&(7/)'(*%p. */@.7++))&(*B')+&]@'pc&7-\)((^+18-)(*e**%++4h2(*4&7)7*)(H1(-*'+)*(*(%(+-@2g4*))*(1*1)5/'(&4,@->1@^+*gc)&^'/1(1+5()-&1]*-7/,+^)>-47^g7-+1)()/%]]B](4/B1BB.71p7()/+&-c/1)-)1]/)(9BBB%&(..&4'c(4&1(((B.-7-)*)**1'(4&/]-.&1-c)**(++9(.&-((.**(1/)4()**]&+B)&]7'(-&(p1$H(*4)c,-\0*.(.+-@.((*&&7*$*]&+)),&0-/%4/*+B(B(.p3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 36 of 116

zs19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89

i141#8i
97142
833


14x41
978}6128843

)44'q7*q+)p---pp(7c../*¤¤
/(/)/8

1c)(B(]""&B*'1&4/(88'*&&-))((&x(.71'(79tt&pl-H'4&88&714H<722
()B]4HB1p3177(4(H*.¥¥(49*771B**B4174'/*5&14-)&8-%&33%%}-&^&)'46^c%&711(%*((2/p-)817B*'(*$1pc(4%c8@&%(-&-'m&(*4(*+.317
()45q79p---p&7.)./*¤@(()/
-cBB(("&''1.8(*&&)^)(7(.7(*t&4)l-'8&-%4H72(*B.]HB+p341((14*.¥(/4*H711B*B(4/7'8*5)]4-&/-%3.%(^&(41c19714(/&p7-7B*)(*'11c((47c&()--m%(**.+(
q'&-)p9c(¤7/
*(&"*^(84-*)'tp178<H247(.¥*14&-&3-)^%%)(%14BB
$¶])--4¤1(*7
("1*)B8p(1-(t798]&2(1@(')¥)%c%&B/(B7&4&3--'',)(\Hcc4(--.'( &q1'c()p9c/&¤(B/(@
Bc4")&8(-%-4%*&-t4B(*8*77&2)*4-)1().¥%(<**(&(c&1-c(^B&&-3--c)((*7)@&%-%&+)(*(.1+*B+4p-(1.

4']¤/4*%4*42*/']*8¤&*¤¤¤/&*24&¤/*47/****)1++111++*))--.c'-11111&&]//,,,





44441411/c/4(44>>>))))(]]5cpp7''/44444477''&&-)7/9/*9B9B9**ggg---11@))**5544](-(BB&&&&&.33333377)1***&&cc)((-....1--&(&~~7--777777)+++((^-4++@--1779@(((1(&*77774%44444&&^^1((((]]7.&7744^7^&.&)--11111B17.4'9*****))**(3..(&4&4333333*&&ggg+)+++^^(77**))&&H]----4+.11<1((11pp(((1-11111-4(((&&-**.44^(-@7(<<7]888888--77\\((/////-))(-1-&4p$.$$(('***+117***%BB//444**7'((c--p^^44(()*HHH,,,1(*(@111(11))cc+//000-&&-1--]+](&***&&--@/%%-+BB11&ccc7..)77(44/4HH-!B))GG&]))++@@@(%+(,+++4477BB&*1c(((^))994\EE*11*+qqB--*(()((((&&&&&7---&*&771*1+**+DDk--***,&..%(//))--7pp34>-+++***&/())``(87(('6((]]%g1747%++)+,,*++*+,**,,,*33..&&*11...13(>>>++++>>>(((B44*B4))4'&&444)++(&9)))&))1-1gg+ggggBB*(*((('*)BB)7777.c]&))99+'+''....]11'4&&&.c-((&&]]](@@--(/..('7(7&&11.p7'7''(cc7--..''77((]])ccc/1&&(()((&-H$$44H@..77h]]-...*//)-9941B4''&'BB(((((*4*9)111)),,((()&++B.B**--11(-))110-0-*-pp&(&&&((/*1111-44]---+.99%%)))'**33***1144)&*&*7&&77(4*44^^'***&*&**--@@''((**1*447B++.****++4+((*p77**&&(B&&B&&&-(-(++4*7*)7))*(-*((.**4++77^^1---++44.%%-(HH**))(43.11*

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 37 of 116

r18
488884
14
2sw

Bq*1-(1()p*4**'](&%51&&81'&H-(4c^8*&)7(-p-t7*84*H2(-c.7*¥)4c.)/'B(]c3-&)(c*-&/%*&B'(J4c*.&()4--p* *\*,q*(q71.hj-111(p)')pp)444%'7''4B(c&&')*B(--].15(17j71c&&8c(c/&7--(-c4)&&.(^^976^B81%B-p(7)4*7))7H*&)1j*--2])(p(t
--4.7)7//8*'(3c()¶2()))1*/c)BB)c&c&&(%)%¥-''p1%4/&&%%&(&(()¥)--')(77114)*.^.'(-c&)&'((*--'-.)1+H/*'73c&^()-Bp4)4)j3/>>&%&*<74-%-B&1))(4c4(B4^*BB1B1&7&&7'3-/''9*(15*(1(&*4B.(+'(74&B%-(cB1&1(-^)(4^(&7]-&--+-^.^*(+^H14 7'4Gqq@'8*))-E]pp&4--B4D/B*.*B(`(<1p77]c134(79'<'((&166**7&7-(&l77H-)7'c*221m7^)

7)-14<-.)(14(*1'(B+.(B)¥¥&<BH77p*(7+*\&4&1-('(1%1*^9p)7(&111(*331()@'(;(4'17*4)B&*1/Bc-(1)4)7.']&((*-]-(44-7.*7*1(7&H'(p<](c4B`-1(-((D(p%-3)*17

1(7)B9(.&-@1&*&-^H **'(4*/¤1*¤/*11+)+()4-(1

44/44)c'1p,44''&)\+*9*)55/.1&33q**..&&*¶B77++)--4(()44'@((<.^^&11-]-*(33&gg+77**(*c'++7pp(311((488(774&//*]%-$**-+1*447(()H,*(11*'(cc04c+**)cc*\,HH(c&\+@,)B.((>*1q/-(1&+--(g*)B)+**41./]](&+,++(-.>*&^<c44411)*g+&7)(777'().]9-*-4.77(+(]]c1)J&77.7((**''(1B.++/1-)4-4('1,)**44%p>)&44*(-9g**1^(&&1.).(+-(.4&.-7
*&7*('+<'j&¤1+*7/¤--1+1((4+)(144,4

44*%/*(>)(c-&(77)B)44&&-)'B9g(--)-1$/-4^]1&33**4c%&&).*+7(.--77,)*l-B('*0(4*(4((44(*^^4..)(.7..117*H/-9-33>&c-7(]*j))*(14.)'+)*+(11-4%)14)(-pB88-(4((&<9***1c'p.(4.*+(&c<1/($.B7<1Hc&(*'4pB(&(&+,)\4)47-c%\0.24=&](--(B'-(.+-&&B7).4**7*15*g'H(@(.1+@+17.(*)744*(((*+(&)(@+11'*'-/1]c4/~.(+1(,*$7&4.>7&&7)^(*]7/-p1,4+j(g+*110]*%4*&434*()<(c4-&*<1&*)**1+B1(B(B^*+(4@+B((-(-'4(*7.(*-.(*)&+174'7(.]*1*-*](+.$4)4)'-+7%&,c-+%/,)-4>(40G'h)*,4&g7>(%E-*B)*]&+gD*^'B+B(B(3&`B4(1m77 ¤7/*+]1
4)'49*+&3*.74+(4(11*(3g+9(1(&8(/$@4,H10*c@+((&-*+*+,.>4)g7']&.cc&./(B--()*c4*(*&-)*-(.

£4744a8
87
1ª98199
8"8997
14732817291884487822

22774
81

72

81238
23

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 38 of 116
{s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
a1481
3214217
#4812
77
9ª1
9399741812349¥672
88133634t2191t64318
2"1
87

697184
82433¥47744383882413t¥8 i
9178x3383384
*/&&c71147)/]&'-B(((&.-7c7^/(+HH)-(B*&g('++.&((((/174(g4%//1()(*1/1c1)(4*^34(11**-&4-c+*c&((-+-g^4*)*7(*+/)&4-44'*%17++)*(1&c4(cB'9(7&(-)*'.&*&C4*(>&&'7C-++(&4&--'(7)79(7c(4].D</<)>B474]+-*&4-*4.-*7*G+*(/&(4)'`B)B'&''c)'))&c(/cc7/B&//B44&BB-c-&&44'.(--(-''/<*((1()<@''9()4&&*.'c]+4(7/].(B741&F(*(&-GB&+4**H4*(7. 8
24
%',%'))-))17-cc4**(./171.4B4<4'&*&+*(--&)*(.&**7-(+3'1],)*)>-'(*c)g.BB&(c(/-9'1B(&c&)73c--&]&)(-(*--^&-%-)&)**4]*1p&-/c(41.17*(4)&)*B1*'4)&4-()*.H7/&-)7&14)?-)*B7('c+/H@)1))c)7*'](*c)^(c*+1(+71c(3%'4&4(g4'1-*B('7./7&4'+4/B)1(7]-*(c<4**&7B1-(&(3'-]']7*()(-7c*1.)'9/(&&1*'B14&](C.&-(-4(-*-9@(-+'B)))&B]/c(c-/4'(B(&--cc(*@((*--)**7H &B14j*&-(-+(9)4'77(4-.B//&]'7B(()4).(1'-<c-&*)7-B&+*()&%/^<(g-*B3*&4+)7Bg(4&&(*'-c*4(&1+(*j/*()7(/4&(¶-*1H1)/&)^*C)%-]c(\')j(<-(**(7)B7+-&4jc7'4(*H)j1-cc'c.)*)44+c/-)*-&B(*-*c4.&1+^-&(&4-(47]1-13*B7(7.(B>7@)-(41'*1&1)7)*47(]'+*(/j1&4)71&194-(-7)4B7^97B@&/&B.*.4*()+)]<('1451B*(*(*&&-+*--')47(^^)*]*c$*+^B1+)(,1(/'(0)B*4']42+*)@&/&&4-c)1&**71*-/+(*4/7B9.~41.&1()(&]()-'@'4*]((]]17/4.*&c7(1*1(()*1c(+.'-7)((4]%*<7*4/G(p7*1/E3&*)&BD+4&-(`B(773)4%*)+1%(( &4j'''>-)))'1)7)ccc*c&/'9///((c&*'BBB74(4&g*47(*&&&-7]--)(@.-.**1)&(7//-l&11D-151^7lm))9&`-*(''&4m-+7((^-*(7*77.(&^/77^271(84*c)&'4&1*]]-*&7-4)&//^*-*.-((~^$&171l.9F]H&4%(4&%m4B7&-BB'c7)1*(¶*1&4(1(%7)&711((-()*.)4(&%-4%-7*493^G+.-4qE(@p8&DB]@&4].`*1<+)/((3B1%(4*(,&51+]'\9&*&(7-q)(&73^-B*)(\4'+^41-^&(71.((.)7(-/]519]*.-/(7)&<)+77%4B@'&&*-''])+BB.(9/((.l(7'G81j^)m(*](c&).-*/)&&)(C(.-%*-(1]&^*9-7%+1p&]/7&(j&--1)B4)('^1^-&c7***-&++*/C()4((B.4*-1&(-9*&(@

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 39 of 116
r18
488884
14
2s|
r 8
24 ,@'\-&+.&*9.&).C((7&(7*(-4*&)&-/^-'+4.))4(*Bc&B'&'B-)p/&^-(,3B>74**0g&+&-1-&((7]&*%7'B(/7()7,]'1->)**(g.)'.*](+7+7'*(/+47*)H17(4-(-.\7.&]')7'1&*j1(1/(&&/*<c]*&]C4<((-*B--(&''*.(7j7')&())-%1cc9j&//'&B*F(B4&4GC&4&-(--)-**%->j/*))+1)]B)(c&-''j'p/(()7B)4c7--&7-(c(\-*-47]**7*^>(g]1)1(&B7(4&^*''B471pG1(3*.4((G&-H1-E.1^&D**G)*++1H(p( j~*'**'**+11(1)),&]4447*&>--7&&&*&4g---C.7&1-*(]]&&&*1---7-^(B4'*^^^1**&&+cj-1-)@@7*(4)&(^1'%-&44c*4$+-G@+^77&(&,/-E)-&0&+.*BD&-.*^4+-]((`)&.B^*-B7-3B.*(+&)'+**.)*3(4^+7.+(-Bp*-(](-(>&jH.9*7)1(1+(&7&]*)*-)(,&B'**+>C^(7-(%(1(g(3()77*(-/1.*+7$//+B44($j4))/,4*-0-B1)%8)(&.%*'7c.B&(H\3&'&3-''(+/(/0)p))711)B1-*474&.@.B.&11/])]-(7('1-1~9**B1+)44&&(->9]-**11D+&(1^*^43.D).(1.B(*3&'(&*-+.41*((G41(*1751E4*7(7-+2-)&D(3-((%1&@)`41&.9G@37-7$)&E'*&*^1B),-(+(5D0~%.c.4&`**-]^&*1H+4@'(^44*4*(&&+1()*^-*+*(1+((%1(&(&-7)-41*4+].$^B*),7+(H/%>,%)H]04g\%G*\B*)B*E'B@+&+&*&'D--1-+((&&(`*B7)/B.(772H]&*-1(((&-4(^1171.-/79+9&+77^*&'&)'(('-*(*1(1+()*$9))(&)]%,'0-(1&7
8
8741
3 j@g/*@>(j/j()1--111)(4)&+&(4*44)4*1B7cB/&&&+&*7B9&&c-]C''+--4)&(/)+p&1.1(&&&---1(3B---*(4-^cF'4j4^^+*j&H1,)(G-+-*((>)(*7)Bc&3*4.-))ccg+c7@**-+/*)+.((c,+>//7B7(]>9((.4)HB)(,44g9B4'&j&>B.14-B(-&&&',]7g&'*-B,B-*+)*.*&))>p4&C**+-4(/C-//g14*(4>(1(7*1(4&-(-.&7----)1&-71c(./-)'^.7'j+B]7j&)'(&))4*)-4']44(*77&)-c.])++-B^7*B7-cB-B(-7((B.p/.*.4)*(.3/17B1(@,1-%B4.4]4&*-B4'1^4.+4&).&&&7)B&9-7---&(B11(&*-(-7**75(&4&&*+7-%(%*-*')&-/&)&*'c-(^&'^->,&B1/.).-^4>B^m)]1&()Bc4(--g)&<*'@(^'-c*+*'4(4/4)1&(*7(-(7*)7/B)c-])&+p77(^]4--1/./&7H)&./)7-/^7-)0]]^1@**^B4)4'/)1&711B&'))-*.*/744(+@91&&1'7&*/)&)4()7&-.*5.()7c-*71-+]](&(&+-)5--7&.(B794)7/..$-^*^(*-**711.]4+&B))%4(]&.)^l)&)%'4(@'7-B&1-/&+'*7'*)*-])1B(]4+()(-(744(]^BHBB1c*(.]-B*/@/77(*/c&^<.-B+(9)41((@)47-44]()17j7%*-&)*5-*'&747*\(*&-.%(+*)(*+-/1@'&^7*-7&(/Cg*)'+447&7&(17&7)*(4.&B(-&-+%(1B/*)B'.)'&(+/'*.)'7/)j1*&'4(&)*+-&)(-)(*)&'&-B1)c)(..977&'c9''14-(H*(((g&/(pp]-/^14')*B(-&(1)1B4B.*&%144(.+&43&%-(*&%-(&-*1&p(h'j-..-74^&'**)*-&]&&)()**--*B^)1&1B+C^&&-)-((%-^^ g,(>'g1(c(gH4]&1-&-*4^&-77]<')7(c/]B(&4--*'(]@41&**+(1*7+3&*7+7(($'*,&0)-@%&)B1B'*+)-(*1&-(c](4&*-).4(717)(%77*+@(+j()*+-(71(-* 7£"7197at98874
"8ª219987d482

824917813436
273371
1324217441
3477491
734¥821793

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 40 of 116
£s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89

!4
74337
64

778t37
114d1
43
12!84886
17879"223774±387¥3411¥9
46376

17146

332t79t1¥83724¥834
2917ª62727"73
4
1841t4822
81¥
71433a29ª6941889¥42
r481377328t1638412187t881
78344438917818472
ª
843881t
87
ª27112998891ª8893
t931¥382

966399
31
t831t6497713274942798766
19
7
23414224t1¥3318
481
7818
332
¥
724640¥41
¥28324a817728883983788013
1
4427x184718##84
88
28219778011
ª
8ª4t2
2t¥184
1932­979948
9610
32228488n8
3¥2}224664
37
¥17491288
11
378324128327872n1¥299714748984
d94}"

11673491¥834134
74¥ i
9178x3383384
*&71+47(]&-1((&.-%)^/+13()(<3B&]g*'+&*(((/&7*4g/+1((*4/c17*44(-1-&*)-c**&-+(4^-4'7*+*)&&4(7'*9+-+(().&(*'9>p&(+*(.&4*C(>7&--(+4`7'7])'(c<)D7c/*B44/4--B&&-.*4&*4-G/B')'(')B)&4cc'7&(//.7BB&&&7444'---]''.7((7/<@(1(.)&*'9+<4&.(]B(7).F(@`1&H*(HB+44*(7. 8
24
4*j'/<4+)1.]p)((c(c<c1/B/&c(](]'B/4c44<&B&*+-(-B-<(&-('.*(e7H&1(7]-7',1+,-/)7^>)(cB/g4%&'.7B41/*&+((<+'7B37&)p((-c2-7)@)j1(*%@*&(&)-&-**-%+1+&*&]C5('((/((&.+1--17(13)4^(*4j''-)^)-(]).1c7/.c&)3711]/&(8/)-<B.//cB4p4*4&'c&+)-/--)*(*1(&c*(7)c/'>+*9/41+1<&HB)7.)4(('(&'&,1-(g--(7)7^7*H7(%77///')c()41@*')+c14)**'(&*1c/()1(57B-1(4/&7&-7-&4]-^c*B4<7*71^B4/&(41*''1)1(&/)(*<]1(&'&]C/4c1((&&B7B)*-7&.)77.4&7&-c(&1'--^(447^7B*4B33](p97¶114']&()4&)B/-*B4-7+/(<.4B*B&])(*('7***+)((. c@'('&4)+*4c7&(C5&(*(/(+1-B44(\7%&1)7-'*1*+)*/)'c41))](*1/c97*.B&+(4/)&(&7B]*-4p'+7*&)(-Bcp])4g1411-4p((.*^//7&'(74))*7'11)-)***c(*]+&4.-1(('3.4c-**^&*'+*(+4%7(.1*()/(%cg1],@)><(c+%g/B&&B(4'&.*-11+(7)*^9((c&-&4117(9^*('&-+'.7)*(()c*p&H4%+/@-4(B4--(+'&1))-($(]c*%-&H%-/&,''>%B()4(gc11&-c1&(*7(-(%%.4*)]7B177)c*()%)7*(*+&*)9-)(4%c&)B*1]4141c455&*^((&+-*&*+^**()&1
r 8
24 4&&/--91,7%>)4)//&g1B((4c'1/<**41&&&+B*))(&&(*-97)p&H-.%))4,(g>%1B.]cg'c*)17+&4cc-(*%^1(/4$)1.B*&4c,+(40&-B(47**+.2@4/(.&&111*&(78*+)&**'4)H.~(9-)74]47'+&B4B])4c/1cc<*14(B)(4(1*^-(741)1*(4%*&447-G*7B&.7E),*>-D4)8g`*@*73H7+4)*j*)1%+4%.1@&(*')7&&()&-'7-,^)>7g4c*3g-&+7</.4*7]B1*&])&14''*<(-+*)4c7'c(](&1(7*/9@*3^B(44)4&.B*&9]-+-(G.4*1F*-%&&)--Fc1^`c/(H*-)7+B*&(4'+(-(.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 41 of 116
r18
488884
14
2s£
%&9^4-)(1117)(+c/]&)'(/7%B'*(@(*%7)(-H(.11&'b(-4)-'4+-).9&*cB4&(.-&/B)*]4B+'(<&]-(*B((^c$H4*(,)-20-.)c*71'@4)(§5@c+(44(c1*c7((]%¨/)-'11B.+((c37/&71-B*4(+7-/'(/(()((.j1'.*&*&7(*-&&.)@C-9(*&(-7B)B+3j<&&*-'+()B.((c1&7'(//34/(B*B41<4(&&')]-*(.+**.&4.>'H*)1&)--9'7()(/+7*(7&.''(@*B(&*))74-1&§B5@1@&(-(+/1^()4¨1**7 *2*1)+&&^14*+7*+**(*~*+\)$(]B%,*4&0+B1(,)*H>(]4g1^')+@)%c&*GB+B/E('BD4)`-&,->.4*g7])7'1(.*7.&7.7&]&7--''^+))*]@4/1-+41(^)4*&9]+-&..(^(1&'*$*&-*+&%(C(%&('$*-(,7107]%144@)11c*(&*(+&1.-4.)%)-&)-1.'c^]/&c7-1))(^39-*'&*+.&4*((&*C&$*)(+--,(07%1))((1%7*]*/++B(*(('7&*17
8
8741
3 '4@'(&..-&)-B+)&+*B7%c7'&1)('C1]])1(*)(/]c+1c-]B(4^(]71&(+&-1+4*&--*1+^^('+(***4&)+4.4'-)*c*(&*^1,&*B7)>)&/*g.]C'+-'gB(&&('44(*7-/)+&&*p7'C-7%&4+)()'c*1*])-)-)+*%%]41c7c7)(4*pHB17%.+(/^c1('-((B)'4)774&*+c)1-&]7-(4*-*1+.-*.4&*&7-^(&&).'*-,+c%*&74>)-]1*^*g1(*^(+%4*c)B1)4(&7*7)-*4+*+)%c+g(7*&(H)B&.(*(()]%(/)-&j&4BB-%+4.&)/%-'%'1&(c)4'44*^)1c(-cBc/7c41.,(B)7/>/&(4'-44gB44.)*4*-&&1]c^)&'7&(7-.-%-('+/*4&34)4*)Bj.-44*/B]@+.)&-(c-B$()+1..)*(14%(H%%.7****&++(,7+&&'>-*1((4((7+&g4.-1*41(4*B$14)$/77](1/+%1%%.4%,)%]/)&4>&&1'9'*1]7-(g(7&)((B..1.1/47*7(c7)91**4&+444])4.B&1(71*7B((*4(()*4$*B<-(5p4&,B1-)H0(B(c7%*))*4H&+1-*c((&1 
434t£1284


8£
7981874961341
3

999i17771
8
111338di874729478
°ª
1
944771172±293412896an7°9t²48717883117}22«648¥¥4887
3117813
7
o31494¢2
"t
73818288d138478934271111319
91"987418878148ª14
211¥ª4
22
8341ª
218472¥93ª13999ª818ª21t¥1178
44917919214

3yªt27
818
19

89746d82386t2281"34844228
18781
32
t7
1
2t98328

7¥11t#"291
a796814
"274¥¥84
88813241277

4174694

814487748

27d44243
8

34t
84878n78781
722o

t9872672213¥t189713
7
8334441342ª41
74172«394891¥9¥
i
9178x3383384 *&71+47(]&-1((&.-%)^/+13()(<3B&]g*'+&*(((/&7*4g/+1((*4/c17*44(-1-&*)-c**&-+(4^-4'7*+*)&&4(7'*9+-+(().&(*'9>p&(+*(.&4C*(>7&--(+4`'77)]'(c<)D7c/*B44/4--B&&-.*4&*4-G/B')'(')B)&4cc'7&(//.7BB&&&7444'---]''.7((7/<@(1(.)&*'9+<4&.(]B(7).F(@F1&H*(HB+44*(7.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 42 of 116
£s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
8
24 )*+*+(($1,*0++&-'()^/7,3&>(%g7&B()1.%(4/'-))11p*174(']**+.Bp4&**74H&-*.c1](77*)B49](..&&*-@@+1(&**+&-(^1H')c+(/B4,&>-g*7@41&B(B3%)41c@)4-1^.*) *c'+)((cc1/()B41g4]&]--(*17.&*4-]H-^c.*+*])(7*(2+&)(1%7j*%))~1-']7(4(&1--**(91g(7)(*%'&^1G(4E(*D&)0`-347*-H+4(^g+(1(&11>((')*B])&'1((7)*j%&-)*+^c(4c-,\&74q7]&7).]-&*<(1)c%^&'*1*&4*(-&.C*((4-.
r 8
24 -'jj.24/Gg)1)(3&]&)]1(*c1'Gcc7&17]C1E*&/)(-c<(cD~B--^((D4(]]1*+@j*H-(-74&+(1.+)*1*4((4c(+)*g1+.*(12((&$/@(17)&]<B1'-;&)/44-77&(%*1&)*+.4*&-&(G-B+C(/~(&*(E'^]471/]->pD*-1/**4)`+))1'''1B1(9)B)(&)**%('%(c(c9+&B4p\B.(1&(4.1//''4*)*(4*'BB4+-4%47j.(<(.'&&G/-*)-)&*+E**\c)c*]*4&D(7C'*%-'c(`(')41)*'1-(31(+41(c(c/*(-B7(+p*])/&H.141'(%&B(1(-14)8j(171(c'&(%)7(-&c,((7*B->/41&94/(C)g&-B(1)*)(-4%.(+*-1-&*j.7-(7-7&H&&j-*.&*)'&H,<&-)>)*C@-&c+Bcg(4&)1\-*(B&/*/&@'*/F($B&jB/'4(F7-44)1,)1&p&^0]-)17-)c7.9)*%-)4&&/+-B1*.->.-(+B(-()**4(4^B(+1(B1/&*&**-B-4)'j&*+)-*+l*p((B)**^.&>('+-5+$))*('\(7.()cB,&(&]',*04'4-\&'/1CBp,7(*Bq&B(>@-47/)$g-Hg&&^&*-7-*7%(43+%***'&-\+'41'](((-(1(^p7H])m%7*
8
8741
3 j)<**)/)+%%((&%*)&1(('&-771C)^)((4cj--c14)/-(]+jc&B7(-4.())Bc4&&Bc-4*9*741&4(,/)(>--.*B-)g4.**7&17&(-*-4H7+14&*+7@.(-)>cj1(+j])&.4*(&)BB&-&.B-)c'B&-p^7*',/313*>)*B(444g-&+14&---.((-7...&]'g-+'(.@4^)(*%)]/+j**4'()4B()]].11*)4.+c***1cB&1(+.B*(417(&j(-&----'*)*4))*&c/7-*c7)].1^c1)/(/'*9*+4B4))4(&-B-.1&&**-'..c(1+&4(*((.*&&1--7+-)7$3(](&'-)@,]c@$0-^+c+<,H4(*0(((+*-1*-+H(+.7*((4\14/1*+'114&'(*))(B+(-B9</(&'(.1*,)1&(>4(-c(B-g4^*/'+*]7&(/B(-&4+11)&^1)()-%(.9]**7&)7B.].(4B,*.>17(g £41v"88¸t
6i3
81i188
333
77
793973998ª179941t
8238
8228134

648427797x137412438y14°¹x19y8º«ªª11441
i
9178x3383384 *&71+47(]&-1((&.-%)^/+13()(<3B&]g*'+&*(((/&7*4g/+1((*4/c17*44(-1-&*)-c**&-+(4^-4'7*+*)&&4(7'*9+-+(().&(*'9>p&(+*(.&4*C(>7&--(+4`7'7])'(c<)D7c/*B44/4--B&&-.*4&*4-G/B')'(')B)&4cc'7&(//.7BB&&&7444'---]''.7((7/<@(1(.)&*'9+<4&.(]B(7).F(@J1&H*(HB+44*(7.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 43 of 116
r18
488884
14
2s£
8
24 ¶¶)4@j-B)))&7*---)+*((+7&(7-((@93-&41J&&+**-B+&](.g-&444-,9(.*\p('&.7*-q71+H&(*^*&(('&^)@H)4c-)-+*&4*%(*9&4-)*-('+.],&1(\B4((&1**q97(4*&3.(*)*)(@4]*1*&c(c7%+)()&c1(7-4c)//&*7-7(1)(1)&1@*/&'))@+4(1.17(&+H-47*(+*3^*((,+'\1+%())q1(*c1+c'&(/-),Bc9>'g&4()g(/-7c/B*'14&4/((^&1B-/44*@*)*c&)7&-1*1(*+*477-1@3**4(++41@1&)(77(&@.%11/(((((11'91)7((](9)&1&.9&317*((**+&.+.))4-4%,**1*\)))*&q+%c-*(*)&+7**+(((
r 8
24 14/\G(113B**()G1+9&1E)(&(.D]9%((D(^.+1H+'1()4(*c.-g++p($/(*)B.;/4)*,)&+4>-'B/(&]g*'7/cp,+1\%)(114q)(-97%(c*@B.41((&*'.**&/*+)+17))-&(-1*/*+.\(*(<(.+'c)'(1*(())1/(-(7**]4+7&B]*-1()1(&''41>c(4(*)&*.()-B(&-%.^'J*j(7*&.-+&>*&4&&-17(Cp4(4'//-'*1(+F&)'j1F'&(¶))(7))c.7%-e7/<*(H+B(3/4('*&(4+-1j](**)77>-(*),7+>B,(&\4g'-*qp*'+)g/)4-(c(71'\7/-1])B()4-(^*&H-]-(7*7B*
8
8741
3 4e*c%)+Bc1B4)(@p7(^4(14&^-1*4.(&')]-,(B->]..'g7.&pH*(7)0-%4*+(4)c'((-'.*&4(g+777^'((*7()/)&$c--4..,^(10(]*-&c9'H-*(*(%\B))-4^1/1*(c(-7441+'(/*p)&%1)](l)-1B'.1((%,17*.)+7ec*(%)0-)*1*\+/+4(1(m])*,9.)\&&&.1*q(^&(--&@-.^7]&),*@7'1+B+(]&4-(c4-*BJ.+(B-7('<1*)]4c'(7*)1&&/)-/1B-&&(4*()7&17-17(&*)B4.74%B4*44&p-1B7B(^H*)+&7 £87"z128
i2
81734847974217714231ª¥19
92tª881"79647488a8t2723184
2

ª7199288"
89
827781
948884
i
9178x3383384 /.'&7)1&77)c]'9]/(&..B7&(74*.+(-+.('1(((g<,B-(4@(B*9/)&((*4@.+71H***&c1^44F(+&*--&(-H&*1-^(+^%04)317<&(7]43''**)++&-*&(.(+9g]4('(7.*/-4>4)-1+**.4c47j'((+-&D*&*&(C4&9(7-(--..j)>G*)+c'p4)(/7*c(B4&/-`&-B&7'4*]7)-<c'>7()/*B4<B&&'-4(p'*-&444'](-B7.4(7&*+47
8
24 &(78-49]&c./7(((/1-1B99('&&+('7(()(714**714c,4-5>&&.---g44&)-11@*.&^()B/3H(-)@.\1^+*B(]*7&+'()*+)7+%]**4@&+^)*&+-(B*B7+/*&+-(41(('-/B.1])4,.-4&\-(-.k&7(*-1@1+^44(4&-g-17'7&&-(9/*&^1+)7)4&%)9)**-&-+.@*((&+&7.B(B(&9*<-/+&.(1(*((+]-/(7'1)(4/(-.&1.-7)*(*&')4-1(4-^*7(-.7g7'4*)(&19%.&)/73%&B*)4*++--((-@&-&*^+

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 44 of 116
££s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
4^141(&-(&-)-^g@&+9(&7-&)*-)44.-c.&j-&&*7&*C((1-*j+()c(/4B4c&-7H*>1)'(77@)15&-^^1)]/+49(p(**) r 8
24
'@7j*@40(&*/+4&*474*&/7&*+-C-((1(.4-%).*-^4/+)))(1*%1'(+.1-&)8/4(7H*c*1***+H(+)4g/4B9-,(pB]>*&+&4.H.1g1@&)4(&-5-c1(.+*-+.^@44@/)()*77@1&&+B>1*)B4/B+()'(4471B(.-25)&4]7'^9p&(-.7(1(&.p7&.4/*>)*](*.)1*%+.~.+4)B*&(&''](+'&*-]*&,74(&*(\&c'1(*7*/q*(&7)H4(()7*1-B*B1\1&e)(**')('14%&%/7B4'(*(/]G1)&&7')-()BE1**1-*9.&D7@-**&&7.`+1-^-)((34+^(%)@**B4j-*+((9**)')(+((**c*+5(&$+]&-7(-c7(,4^%0*B/1)4447*11-*-(],(Bc(>(.1.//1H4g((4H)(11.1-13-7.9.8*(&+j+(7.]&7(1)4(/4*1B<$(+jBp-(1,4*)'9&/01*-c(&4173*^&))/)+-+%%41B&(&&)'7-(/4&@g9^/(-@&(-B(.')(&9/(('(-1(.]p-(1**'3+p(( 8
8741
3
(@7&**4+<*B+&7(++(/41(c,/>)(g-'+.74(+-1)4&]7-Bc'.(.*))(%94*(]+B).(/&(*94'&).cc((-/''B+&(447--*'&47(-c@.4&**)1+.*H*(+72(*]771]**4/+-((.11934&1*7+.)H(1p/,>1g)%&c'&(]-7'*p 12
£8w­61
228
42a74ªt
8987
16832183
ª81
¥9492
3828oª961
2117496
44
28
211#18t1144828
4¥
ª1"
683384414
7741469847948
144
183488847

i
9178x3383384 /&.'7)1&77)c]'9]/(&..B7&(74*.+(-+.('1(((g<,B-(4@(B*9/)&((*4@.+71*H**&c1^44F(+&*_--&(-H&*1-^(+^%04)317<&(7]43''**)++&-*&(.(+9g]4('(7.*/->44)-1+**.4c47j'((+-&D*&*&(C4&9(7-(--..j)>G*)+c'p4)(/7*c(B4&/-`&-B&7'4*]7)-<c'>7()/*B4<B&&'-4(p'*-&444'](-B7.4(7&*+47
8
24 \0&1*-+(',&1>'77)]g)'(]&)111.^1-9((+&&.c+-'/)]((^)(]'1-*\****1)*7'4*74+'*&*--+)((+./%&(4-p*j*(^44&&F-,***>1_+&'Cc\(*H4(+3*]-)1*%7&)17j*4j])'&4^&-]c*]+&&1C-./1(h^&B(-*4)-)7&*B-*B+-Bj*jp(*)>4+7gcB)'(B(B+7/&/4'((B-44p./1.&]-&*)-cBj*B(&'7')(.)&->c31(/)*74cB)7-&@'14.'4p&-)B*&B.4c(7<-(*4/(1.+B7B7&&(4*-)j+1-'4(1(B'(]B(B,&].--*@(&19%1)4.&((*1&7c+-&'*-(&&(*-^.+-*4^+(**H7(&-)4^+%-(-]F4_BH

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 45 of 116
r18
488884
14
2s£v
r 8
24 */1@+(1+4))]*97&&B.(1(((.'c.,)>*(-+4g--.(*]p/]H').7*B()&'B'()p].%/c%*)1)()1-'+*+(*&4<(%*&1*&&))-7c-4]-*1&+-pp49))*(%%7&%*4&*'&&^(/741(4*1@&]7-+).^)-&**3&+]-)(7^1(].@'7)+%(c)))1/'%4B(]&%4)*.-1+]'')(1(1H&&-@C^(&+.*4+(^*+4*+&(,-&>7'7g)*-4+.47]7]'<-*)(*'*3 &&~---)]99*((41771(***(7&&^^/1+44))(**-&&%))>7G--)&E<7B%D&B3&'(B`8((%H7])>1/,%11-4(&)-1'c9*9`&&('7³*7()+*71&(l7^Je48@*)*&+/H]-()*^1+)@**7)%+(cI411((m*49)77&&-%4(49@*c-+)((.B(.9&('8-4.)*'cH*&&).-j/*(14B*-()+B*&*()(H%.]gK7]&7('7*)()1c&%)'%%/*)7B%1().'*1((]'.(1&-&-]'^7&.(*(+)-(%*%2)@&11('71(*(
8
8741
3 %j&/)*-))%1)19)**c'(+'+(7(/((*7&B&-/j47^+')&4)%-&B(*)c.&*&'1)(g/p>--&3(.B1*&/)%4(4&4'4--B-((11*.'(77*&(%c7/p*-)j&1(@)-)-)*()^9)*-&1&-1/.577.9(](+&-&(1-1)177^(](4)*c&^*B*-^.)+1-4(1)4'.*(]*4&)B&-/-4-$@^B..7%+%*7]+&*1)]'+)'4('*]'&(1-+)4B7$.&---&@,-*./^0&+'-1).&H))].1)94(4'&.-.B1]B&(p(*7c7'.%.H&4(&/)1-&'BB(&*+]-*')/(*c(B(p.4(1(&-,&7)->c*.4g94)&/)*'-&/B7)974+1-(*)]).1/].)41@%*&B&*.(&4&7***57.+)(-(H%449)](@].B+)B7&(*(/(.74)^(% 87£3
{47
t99
1a17318182478¥
212984a77962dª111319
9911
797
"18
7

3471
79742
184
648388"7378862
282
221
84
18#78126428183
481ª9714"919899872
1
114449
769d77a18836
4183¥3877422"
67131
4ª123
1499734
i
9178x3383384 +0g&74(7&77/]'4(-)1.)-**c.*++4](((''-+g*\*&(4'(&/7'9-4((.-/.1)*j*c*>4&+-*p(&(4'C-*((7*-(&)+-%`j47j7)']&c)4*<c&'7C/+(*B/44-&B(-&&-49j*(-*&)47.'cB(>>'/)+4)BB7c44&'7&.p/-(&B*74&D74'--]>4.'7)-(/7B.&(1'@.)Gp&9*<4'&+.)(-(Bc.).@/F*1+BHI(&(4HB4-,+*-'(((9.1(<(7*%(1*)4&'^14&(4-]3*&7&-*-+(^^(3&*<+]4*7&*
8
24 **0*+++1&((447*&'p-)&(1&*--44c.1&^+-]]*()&+-'7-\*1^*)'*44g]'+-]((^&./9.7+&*(&j7*4h&/&-*)*)+)&-'BCB(B(&(&'j7-g)&4(%'(j7Bj]/B)@4&14c*11-&&(C*B/.Bc-(B<-*4j(B(7&p-)-&j*c7*-7')'>c+cB')](4)B/..&-c'B](4.p/.B&(&-1B-1&&(4*-7^%7-B3j(*>'4+'4()-*(BBB@.*&4'+*&-1p&*(74+-4&14]--(*B+&47.-(B])^*&&1+1H-1((((&c7-,]+(-%(1&)(19-91((&*''c77(,(*>.()&^*g-%1*4*4+*17&&1(--F))/&I^]%-)H^1^*+7F*)+I]4H**

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 46 of 116
£zs19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
r 8
24 ,'75@4g4>-4)-]+-)&]9c*&Bp.)).+&1('@c&&/74*-(@4*BB]4^*(&4-)>^+.7.&+]p*14-(&^+44*(*B*.(.7&*(7'-()/5*)*)27&^'),)('%>'*]&B.(10*&'1g1c'7+7(](*&&*(%+(77(e1&B7~'7(]-(/)7H)']*B/)-],*-*4\B47(\(&*.**q11'&.'+-+])**&'(7(4((-'**)17*)+*+181*)*(*.4/4(*+@%H&-%91\-(BG]))(j.('^E947''1@&j&*D*1-)*(.4&*()`&&/%-((-*()3*&1^*51.C4j+3g*c(747-+()&-&]-1('(7Bc.4'/(.*j$1*Bc,(&](&)>)*71,'1+%40.gc9*H<-(jH&&37-/(.B&j)8(&B^*(-+4&14])C17p&^(1c-(7/&-c/-4$*(j/(711/,&B.j4)9B0&/>44&%B)*B7B&)1-3&'+c)(B*&+'&%141.(')/(47)*-pBB&4@B40*'@-))/+&p(@&-(-4/-(91@-*1(^(\]7g)41&*])/3/*^>(+(-^1(/@)*7&]1]+*B44**&+7(+'*4**7+p((*.p*(-B4Gp7j*4)')*+*3H--&+*4**(G.&&+-/*C(E++(.(1%*D,p)+-(4()>D9&1(%@1gH&..8&B()*BH.1 +''j.**<(++))-+)(&)^4(cc&'7&c-+7*]],/c^B\c@1c*&B^1(q(1)(44+((*-+1*-&(-**&+(--(](..*c4&.4&1(-,-4*&-&*\1-7^%&9*7())q**+(&*&.41-&c77+(-'5*'*())'(&('))^*%1-B7)¶+1p4&**1.1*)(+c*+&1(c](-7'((&'.4(47'('4*¶.*B&7*-'*<)(&)(<1)4-..-p4-(-7<(]H&*('h(-71p+1477H)&&(4]8--B%+&1B)-]7^^¶((1j+(&/)*4*>c&4'+(-&*7-4)+)B1((4B.B9B*1(7B&.141&-p'744(,(-<((\)c7&'4.-)17*>q'*&7&&1(1j)7-5741&7*-^)-(7]+'(*7c*)*&.44*3]'&7+*1'c&*j1***(4+(*-+(&)47+BC(17)7c-((He7)]¶-4.c(&4)&(-7c'/B-&419&*&)(7*(^-((/cp17-c7.j)**)&7/1(%4%7&)%*&B1^@B'4417*&B44--&+&**'-B%-9&1*4B1))*4(*(*41<-7&&1-]*--(*(]+&']&.&9'7^-((4(&c*4-*^]1&7,)*(*<*\7&4-B&*)((p^q].7-141*.%H7*4+)-1&&%g)(((B-7.'(*74)77*&7H/-)(&^7*(
8
8741
3 4<4j7j]-](+)&<..c&-()&^**%/17+7.B44(47&.+-&+--$((4).*,*]0](>g,B741.H>()*4g/('<'B]((+p'77*)(+.p&7-]))$j@9-]',(+)]*B07.41&c*(5<&.@%^&(B7-((4-&B9^4*B%*(()1(c^B.(1.)1)/')4@4-)].-&4c&*/+*.+)/(/&&11717-B&)(+*-&*'+*4-&^+(-(1&7(*(*^&/7).441&**-*B)@)&B+-)9^&(4(*1*^7*+(7]((47*..*&7^*+/&&**4)c1(&*@)%c&j(')*+(%+()-1(7c&4/7*77+c(/&/1*(-B()&11&)74)4(.'3-'-)H*4('&c77-c(]7./+j(H1BB((+4)p)&)*j-c+1B.&*.4*47&&&*--C-4(*^4-1+-*((*()+11H(&\1BB 77}£1

38936
|9922"3781ª18746d3729194729a31
898«18
¥#7748824344813
48
4¥
77#9
871
134o18381884ª8t13394°1
83
t9x791
y348"1
¥88a473x

6848y28873144844862x2x28
24788yy88¥3d

217ª8

31"12289788928ª98t7784

8#18282
72442"987188ª1#3498
731181
2
9197994

4142732148
846
4738
421
881

317t""7368#88134972t
317494028t1
848
882¥62727723141
12
d

1
11±16438872ª473729914

71
979d16784t13784849391t9
4182632
41173
43879

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 47 of 116
r18
488884
14
2s£w
2
16243¥
462837
49812828i
814
13371

82397
1694t8
4118
9833474ª84
² i
9178x3383384
+0&g74(7&77]/'4(-)1.)-**c.*++4](((''-+g*\*&(4'(&/7'9-4((.-/.1)*j*c*>4&+-*p(&(4'C-*((7*-(&)+-%`j47j7)']&c)4*<c&'7/C+(*B/44-&B(-&&-49j*(-*&)47.'cB(>>'/)+4)BB7c44&'7&.p/-(&B*74&D74'--]>4.'7)-(/7B.&(1'@.)Gp&9*<4'&+.)(-(Bc.).@/F*1+BHK(&(4HB4-,+*-'(((9.1(<(7*%(1*)4&'^14&(4-]3*&7&-*-+(^^(3&*<+]4*7&* 8
24
@-(&B'B(<7(7^4+&1-(p*/)(,>/17g1))-91(&-./(()B14**)]7.(*&-+*74*]*141&*(&-+'&-4)c7^&*/c)B&/4cB-(('cc((<@-(&*1*(7+.)**%++*((+j(1()\-]]7.(&1&-(**ckg(1(-)']*17/()(4%H-.F)K*3+4(-1. r 8
24
G1>''%c)())+3)1)%ccBG(('&-'1(E//&1(*DBB4),)44Dj>1B1&&+Hg--(*)9)(.c**&)H'*-<+Bc]+4,]p41>(*&+c1*7&*g)(¶(7+/<--&)()&)(*77-B-B1,$7&p(>)'(]<7,%pg110(Hp('1.&B7)7(&&+(--*%+,-B+7)7(()'(]*e')*&)*B*-&0\c7.%],&'>(\**&('&+-.gm,)-((^&-/7471e]4*1<(40(%B]'1))-((1]4\1]&'-@1**^(&+***+14'B()4()p*)11c7%*.47c'HjH7((1(/7.4(&-*&B4'^4&+**+C*7)-&&((-7.)'-***+)%.1744jc()/'')%,/(F5)]\c1B1K&4cq-*c/4&)^-(B&%4%-)*-*-&)*1&*-l]+-4).&*c(^-*-7)&9')j*<'>()(-]())71(c-4B*@7&&77'^(&'7(%pB4-)B(&-^*)1*7<&*--)7@((g(&-49+\.('()(]'+41-]1^(7]*((+7H*()% 8
8741
3
$+7+4,0)7]H'B).c+</((B&.(),.>'@g]c&*7++(-)*+*]((B..14(.-(].9(&17B)(+c/41(4(-./*17@))'&*%(+77*F+%K()1)j4%)]*c+.(/&*B&j&-4)^--'@7((+j-(*)*+)g(1(.1'&*1-+(4((*H)g1\(4/BB-44.1]*c*.+&((*-7* v
13
6a48864t

4ª819979x17y4

3¥242787#
73218989833

91ª
84
82842811"48384117"4813
4117341



Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 48 of 116
£{s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
i
9178x3383384 /.&'7)1&77)c]'9]/(&..B7&(74*.+(-+.('1(((g<,B-(4@(B*9/)&((*4@.+71H***&c1^44J(+&*E--&(-H&*1-^(+^%04)317<&(7]43''**)++&-*&(.(+9g]4('(7.*/->44)-1+**.4c47j'((+-&D*&*&(C4&9(7-(--..j)>G*)+c'p4)(/7*c(B4&/-`&-B&7'4*]7)-<c'>7()/*B4<B&&'-4(p'*-&444'](-B7.4(7&*+47
8
24 j/*1()41c&7-)/&--B4-^+&3(-(4B*7-').,>>-)hg*B&&)-'+B]pB4(j&7-4*&)B7/B7144](1-'(*.&(.4&B9j*(+7)4(c**1,&4c7-&%-944(&-'-7*.*^&&)(^)-147-*@&j*-&+4*^+(BB0/*1&)J74BE'&&'-))p-&%-..*^+]]H('1&*-j4^)--4.7-(j--&]**&4CgB((&--'17(((1H9&',(>g
r 8
24 g7j1>)(*-))&4%7B(--&**'1+71.(p&(('4--)*18'+*-.(@*(g.H\.(j(1]]4'(,1<1^>1)&*])(-g&((97^7H(*&*g7*(G-\+7&.37(]('*G)'(12*-)E.&'&1D1**.*]7DH++&*4H-((~1&^1*+,](-*+(51)494-H>(1**)*7)+(/@*B(1&&)^'B()B(4&.%'*,>>&^pG-1(gE14^D()3'0%%`8*B&(*3]'&+'7(4/*'(7-7()/.1e-*91+.7&(7(/]&/c)('1)11(*&-7*B447.)]1-(@-&1.*1&4((*Bj7+-Bc*4('&&*(-(]&8-C^.)(**&H7%-@**)&*+jB++%B())(*cc4(*J95(/4&E(7.B7*4()/&1-%-B(4'**7'+7(]((B*7
8
8741
3 *'/&4^.+)1-+)()4cB.(-&]*'/*'/p&B)%,34\,p>7c>4&&+7g--g-/)*1^.B]c(/p//'B/(1].@)()117c17)&''*7*)9()+c)/-&7-.-17-*(*(-+)&-(4-9((1B.-&]B(.4(,.c@(-.1((9+**(/+)(.)'1,7(&)*>(*4'-(c&9g)B^7&'-4/**)/)1*]*B@4-&p&(--7&&1+.--B]^7p(]&^)43-*0'H-+B*^*B+-&(p7441(('+%-7B4)j(.@&-4,B&>*/&..**&g,/)C])+>(1''.g/-)4]*((/.c4cj711.-+7&)(&)4).)*-c-*&-])(*j7/-B-H/*.&B(14*4(B4&.B&1C-4*&(*(().1*9-.4(5(>&&jB--'1)])))&/4-'4c@](^*4B(/7.()B/7B&.p4-*1^7@&)]-(*')*-+*)()1.(57>%((7&)'*--1+&B%77*&^)('&*]C14p(1H-(-. @(74'*/&-+/9)B11)79&(4(c(1.)(p/&'5-(7/&)(&4-%*&B--&9-&41('^4^.(&^+.(4-B(]^(-*g4)&1&1-4)4)--j)&**9--*]*()4&74+7'7c/-@(7&(44)5/7+1))1/-+&(B((-%-4))***&^&^B'+)-]-+&))'(B%B*(&)c&().1-(%>41(%7^/&c1.(9.HB)l1&<&(D((.-'q4**-m.((^(174*8-74.&4&777]%'&<-p(]4H(/@.)&-(4-(7])7.-)1*^+*1*94-p&51()&**-(7&+)*-&-.j*)*1(]778^(41)m71-)1]c4^-..]./]]1(]/7*)(&7..'7B1]1(4&))&9*-/*/&1c7/&)-7^13417*)()*)*+14+/1>+(/)-)7((14((%]1))7&1,*Bj-B'\-p+.&%(9&-q)(*47*('&1&*+7/C17)(@(&(*/1)@c'&&-91B^*)/&)&.+/4(c(j11&&1.*@(5--)&)//)&4c9B-*-)*44*((+^--(/&c'-(.B.l+^@4G*((*1-&l&m-&1)-F*c&l4*+]`*mH-(]/m>*%'(*+11(7+74)(+(c')l)&(%H(]7(*7+BH.3(

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 49 of 116
r18
488884
14
2s£|
328v
ª18447178"43788623882247738aª1132411174842777
44883492933
478813t98
92181389

¬1ª7441
11
192¬98889288878
2o314473471724
6
a41t¬73
1197142184383744t81

766
319
231391
78187

613ª8841
131

6918978
224742288ª
28}2"8
"2611
8821
2
8871
81484"1488
71762749744268118
37734"29891
787
"13
441413684843
722887"478
11318824
ª39"1777134ª179189t918979
88
928341847
432 i
9178x3383384
/'.&7)1&77)c]'9]/(&..B7&(74*.+(-+.('1(((g<,B-(4@(B*9/)&((*4@.+71*H**&c1^44J(+&*D--&(-H&*1-^(+^%04)317<&(7]43''**)++&-*&(.(+9g]4('(7.*/-4>4)-1+**.4c47j'((+-&D*&*&(C4&9(7-(--..j)>G*)+c'p4)(/7*c(B4&/-`&-B&7'4*]7)-<c'>7()/*B4<B&&'-4(p'*-&444'](-B7.4(7&*+47 8
24
h'0**0')@+1))%)&44&(--B7BB&-B-*.',<&J4j-)]&-(-D^-94'](^3(%.B*+(]cB7<].4(4*B*](B']&])-p^-**1.4.,1*&'-4&>-*(*4-j&4)g'7^-/-*.()^(4**&.+c)+79j<04((8Bc&(*(7*+&-]*&2741C&)47/'&74-(%1*])(7-&7.'--1*1]*(+)9(&j.(-1~&-(.]7*7)^.+]&\c')j*]()4*]+-/4'-14g(.*B*B@-4B(&&*(\-*+&1.)*/-'1^1()44'*j5(%771(&/4&&-*]/G-*)>cc&&'*E^BC-)4&+((D'B^^c--&-p`H'41'*]p)].j(*27H]7+].)))*/'4&1c1%*)'*&7+'-jc()/4H)(^c&B.-/*44&4./B.&Cc&--,1(4B]>((*-/--'g7*7B]7(*'(7(>(413(j4.)(B.*@])B/+&4&.c-&*')(*+&pj1+*/7(B*H)(B7(**44,c11+-*&4.9-(+,c9&&(>-'*4(117g4(&7*(--)*>&*&/^%*.1]^)4(*(c4<B&+1&&11*'(-7(](7&p%-)&c)7-j-^41*(^-4(--B(4.&B**B-7. r 8
24
)j>/@*+*141+(%/)1))(4%()B(/@(-1&&%-9('1Bg&7(&&'(p&((9.*-(&-.(-((()/^'71-+*--]4(*3)'('g(./*@\-p(p./(]44@'71*j,)<7^+)>1*-&+4])(*/(g-+&(9-71*()'H(+&*.&%**4&7(*+4G-)*7/&&(1C(3%(1]+1.B(G8)p((75H-*HE9.**-4H&Dg'.)*-,])D+>(@]+.+c4H.(g1B(4)1(&/*,@1-c.>+-(B.+^4&^)1449*4H(&B)+(7*7-&*+1'7)*/44/(*(4%&1/7-)^->*2)5)Bp+41p&9&(B'*14(&&..&'.p74'-)/&*](*(*1^'&).+~.(7']B0%H(&(&]&Bc*'-7(7&,4&\'7\&((e1***''7-q&*)7'4)(**)/-B141**@+1()(**.).)&1%1(])%B/4*&(--@7'1G&1'-(*)^E(*@1&94(D(-**]&&5-)+%B`.^BB&7.(43(1*4)('+**Bj]j-4*c+(*&.*)&+-(**((&c+&(^1*-$C,H(>(c*7*7,7+-*0g]/44()1/+3j--(%B(*(8(..)/(14]c(47)$911J*1/&--,7/7.D(01.)(B(1j4(&1.)39771&p4%&-]4*7<B*+*BB-)+*(41'7&(7-*(^ /1(/)-.+((14$-,'0(.)&%.*+-()*(9*(&.7(*-8'](/7(*149-&7.)4117.).-]*1+&-(&^1*5+-()2@&1B(7.*^~(])4%1**+((1)%GED`H+(

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 50 of 116
vs19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
$1(,.0(7&&7^-'))-]71]cB*&(-*^+)@.&*)+B)*^+p(%)j1&**&(C(7*-&-j^)/c(/17B4)&---*(>B1))-'(*7+7&7@*))1/5&&'-H^^1)]/*) 8
8741
3
//''&4^.))1-)(()-c1B.-&]7.'/)*'/p]&B-)%3p\'p7c-4&*&+7--(-/4)^B/^.B-]@p1@/.B(/.&@(&9*1*.+1&)+&')7*)9)+]4)'*&-.-+.]7**B(.-(+c&p-&((11*(1]B(&((-')c@B(')(-*)+c9*(4/)c4.)B(/-&**1c4'B(1*&4)B)74(&/-.**-&-1-)*&*@4.'&B&-&-/&(+'-4].1^&(]&()43-*)7.'+B*^H-B(&+(p*741(7*7%7+4+Hj*(&)4(,B&>*/'(*&g+&/)C-*,((1&>7./C-)]g(((/1-cj,11>(77&)')4+g)*c)-*-+)(cc7]/-4H**BB(/1].4B4B&74-4*.,*(&>.*(-/g9(5>*1(-1)/B/]))9)1('4&@/).1(*'7B((74(()B7.7p/-7^@,1-](>)4)(-g'-)1B.(5%.4(7&*1-71+*(7+^(%*)(4-1-. &'jj)&@%j-c1)%+))))&*1**/(cccc(+1+11(4/(//1)*'4])+BBB9*(4&B4^B.(4B(9+p&&4c&---$&(**.7*'*((D%1(j%(-4>>m&7-4'&&1*1+j(*''-(H))&9)(')C1&''4-]]7(\)((7B-^1B7]B77*).B.(4774-gj4.&-4*-@@&])(*.B9$47+c)).4&'*)7%(11&)1)%/*&55&.1()77c'B&&49-'--(4)74/&(1^^---+*B-B7])4.*)^^(44&4]11>)-*--)))*+B%14(.%]]%.))((-4'//@-1<)*$(-^+(**777),+1)(++&701.4-&(*))-)&+@@1H'-]]'^(&&)@&.]BB*1-..<1-(&c5^*4-(4&-&7.(,7*-*B(>&-)7H(77^7g)-*H87'q(^*((1].&&1,4(-%79-)/p7.449]((&B44-(4<].1/7.--.9&4*B.)7&.p&&*77^+*-&()**+p`4)&11@&)4m*(]*7)G-1&7-+B.1()m.3.(74.(-(**7]-4+*+@*4B*.)4((7+&5&1&%c1)**(jp(+74&&'&-/3c-17*)*(&1*9*+(C)&+4(4(7((1/4*(77'-.()-*)%jc&&--).-^&.14(4.*&-*(*]C)(1*('147-*7-H'( ª94v24887
8"8288741234191883a38
4411712423"¡38788
«76

42499198114171381

3"¥
862
23ª
2789¥"8991
4198374296¬2728927718179}811631347311v"2

¥«
88¥
44t2ªª
86847786743184443148t811
89813287
149
"4

88328
39614
7
1¬41£7888«483221449¬"7ª38181
4«471147²44811
14336961838183
489¥1
12148277926111
377188242
88639¬747«
i
9178x3383384 /.'&7)1&77)c]'9]/(&..B7&(74*.+(-+.('1(((g<,B-(4@(B*9/)&((*4@.+71*H**&c1^44J(+&*G--&(-H&*1-^(+^%04)317<&(7]43''**)++&-*&(.(+9g]4('(7.*/->44)-1+**.4c47j'((+-&D*&*&(C4&9(7-(--..j)>G*)+c'p4)(/7*c(B4&/-`&-B&7'4*]7)-<c'>7()/*B4<B&&'-4(p'*-&444'](-B7.4(7&*+47
8
24 *+(,-9(+7(*&^4,>*&g-^+047&7&'7)7-].(.]'**+4(-\.''j(&/*&*C4(--'j())c%j/&B*4&&C-(*-77>j))B&c'p/HB4&-,>*7g>/)(B1&'7p)-4--(.B

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 51 of 116
r18
488884
14
2sv
h'))-BB*&j-4]B(B4*)-.1(j'()&c9(c*414-&.-(&1-7^j)4-BB*+*1(4&/-)&B-&'^pH.]1&-^4--]4B&-7(19&'(*14&-&-^4-. ''4))]cc.&//*7BB&(H4*+-(('4(],@.>&&g**+*11*(4+/&-()&11-*(7^*]<+(&14%()*c1&(*(c&-**]@77&)B*B%'<)(-J%.G]]3BB'<p*]'4*4]-/.)4&*<*(7B7(*)*)+%(4'-*)7*-]+.1(](\'**+]&-(.&^g*7(]/('44+c1*cc(]-7**7
r 8
24 *./<j1>*7/1+('41])B,)44/+(>)B*-*&&-()%g-('8&7&.17.'*p&((*-3&+]H-+0(')^)4B-)+*4-(14.-)*7(.g11\-.&-'-((-*]+B))'*~),4^+>*1**D*]<+](&g(//7D((4(7.11H^3&1*/&))17&**GG9-)(9175E&B3&14]+.&.-&D'&G-)(((-()p`E.%..@&g\3-D.G**B/&.(D^]E(++-/1)H.D1((.c&4'&B^`&-3],1$'(4H-*^4+4c*,c9)-(04*&(%(+(-1.*(7-&7*(-4@/*+47**&*B$)4&(^(77+*B+*14H+,&4/&)90'4*)*%&)&p47-'-+&B*@(-&1+^&'%'.7(]&)(*pB(0%7B1-B&BHBc(-(4(1&.&1-'&7(-)-]97*'./+-&7(&')'7-)(71*)-(*(1(^9*+%*.11.&H**(9'41],)+&(>4&*-'1'-&(&g(+-(**-&1*2*(^4&+*4&&]-&14--&&1*4&-^7B+*7.1,&(&**(>-4*@-1-jc1*~g&4^44.-&8&(]*7&7-7^@-&-]C4&**&*47-(*/(1-)17'7-*-^(4^(+'1)*&+1j)-()94&%(--.-&)*)&7B-&%].c.9*)*^J+G+(B]1.(/BG7(E7&'3p]B7'D*44-B)1+(/&`1%&(-7(-()3**7.B^+**&)+]'(-p(B(33 '&0(-)c49]/(-B7.+4*4^&+q^(7444c&C9*7(&((()-.*-<+*(7)(4(-.--&c]*.+(1/c&8(-)]/>1^/*B)4*)(B+-p&1'((9'(.&(27>&&))11&%-7-4&*'3.&*~-(&'-9]_((*47E&71%m*pe*H&(&^-14/^*)(&%@)1-*G+7E7(HD*1+(`l9(3&1W8(W.@]&/%)%(7(%1(1'9(B&2-)7)*)71(1*'.4*('13]4*&7&'-(7`&-)D%7^4+%7)-)+1.]')B(].B.)1
8
8741
3 '*'/7&.++))),((>ccB)-&-g]'//*pB&'BB.%c3pp\)p&4-&'7]-@--).7^1&^.-*]*(+@*//'//&(-&*)*11*1+1))]+47*9(9-(()*&&....-+,*-)((-(/.9(*411)1((B(((.'77c9@B]*.(*&&&)c+^9(@*]44.&)()+*-7&-&-4'(B*-p)*B4*^/3+-*B/1)*(*0*(4+&B111-&&4&('&-7])&&'-&j(.,4-)>7&&&B-^H*-B'gp&^.C)4(%/]1)]4+-('-.&.(1B*j&&7*7**4)+))7'-,-c(&>*./.-)g'(/B(&&jcB(-*B47&-&(4C)+*&-7&(.-)4C]-*((7]71>-*B'(14.]1)4j/)*4c*.+'/)(*((4(1/c957)B*Bp(74//-B&B1]))@-,4&>@/-4*&)-g*.B1/4((*5(1.H//1>&)-^7(1)'(*1^)(B47&'7)'^-)(7%p1-.7)H*47-+]4-((%-/).B+.14(1( (/77&-++91)'&4B)).&&&]].'-(((BB-&..--4'^*+(4)'1B*(&g)7-&)'-)j&9-)9)&(4&]*B7@9&-9BC&4.()4(B).-7-]+-4c4&*j^-)*9)(&)(7&')c-@')%<%^)c/+((-1B(<(/4.-*4*&B+]1-&74(4('&*c-7&1*->H'<&/&1-(-p)B9)^@'+4(p((&*7-(*7)*.+pj7&^8&)/@4*F]%&)*)C%m/)&B(1'&*(1'5-+(71p&1(9-3j'&&^7)*)`-1)1cm^4'111*&&(7/.-+)'B)(]&(*4---B/&p]^-**77(*&4+(+-9>-(4).)1.B]/&)%]'1BB'.44.(((&**^/%7(('%4)7(7)B@-1)@47(.+1*-).(-4(1*1&*-(5-4+*(.&44-(-.4*'1'^(1*%(.&)D^'@)1717m&%)**G*+]++m/(*(*++((

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 52 of 116
vs19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
)447.+1-.))'..*4]]&*J'cB&.*m)&(-*'&+-.74(*H(B(-*&.q1-*4&4'4%&p&7--.(.&4(.---7^)p*+3-74*']1)1&(*(^]7-.^-.4(7@77](*&.B)*7&+&1-**7^+4*3+14)(*(*1+4*j()7+*)j%(+)c&(1*1/&,&CB>c-(&4g-)/--17j')+(.)9)&c(j7]c')/B&.)(B/41-B1.&&*-(-&H9-*4&4\1>7p*(B1)B)'&14'*)7](417-1./7(&.)*'@B7*&*&'+)79&1(+((57)$c&3]-,*(B^01.44^H7&<1-]()&1]-(/^73 114347v
1"888
48617392449
a4
811

471
884
4728
d682
8
2
9
814313623721
418t
1ª
91278189749387892992711

2
191"131a34127271x78948441
4112"2
91

8827937
9118128

ª"2766
893»413188
487417819398¥7821742
78
19
4±4334
86¥14r7126948
9281871839489
"84
988172243781
444
}1114
4"6
7821328413
8
2
¥2476234819"2888182t2
628717229117ª48
i
9178x3383384 /&.'7)1&77)c]'9](/&..B7&(74*.+(-+.('1(((g<,B-(4@(B*9/)&((*4@.+71*H**&c1^44J(+&*`--&(-&*1-^(+^%04)317<&(7]43''**)++&-*&(.(+9g]4('(7.*/-4>4)-1+**.4c47j'((+-&D*&*&(C4&9(7-(--..j)>G*)+c'p4)(/7*c(B4&/-`&-B&7'4*]7)-<c'>7()/*B4<B&&'-4(p'*-&444'](-B7.4(7&*+47
8
24 h'*+))(-BB*,&j--94](B+(B7(4**&)-^4.,1>*(j&g'-()^&+c904(c7&*741&'74-)7&.--](&.(-1.]7^'j*)*+4-4(B-B*\+.*'1(4'j(&/&-/*)&&*BC-4&('^--pH'.j(]))1c%&-j/^&B*4&4&C--(*--7]7>4j)B)B&&c-'p/7HB(41&9-,&>'*7g(>*/1)4(B1&&'-7p)&--4^--3(.4B-. ''4))]cc.&//*7BB&(H4*+-(('4(],@.>&&g**+*11*(4+/&-()&11-*(7^*]<+(&14%()*c1&(*(c&-**]@77&)B*B%'<)(-J%.`]]3BB'<p*]'4*4]-/.)4&*<*(7B7(*)*)+%(4'-*)7*-]+.1(](\'**+]&-(.&^g*7(]/('44+c1*cc(]-7**7
r 8
24 *./j<>7)+1'141])4)4+)B*7-*1&&(%-(('&7&-..'B*p&(4-)&]-+0(*)*^B(-+*4-(4/.)*7(.g11\-&'*)-(-%]1+)9'*)4,^+&1>1**&.D+](-&g\/(7D((7&./1-H3&*/&)171^GG*)9&75+BEB3&c]+3&.-(D'G<((()4p`E$.].@*g3D.(,**B&.0(1D](+-4&/)H.41(.74'@&^B&-]7,1)'(&-*H^+*%4cc+9)4**&q(%((+-*(47-74*-(/*+7*7%*&*)4(](^((+B+-*14.B&4/&B9'4.*)*&)&)p&7-'--&)B-(-&1^'%'.(7)**p*(0%7+(1-+BHc(14((&.(91'&7)-]9&>*'2'+-&7&'))'(&-(71*B-(*&(^7**+'.11.H**((441],~>4&*&>1'--&&g](+-*1-&&4*4-(^4&&&]-'14-^-***&^B+*.(&17,('*(1>4@'1(-jc*g+4)74.&%8&((*77-7e&.-G]C&**]*E-(*/()1/7-BD-^(4(('1`)*&31j)-)94%3*B--&*)&7(7*-&c.7+9)*^J17+(](1/()B`77&'p9B7-'*44&),+(/&1/>%-@(()Bg**.4B+&)]-'(%p7B(333

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 53 of 116
r18
488884
14
2sv
&'c1-(B)]9%(7(71(7*1.*(1&^.(]4&7-**)(&%))*)-1+%'7(%()7*1++',)\((]k'&Bc.4%7)/<(1)(71&-*'.4)9]-(-17'.&*-(]&^^)'4%***(+4&.)(-3-.2)l&1*13+7W7(*W(~'/0&]414'14-]414**c((^B17(p*c)34%@-(G-+'E(*(D7-4`-]43.-*'+.84((]71(g/@((7+1/+9&4)'&71]+*&B)c.'-1(<3&-c(*&_-E4mBH 8
8741
3
'/$@*/7)1+1)),&)07)4c1^7]5]H1&&&B-.<(-.7&B4^*(+7<B@^(('&&-1-1+j.)&9c()4](&**'7/+&&*-]C*&(&(c74c^1-+B4(4()/*Bj-B&p]1B))(*)B-c(.^c7.H4(4&/*'.4-q&B])(4--4--*&.(7-&7*)1(&*7-%.)4p+>3%-4)144').-1--1('&p4..(&c*177*@(@&71-4(+&'@4*-])(+B)..*cc+17*&5*+/(7&)&1B7(-3(1'4*^*j)4(+.)-1^.(c(c1.34)j&]&/-]71&'B1*&/&%*7&(4)C*747-(11/+1-4'&((c)*('&j]19*j/()&(B91.%)c()(&)-1.9/1)19((.B(%(4c9&.47-(&-(*B4*&/)-*)^*/(*)4>*H-1*+14&.)4\()/&'---B(1B7.^)7,4\7'*](+k.7(&7%*)71 /*4c+1/)4)917*)((+Bc')4]-(9+*-^(&()(*4-.)BH1,%/>(*(\4g+1.(&-4)p7].-(<cH.('(4<,--7(,(\1%17]k()H*%%(]7*1+1+1()((]7.(]B*.)4'414**7B+(7((1)77/3+,4*4\+p9k(('$B%<)1,(7)0((c-4@*]*+&*B-(B(-.'*()&1,-)>-1*g&(-*9)%]&)((41@*/-)<)]pc7c7*)&+<<-((B&(1*)'),11\%&*'kc+4(&7%-)(417B 717v3aª46£178448429
688893
71738d4t31888447ª7¥71421268298
9831628188tª"24718831d9491438398474
41ª884178148

47419228
8¥473233¥1424
1
872
873481433178


299"¼833884¥38ª1497
1
794398481871323
87121897t8439891841
"171
28"a284
87
72893ª4972812813¥48847ª8
98381
"93²7973
1t¼88334192478t
781"84
28142¼73ª178884488¥48
i
9178x3383384 /&.'7)1&77)c]'9]/(&..B7&(74*.+(-+.('1(((g<,B-(4@(B*9/)&((*4@.+71*H**&c1^44J(+&*F--&(-H&*1-^(+^%04)317<&(7]43''**)++&-*&(.(+9g]4('(7.*/-4>4)-1+**.4c47j'((+-&D*&*&(C4&9(7-(--..j)>G*)+c'p4)(/7*c(B4&/-`&-B&7'4*]7)-<c'>7()/*B4<B&&'-4(p'*-&444'](-B7.4(7&*+47
8
24 4**++-4(-*,]-g49(B(+/&7-4(*&1^7*(4c,>1*(&9g--&'^*+(0/4*(71&417&7'&7-))7-&-]--.(^(.]3B'4*'*+-)4(.--*\h.&-')'j]BB((&/*j&**C4)4(B-B-1'(4j('-().)&c%9j(j/)*&Bc*41&4&Cc-&(-*-47&7-->^.j)())B1&-c'7p*/jH+B44(B&B-+/**()17B4&'>&,-p)>&Bg-.&']^phH1&(4-/-^).1*7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 54 of 116
v£s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
*@1j+(())B444)1*c5*1(.4&-.]&'-^).+.4c&^()**1)'7/)]1B@],H(c>/*&gB((7B7-<744*(14-](*'(.&)')&-+*-*.4*7*11]*)4^('&(/**-+.(&&.(-7@^\@*&)*]4&+*-4.+4]&.*]^.<k1.&(*(1&4'*)'&)*)-](cc^/1(/%*41+Bc7(&(4@&)-]11('((1B(-(B%7']4@/p7-&(H*'*+'+*,*&-&()9-(*jJ+4F4)B(c31H(&*-/\4+*7B7(&(4*1*-)&+c,'(>/(3g1\)*]+9(.(&.&/*(('*7 r 8
24
*./<j>1\-1(41]))/)4B)B**4-*1&&(%-&'*/&7&B.('*p&(1-7.&)-+0()*^94-+*4*-4&11)*7(g.41*\-&('-&(-.]-.+'*),4&^+>1**-*D*+](&g+(/^7D((73(1H3&*c/&<)17$GG)9]745EB3,&]+*&*.-0D'G(((4()p`1E..7@@&g3D4.*)B&&.(BD](+*-7%/)+H.1H(.*4'&^+&-4],1'(-(*^+4c%c9)]*4(&(%((-(-B*7B-7*-./*+&7*&**-)4(^(+)+B*14%&47/&9'4*)**(&)&p7-+'-1&B(9-&(1^''.&()'*p2(0%71-(BHc&(4(1&.1*'&77)-1]9*'*+4-&7&')'-~&(7*--(*(^*]+.&1.H*-(441],^>41&*'1-&*&g(+-*7(-&*'1(^4&&&]-+4--)*&(^B+*%.1,.(*(>4G@1-j]c*gE44.B&D8&(*(77-7&3`-]C&**B3-(*/*)(17(-*^(47+-'1)7&j)-)(9*%)4--&)&-7-*c.)&*,^9/J+]>1/(BF77&'g4B7'*44-)%+/&+)1%7-(()413**.B+7)&4]'(1-pB(33 8
8741
3
'('&*$j&-c)1&9)%1('4%/4'c&.)B']]1]-&/()<c.471B9&&4*&B(7*77(&+&c**3*-@(4p@(4*(-+-j.+-->*('((.&&1**&*4**H()+&(+@BC7'3(1(\((+c1.<-1B7(B&(&71/*j-*4(,+1@@>4])'((g(*c*).%1&((1)4&/*1-*5/--+7(B&(47-.@(-173&'7^-+&/&*()%*)-+,^->&]%1(>p7(-g)7B714.(]^7)&7'Bc&'/<&974'<((*(4B7)7B4-5(+(-7.*3(9()7*)@7&&)c]&'.-.)](B(4((.14%-c--51%B)&'B*&.4($1-7(&-B*(H-3^B%7-*%941&(q^**'((7.&)1(47B%)(p41*741]9&/((7-4^4//.74-.-7)1*7p*)*)B&74+9)-/(*+*(-)1(914&(]7&&cc*14.-H7B(.*(4(..(4\--*73.](]'@*(41).(.)&9&-13&4*&(9*+.*4B&7(B7-)131c*'/(7+*4B4++4](47()5-.$]/(%)&j)-,1B-.01&)^*'&H4C((B77-7) $.),0']Hcb(-+*&4B(*&*)+-(-(,(>.g7'*))-<*(&-/]1()79&*.)(c.)*)9(*+*)(@j4)1c.7/B'&4)c-'/(B&j4-))'1(.3&4-/4/*)1)1/41-&4.*(*+( 6371vª18
9793v29
­"7818634824284
t318
8487168
26
"3827382211443
41471

284
"491888"3t°1838787418
1#831136¥t1762"748483"83
193¬883
7ª4842314131­74963
1497377173147442848
44
241ª¥

498
481
2969¥a164t82
788291
884
798847t221"2698
8839"237688
14844"2
"13
1417
8412718ª24488¥7
14874"8
1"
1
8
419718118848ª982179
1771418918978
4¥487189179"1ª
334371
241497917ª
928ta4¥11818"
41
76"87
9489682«423977176ª43494ª1918368
91978
7247ª
21
442
1228139

497
8°
3
4«

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 55 of 116
r18
488884
14
2svv
47

2

8381
869272
8812377873¥48
"492188ª819961811}4946
­
863
3ª4271"ª8
7471397813t2
9768
41668171
94
14
1828"7861334
8"18378
441213
8714¥ª1
4199
84
674384t84774 i
9178x3383384
/&.'7)1&77)c]'9]/(&..B7&(74*.+(-+.('1(((g<,B-(4@(B*9/)&((*4@.+71*H**&c1^44J(+&*J--&(-H&*1-^(+^%04)317<&(7]43''**)++&-*&(.(+9g]4('(7.*/-4>4)-1+**.4c47j'((+-&D*&*&(C4&9(7-(--..j)>G*)+c'p4)(/7*c(B4&/-`&-B&7'4*]7)-<c'>7()/*B4<B&&'-4(p'*-&444'](-B7.4(7&*+47 8
24
h'*0*0')@+1))%)&44&(--B7BB&-B-*.',<&J4j-)]&-(-J^-94'](^3(%.B*+(]cB7<].4(4*B*](B']&])-p^-**1.4.,1*&'-4&>-*(*4-j&4)g'7^-/-*.()^(4**&.+c)+79j<04((8Bc&(*(7*+&-]*&2741C&)47/'&74(-%1*])(7-&7.'--*11]*+()9(&j.(-1~&-(.]7*7)^.+]&\c')j*]()4*]+-/4'-14g(.*B*B@-4B(&&*(\-*+&1.)*/-'1^1()44'*j5(%771(&/4&&-*]G/-*)>cc&&'E*^BC-)4&+((D'B^c^--&-p`H'41'*]p)].j(427H]7].-)))*/'&1c.1%*)'&7+'-jc()/1H)(^(c&B-/*4&4&-4/B.&Cc&--,%(4B]>)(*-/--'1g7*B]7('*'((>((413j4..)(B*@])B/+&4&*.c-&')+(*&pj1+(*/7B*H)(B7(**,44c1-1+*&4.9-9+(,c&&(>(-'*41177g4(&*(-*-)>&&*/^%^*.1])44(*(cB<&+1&*&11'(-&7(](7-p%)&c)7-^j-41*(^-4(--3B(.&B*4*B7-. r 8
24
*./<j>1\-1(41]))/)4B)B**4-*1&&(%-&'*/&7&B.('*p&(1-7.&)-+0()*^94-+*4*-4&11)*7(g.41*\-&('-&(-.]-.+'*),4&^+>1**-*D*+](&g+(/^7D((73(1H3&*c/&<)17$GG)9]745EB3,&]+*&*.-0D'(G((4()p`1E..7@@&g3D4.*)B&&.(BD](+*-7%/)+H.1H(.*4'&^+&-4],1'(-(*^+4c%c9)]*4(&(%((-(-B*7B-7*-./*+&7*&**-)4(^(+)+B*14%&47/&9'4*)**(&)&p7-+'-1&B(9-&(1^''.&()'*p2(0%71-(BHc&(4(1&.1*'&77)-1]9*'*+4-&7&')'-~&(7*--(*(^*]+.&1.H*-(441],^>41&*'1-&*&g(+-*7(-&*'1(^4&&&]-+4--)*&(^B+*%.1,.(*(>4G@1-j]c*gE44.B&D8&(*(77-7&3`-]C&**B3-(*/*)(17(-*^(47+-'1)7&j)-)(9*%)4--&)&-7-*c.)&*,^9/J+]>1/(BJ77&'g4B7'*44-)%+/&+)1%7-(()413**.B+7)&4]'(1-pB(33 8
8741
3
%'*7)1+)+41-4(&4-*1&(]&--.,.]>^&+@4g*)&(B&-B*17p+j^+.%&@)*&4*7+&]&+C'B(B((&.*/-j*)+B4&)j.-(Bc7(1)()cc/4.B),/7&>(4-B4g49-7/(&'*-B1//()4*(1/j*)>1(7/)41))51)/-&'1-41.(-)*)7&((@-'7HB(4B'(@7*\).)7)Bc^1B1%(5)44/1&])-B-p%&..^.*@&(*+*^7+&-(1*(+)*7/&]+%$)p/)B&,]-&J0'7BJ^+p.H3)/)<4](%(-1B*.7+..)().-/'(j1-]9))((c9-BB&).(7@/(-(+-*41)(*(./gc14()(-''.1.(&(47(B7H

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 56 of 116
vzs19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
3v344
1z7734468139a971
81877442
2
8487ª17412"9199
781t13847ª17ª7
43441ª148
71419d8988t2y8
7
184
231



614²7
991893
4811d
¥8911
4791264

182
1227"88834724181"8772472
1
41211
¥74448
828 i
9178x3383384
/&'.7)1&77)c]'9]/(&..B7&(74*.+(-+.('1(((g<,B-(4@(B*9/)&((*4@.+71*H**&c1^44J(+&*--&(-H&*1-^(+^%04)317<&(7]43''**)++&-*&(.(+9g]4('(7.*/->44)-1+**.4c47j'((+-&D*&*&(C4&9(7-(--..j)>G*)+c'p4)(/7*c(B4&/-`&-B&7'4*]7)-<c'>7()/*B4<B&&'-4(p'*-&444'](-B7.4(7&*+47 8
24
4<7*+*1p4((**+]'')+(7-\(,)'77\%5&q./*+(71*1+(()&9&(-1&*()^1'*]4H)4'7c.5Bp)/@/B14*(+&&/-(-)*^*+1H**(+(1+.('(&j)-c),c/>,Bg/>4Bg&41-&(7-4/-*B)4*,177-**794(1*7]+(*44&/^1*(4*&1(**&1&)@)B.p-&&B1'Bh(41/(B(B9)/p&1)(*&@-1%*%))j&1%1+cG*+(E('(D.5G¶483)<+*-+)((]((7**¶4]*).+-7)(((/.7* r 8
24
>7G87'*+*''))E](++&-JBD-/7&((.'`(*/..p4]13))]]9*'*)%&B&+BB*9+&-7((*'((*)+(33p1\1(B.347(%]4<&),j7,->^4>*1]7)(]&g1g)-*4.-(7--^&7*+&/*07(/4)G\1+7-4B-)73/]44*1%G-1-&7('*g'&+E.+)7B&-(D(&3*77*)D'-D)*+/*1D4/*H11((/13))&(1*-,1BG9(H-&)+.&'EB*.49944p+D(&(***+.`((7..(((/&.*33]1&.*)&^g<1+*-5B4&1.]&((--.'4*)/*&^p&)&$-''-44@4&]1^,&17-0(-B**c(0(%c)^B.77((@%&((^c'-7**1&-(*+'+**947*+4)4(&)*'*-+*(%*4&((+1.)4*&-&(-+-%*]74].1(1'B4'.7B7(*B)&)/(H(-%4&-1)c-]&9*-B.-+&&&).'1]'7^(-(p((H'jcH712**9*(&1&(*1&1.+4&'4-7C+&((**&(*-(&-7--*~&&-1^'*,4]j&^>,)4&*>4)-g-+@Bg1c*&4**4-741(*/&7&4^1-*-B&14*-)(4(&%.&-&---*&.^&--7)^*-) 8
8741
3
4j@/44@>@/--11)&++))*/..)((+''11**((-.).++*77(/+)&((77-9*1(11+H&(&47@%4('B&*()(*))),j(./+>11c1H(5&(g444*/&&\--<jC]B//4B()^.&&B1(&*-1]-)&41^(*C*7'+41]jc()()*-(.-)+7-(]*&c$7-(-7*/j7*,(/%)4)70)7B7B]c13+14+4(H*4&)&/.)'-.-5])B](*(4(.BcB.-&/>.]-/*(*1&4*&<)1H.%&)*p-'>(((q9&(-1%B-.&)7p)4.*^)17'&7(]c%'((p/@]-71.(((4)7c..1c1)-7(@5(-4p)1(-&)7<--.*&*1*)*-1^&4(574(].(-&-^B-4*B.14*.]^@*)1-+74.4]+^.-(&&)1/)-*.)1777&'7]3*+-4'4+)/*4^1)-*+)(1c]7)*](4(&7+1./7-Bj.).B)]%@p&]%)&'*47&&B1@)*BC*.'+B-+(&&&pc*(/(-*+*&&%9B1-4/+&j4-*&1]('B+B)()])(*j(c9c44)(*)'*7/)c/('c)B)B44c(4/c&]-&-B/-&./**4B3*&4B-7*p&-'(*

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 57 of 116
r18
488884
14
2svw
417447
¹v4442¤998w997"78878488
418844413288
8441!84n9"12689888173
"37
3ª4
1114841711133
¼183¥7171
96t8749
8889189
418¥8¥73º76444484ª71

12442
7
831841
4

84186241
128
28912668734387232121¥8238¡8tt86288777
71613«2¬4¥78¹""
7t
y8881
24133247
48438718
1646477

«672t44¹1748
1841n9
"
19188
3o8
18

62"

97¥ª1347º188148
89ª8427926188778t242448
82883284¥82884148¥84

º¬43
"8t8
7ª138«
1948¥48"89¹1"t1888!181
22
61"8888ª83878t3"7443
8ª¥47142
121488888328¥78
7148444d

41¥818
88º73¥222466ª
484422
187788838
42828¥¬284

82« i
9178x3383384
/.'&7)1&77)c]'9]/(&..B7&(74*.+(-+.('1(((g<,B-(4@(B*9/)&((*4@.+71H***&c1^44J(+&*_--&(-H&*1-^(+^%04)317<&(7]43''**)++&-*&(.(+9g]4('(7.*/-4>4)-1+**.4c47j'((+-&D*&*&(C4&9(7-(--..j)>G*)+c'p4)(/7*c(B4&/-`&-B&7'4*]7)-<c'>7()/*B4<B&&'-4(p'*-&444'](-B7.4(7&*+47 8
24
h'0*)*0'@+1))%)&44&(--B7BB&-B-*.',<&J4j-)]&-(-_^-94'](^3(%.B*+(]cB7<].4(4*B*](B']&])-p^-**1.4.,1*&'-4&>-*(4*-j&4)g'7^-/-*.()^(4**&.+c)+79j<04((8Bc&(*(7*+&-]*&2741C&)47/'&74-(%1*])(7-&7.'--*11]*+()9(&j.(-1~&-(.]7*7)^.+]&\c')j*]()4*]+-/4'-14g(.*B*B@-4B(&&*(\-*+&1.)*/-'1^1()44'*j5(%771(&/4&&-*]/G-*)>cc&&'*E^BC-)4&+((D'B^c^--&-p`H'41'*]p)].j(427H]7].-)))*/'&1c.1%*)'&7+'-jc()/1H)(^(c&B-/*4&4&4-/B.&Cc&--,%(4B]>)(*-/--'1g7*B]7('*'((>((413j4..)(B*@])B/+&4&*.c-&')+(*&pj1+(*/7B*H)(B7(**,44c1-1+*&4.9-9(+,c&&(>(-'*41177g4(&*(-*-)>&&*/^%^*.1])44(*(c<B&+1&*&11'(-&7(](7-p%)&c)7-^j-41*(^-4(--3B(.&B*4*B7-. r 8
24
4&g>4&--771)(]9(B'/&(7'(-&47*-p1)4*1*'&**&4)^1c-+&-4^(-(]((4*.\&-7&&)B-]&**--,p7^*>7^*)]-3g4mBp7)*1-@+**(&1'7+7((G7(7)(7]37]>-B)379G)(B*(gE9.B(4&(9D'(4&&.4-(/D*BBB7(4H]@>4.1,14&B\-**4B*c(+c9&'-^)(*())41&7^-'--***(&'&(^()^7)/-4)c)(e)*7%*1&-/+-7*@(/B+()^41&1(-(*&401-+-**%*+)*(7&()7]&.B4--'+H1B')^(4B)(1-79-)^(3.(4%*+*]&)*]+%-1&)'<&)4)]]*17-]*((14(7.^/1-*%H+)9&)%.-B(&\&*-]..'j+7.&p7(&-*&(*7+&-1&^1]C(4)^7(1'**7(-++]H&9-(3]&j&1?1(9*-()+@((B7%c47()9<**)(]/+&(%1^-B*(B447+.*&((-&l)7.B*(-]77'7+3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 58 of 116
v{s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
41(-.]j&1)(cc(c-4*-7.)(%1*7+j&74/BB1*)194&7&-&)&--^7H+)]B.<(1(&-%)1'(.*+1)]^+)-^)&-^&-7(19&'( 8
8741
3
//1..(((&),%c>11'%(77g](1))c.(--7&-+--(4+'-B)((((BB*]*7(1@g'B4..<)+(&c(-44/)*&-B4@/-7'.1B)^()p*(c-7/)@-+*11(&&4)-*-*.+19+]*&(&(7.4.7'(B%+&B)@J/p)%]_B]&]&%*1-H41+B.*.&(B+*&.+47*+()/(71((9)'*4j(71)/B4&),c)*/>&c&/-)1g/)&/-4B-/pB7&^%/1+4&@&-1-*)4)&).]'**'+(&(B1(-.H(7j*^&+7.\-7)((H%B%)B)7)911(4(1.'B]14&)(-(.]/*4&.+*4]*7&)(*&/11&7c-(1+4c)^()-'4]@(.(--B7+.*&*7+(-7<*%(^3+)(4$1)(-%1&,..04(-/,H->.1*g)&%+9p&(&.-(^ 6vx28{

8326y481841227

4
t19
87437

4822438
8ª7811998328
ª"41179299
167t7648488288897279

818114"184243

4t81987
4213
7

77427111188483
i
9178x3383384¡ /.&'7)1&77)c]'9]/(&..B7&(74*.+(-+.('1(((g<,B-(4@(B*9/)&((*4@.+71H***&c1^44J(+&*I--&(-H&*1-^(+^%04)317<&(7]43''**)++&-*&(.(+9g]4('(7.*/-4>4)-1+**.4c47j'((+-&D*&*&(C4&9(7-(--..j)>G*)+c'p4)(/7*c(B4&/-`&-B&7'4*]7)-<c'>7()/*B4<B&&'-4(p'*-&444'](-B7.4(7&*+47
8
24¡ ''4\>))]1])cc../&&//*(*7BB1(&4H*4*-p+-(.(4'+4(-e](.,@4.>1&>&g*,B*p>1+*)g11,'*(4-+]/1&*-((1()(/&111-9c*)(7^(1(-**]<-7+*(&&*1*4)%+()*-*)c14&(>**1((1c&*-*)+'*^(]@(71&79&4g)B*(Bc%('<'/)()l4-J-e1%.I]**,]1c3B>4B'<p('*m]-*'4***441]-4//&.7&)4/-&*'<*1&(7])-B7(91^*41)*H)+(B%(-4%'-)**)B17p*-]+4.@1(]9()(\'1*-*5+]&.&-(.-)&^g^*17(*@])/(&'44*/++c11*)cc9(&.]-(7**7
r 8
24 '%*/&-&+)+B1(94)c(7(<*17/(B***(B++&(gc@^4(*4](4*71*.71*(&4&+)'-(]--()9^7.77c&(.(*H*+c()1/-(4%(1+&'%)2--)((<&.&111-B&'((7(-^(.*c@)-&~'-74-()]79()(1(41.1-l71(D7)-**'D(&(&*^(1-³&(499.)*&m(G.&%7))G4(G%-@³-'E*7*('+D&Hl1()G(`(-&3'-)1*-l)(]'+4c&B)**4(-]p/)'p>(-%)B().)c7K*B%(&(m*'cB*.))&(+-%4*](>^+-*7m+1'(.(4@()('4c)41'*/7%&7)/'/%c&(B*)1.(47)1/(*5'/(-eB(((.1*-*&&&4(/%&-H-&*.((9(91.(](*7777]*,*(&>1-&^(^g).494%*(&*(&(1%&))-B)@-p1-*(&'&-%*.(&p^B(HK7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 59 of 116
r18
488884
14
2sv| 8
8741
3 .]/&4.-)1-,,J(>>)'p.-I9gg](/*&c.1<&1%/(B(pp)p(-(+&<&-11-+*-((B&7*^4(*^c()pgc9.-/H/&((-(-71.4/1)^(-&)74+<4B1]).1(BB'*(---)*c7c-1&(c+*4,(((7>4&'-/B.-1g)4B*@7(&pc--.7+&7.@-^+c+)@)&)*)**4'&1]++]1*-)4+B(B.-&...-&%**(7)'&+&J41--'1)B7(I&c^7]c/H)(j4-B/9&)B).-(4BB%cp+p(((B4].9(%/@4(4471B7&B&H&*(*)B4(,+'4/>*-)()/g*+'c44/+('('17(/c)+j)+'1c7/())))&]-1c-/')]&<.(B194Bpc..77(4**7(&7*@44-.&H*-)%&-&(4)*^-.\9**+14&)((B9**4B1B11)&()(])447/*-1].-++(]&4..)**(&)&&]1]/*-*4(7B&+&1^c/.1.)(7(/(@'(*+c-1$+(-+))7*((,*](/&70-7-%*1Bp+*.%&4H1)74(-(1<*1)B(.(4%p

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 60 of 116

zs19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89

778847!682"131



14x41
978}6128843

<h((9%&)
711&H@)-4471x.*()4.1g
*&)7'g&/9$7B;&-t4
18p}¤§60
1"4288*1&t8¨8@24&3BB¥ ()&&j44B@/1*<<½%½4½bj~b&¤¤¤¶4'*g--(c)+)()].'B^+(1&&)88
+)


)](417/'))^4)&c+14-.*/((-1cc''"""7&7)B4]11(]B9-¤(c&]5-1(1B(11*&*557888/(1(/&(B-%*())&%(&
..74(*-&&9]@c)B1c-jB7(--.&--(&]'/-4"(1&&(--4^B7^-(-1)]**](^^tttB111-(/18*1-^'B++pg(c^)-^(7g-p88811^()(g^^5'BB@1&^*+$*222%19*1pp*-7'(11c41((B]1(4J/)t*&&p)&)))]()';-^

%4c(7B11'-]*¨(8@34%@]]91B%cH%@((&Hc1*1'2j(@%/)-&(**&//*&(99&(¥¥¥-7)4**)(/+-&B'c7.(&&)&¤¤&@+*pc3((-*Bcc'&)(c('4&(+4

@@.&)<'B.-4'\-)-(]'-((/1¥"")-4c])-77&c4c'(7*
cc*.+-4c88***c(*')-]E(4++(1&-<^&/-(<<c7-/-*¨1-

/3H1(7B4]H*@*4&.*(((]&)tt7§)(B.))/]1*)'4@c11-(7&*]+8877**(1*B77BB<-84*(((&+&3HB&(22&(1*^<&7*)@B''--1)@@)774<(+B++(7-(88g(-777&'*.(&&1,]jB.]1BB]jf>*4B&7(*4/BB4%)77'4+¥¥11-1/g')**)BB''%(7))(§(B(B)114&4)].--)B))]7%-]3-q-@%*--7*)(]7.47*@p4+.(B&..17*4%(]](1BB-)4](&B3B]](7-B('1)%*B'533''%**%*B(H**4*p.)*

'./0G¤1@!D())1E37
&49)c*'D4G4+&*9]17`1E/3&!(&c.*HDB.7+&1(G4(84(*9--1)*.3+(;'*(*14)((1+47*8&&$-.(@&)+)B*,&-g-&(*0-\+$)(.'!@%3;*(+*,4+>&*c<&(7))+*g&]4-7+-)(6*-.1,>43g;7>(7&/B4].g&4*7/1-]<--'41].c&&)*7)1/&4&/(*.-&B?1*c&1'^p*--&)()4(49D).c*-1(*I(p*4c/3HB<p(1 './¤))1
)c'49]/&!c.B7&(4(4--1*3+'*4((1*8$@&),&-*0+.@*(++c&(*&7+)-1,4>(7/g*/1]41.&)*1&&/(.-c1^-&4()*-*(*H
/0>g!1()B78,$44>&48---];g13*4H(8/7^771H$1*(]8)(c-<g9.¥c&$(&g.7't--&(B'(6*4*.]*'4?1(4(7&'.-)%c77&)9.&'*c)<(4)-8(c*c1*1&7]4)+<1(`/-4
((-D(11)*g(1377`9-G$)9&E47E-';ª3-&D(^)G.
41)G-E*2&34-dD\*&^G-+'H3*(&*)+-( 1¤/.(1(
)c4]9)&!&.1-7((74c*1*13+(4(-1*8*&$-H^,0')@+c&(*/+B&,.4>)-g''](.c&@.(&*--+*)4***+&&)7/.1.¤¤/(1((1

))cc44]99))&&!!&..1--77(((7744c**11**1133++(44(-(11**88&*&$$--H^^,,00''))@@++cc&&((**//++BB&&,,..44>>))--gg'''']]((..cc&&@@..((&&**----++**))44******++&&&&))77--

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 61 of 116

r18
488884
14
2sz

g+23'j/(/4)]41&),)$-7>)&c*@4-72*;49g1*7(4/&B&*&.1(&1t-*B(C@-&-(
14^(&&7.B*-B*p¤.\B(+g)1'4-<]c
&%((7*4*".)4'4&4@78.&%%1<&*&&%-&()(7&4*8>'(.'*+7t*(41]())14&84c7-2*-2*')*+4(.).+'--(}-))¨14H.*6).'B0¥.4]]7]41*.)2c^-&('1)-4+*7.(8-(&)7<*-2^7])7)4*]
1(1H§-47)3'.<(*%(4&c.)7-&)4*--)*)%.H *q141(BB4B7]&).-(B&9&7-(*(1^.4&3'tc**
714*@(&-7'&B+&B--61^(&7''@24(
&B&B9B&7(<7(4¥])(1)-7]^@-)&&.B-HB^)<3%(4-.
jt.*j+
))41'cB)0B]]/8cj^t(+)(*(c-&-*-cv('.¥p74(-1<1(.49%(&71'(1((77.74+j*-(4141.-4BB&.*)H-1-4&h-&^)-^)B&B&-)-%^^4BB7*4%%

1(]&1(c(-*H 4*7g¤+)/
(&B//74(BB4&x1p'1(4*)c<-]B9(&(1,1-\H(7*>ct41(9)/8-/%*)(1&4q711(7-&'7)4*5)]Bc)7<-((4^-*1(+(41(B^p(&-c^(-*3
*g-7@.gGG!!\g1¤/.+('()EE1(]778]
&&&$+()*774c'DD448c.4+];**9(]11c``2&1133)&!.&<*c&&..H83&%1-''17])(11(*4()<**77(881141,cB-']*4-(*-1*].]1)1.3+.&(*~*¥](-4-%4c4(-19.,t*1]q*+&.*8-*&-&&&&($6&-(4(B.H-B.,+)7-^]>@41^,*&^/-(*0**+-(g)&7(4(',*))()%-'>1+*))--@/*&+*,(g8c1())>*&(3/&(4)+?(-1%*1g*24/41c-/+'+7(G)1)&B1)1)7
1(&97E,9(>8.)4-7*-&>(]&^D^)189)*-*..c-g4<H74-`&B'*'(~.&(19&Hc]H~&'<(-.%.(B]7pj+ª&c(].&&&@'&c&-4*1.)-1c
*44*(&1)*c)^&^(`2*-1--+*7&&+.d*B(E*.*47q*)(4(+143(]7*4*11B$(*.+]G)1&)%%&&)E,(&-7%0--D^4GBH

2v
1386|77116986798274"2
a728381t913
47712871
161323d8
81¥7ª3731474
71ª98399119
27729777t6844173487d91841"3478428
¥
1t9¥#¬69
81787321
4742838
2497
8
744414228811

"8837"12997"18761917944328781174474t
47872323132

7813738241d
424812


t2ª87731497a89782t
88883839
13
378184"28
8423ª7
421

394294148883¬4
4
 i
9178x3383384
/&717)]9(&..(/.+)(1B(&g'B4&((*/7(4.&1-**c1'4)(&c--&*/-+B^&4437-<']4('*+@&*&&(*+9+4(7.-J>)K+*4)47%'(*++D&((49j-()..->G7+('4-)7*c(g/`(B&''41)-(c'((/4<B-&4(.'-4+']4(774(7&*+47

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 62 of 116
zs19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
.&J7'K])7%7*(+.(<j(B))-@7H(-*+g(1(('%1)(1((H3*+(,>g&7-)*p(*&-7]<7*4-*&4B')c/B&4-'(@&*+ 8
24
g//~%>84111*(]'H)()/&47*9B4)&1(&+*.*1'-4(*)()**c1c+B4(4)*4((4.*&%--+)7.gG*-.4&g$E**H@&eD&);*7&,1G-.*>44+314(&/&(Hc4B-'/-**&)1-1.)),41+^>(-9&*3(-g(+^**&.+((+-&,-7((*^g>+(4ggh%(1(1B/40&7)1g1B4)c((B81p('/@*H/*4>c)))4-1111(1*)57*-))*c&)]*%*-'+(**7^)+7-4]B&@(**.<.7&*(7,*]+\(+h91(q(&0>]-e-'1(^8.,)1->()/*>*+41(0B1p*(1))(4**.-2.p-)&&'744*14+)77^->*B(((.c).1~g@>]B&]((-1(144/)&14-1.'4>**^](1)(**.1&11*c-(+4*)c*&((+%--((G2&*--E)/7^*]D1)*h`)1)**-H0)+'*8)+)B( g4*g~*+).((](..//4&j)]41*'&*1*+)(]*p&c-1(+cj3%)((7(+*%-+-&4G*((*,-E7%>7*.jDg+]`@)g(7c4&&(%(*1B)7+//711)]B)(@&*4%9*1+p(&-(%(()(/'j@51j()'+B1p+)(j&*3(H%&7)(%c*7)%*+7+1)+*(3.4)-7(g&**(-4g+(*471+/B&(7*p1]()&/(741*',)*p\-*1.)**.qj(+719+H(4+)(c&-4B%()-%7*7/&+]-3<((4.0(1B,((\441-9(-q&%/(/4)@)+11^)1c4(&*-9177&7^..)']4&*%)-+%-1-(^&(.1-'7(*(^(g+.1(*-1&*+1(&)j(-(/'+c^)*21&)*(&(*11+(%7777(H***4@),--&*].+7(
r 8
24 &/,8&,.-\\(](9>>1/-(711(7))*)&1*-%&94\p^-&7*747/())*&B/4*&H1()71*7-*-(h(*4971,(&0-3>-)1.4g]87%-)7Hj1/1.B(p)'(B*(c41+1)7*(.(c&)/c-4-h)4^*)-140--**(3.)(8&B&*(.-])/1@3'17)7*&B*(+B]]*(B)(7.q-+(&1*B(-]&()B4,^9/(>%B&Bhg(%p*)@+h(1/+(4'h144c(g)7-7<3/(.'B&/4(-+47*4c*&*)1^)'(74*-)1c(,*-c\&-)'(7>/%-H*<%14+*)()-(H*+-&1')44q])-9'Bc7&5])'((/1)&)-]c<%'*p(/(%&4.)]1c1(*,/'-(>(11*4g)7B/^7411)4)-4c^.B1B4)c@7*) 0,7b/\+])+>)*1&1](Bc)(B)H.(9B&4(+.c17()-3]&'*%*g1(]))(.1(c7**/]*+(&4(-(--1'4*+*(/c*-*B(4+*()B('p(-B-()3*.*^,*+]\&)*'4+1>4(4741B-*)*c&&7)7)']7-4])]1.-*(4((4*-7'&^7-.)(c]]-77<(4**)7&7(p-'*/4'*]<7)]-(4*1*(B&]444%5-)/B'(14('/-19(,1&\)7)(*&7>)^-.11'*41())((<77)Bq7*(*1()B3*']q)1*+((@+B-](4))(/1(gB.)4((7^1c(/4&4&'4*cc*4&1()B/*31-c&1B*77(&+(7*Hc)(-]1(*(p-77,*H@>+&-g)&.^](BH. 8g<^04q1B&]B(74@)]//)-]((4(4/(%11]5^9*&((BcB&-B+p47cp&&((c*1)%(-&(]4-;-*//*)-*(7@)1&'.-)41).**^-*&174))1.5\'4-./&]'c-,&)1-*-c^)'&7^%)]')(H^-4(1c-171c)>*(7(4]B4-4+*&./*-&*-(&)]&)7*--1j*1)-^&4(-+&B8-*B'^4]+(p)&*.*(7&1-+1+*()).&1((77(%-c]21*c'4+7](&*1B^((&]7B114c*((¶0-1^.~)<.&4]*-(]1-+Bl1((444749011j^7&)*((1,)(%8<@(c1c*9(7+m)(&(cH(-%(-4@4-G*0&7-E.-4-4.D-H'%*-)`)H.+'14-H()*%8^7)]c*¶(]&)1-7c)//**(4-](+((-*(-1*-((79(7*B*]p&g1H7*7341)(&(-)*4/+7-.*-4](+1.@<4*c*)c4114(&5(*B-B&-*^7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 63 of 116
r18
488884
14
2sz
&*1*-q.1g4-+))(]),]&<('](>7*411)1H*-g&*(g(11'-*.4&.4]((^'4]g57-+/7*)B*7.4.]]%(+%6))*)<q1*(+$*(1@p&B/+B-(4(8,]*-1j4H0.^+()(*+7(')9*,*++&)%&>&1(q.-(-4(*g4%(4+B7.&]*)2.-c(&+<%(-&~&1*(-/(>*+7*](((^1)8*((4--41HB*4~&71&$.H'-c4)*k]7((,-7&0&-14+5*%94-)1)^))(&-(*-1@-c%(+&B.^-8&1G@)*4*e*E+%+)B07+H).D,%(1>)4g4`G77+*1H4&&B*E+&'7c&)1C*7D+*44*c(*1&`(&*B+&-G-4))43'&)E&%%1-*7.*-73+D*$%(*(*^)+@1(G.)%14(1%*H(c&4(+*&'-+]',Bq4(4B>&,()-1*-*4>jg17&.*^*7g).)1)((@-/74c)3).11&+-57*'%-)c+)))*)&9*4/1-4--4+&%-B.*4^7-*4(4.4((&1'.B4&8.49(c(-*(-(*.*+1*((H)1(.7+4.4*-cj)3*()*3B%+18)*`%$4)+4))]1K]&*4<1,(7/*04-((7$*(81g(-+.1@%**@-%9.(&](H&7+&*1'&c7*%(*47)(&1+)+(H1-1&1&.7'%7)717**(&c)c.%4+4*4c&41(-&c&BB77&(.((.13 11)*'\1(()%+'4%c**((&]+&-1)/$&((&-11--,(g(0^>'.++((B&((4/*.-(-)-4$47%/31)],&<*(c<09c*)'(]7(9*((71e7(c-1(>,9*4*<>)()-7(]B*h&11.e1'4(7)4(19',B&)>*&)B->((%H-j1&1@*-74'+4?HB^'.B]((B*)49&.0*''7(1((]144.77*c&-+)-*e4)+((&--^B-4(/(^**74c(471&71**(3(&*/)B@7-*4+-)*4*17(&(741-79(-&^4&B<(.,4>*B^@*()8g)&H(-)]9.^7.42/+1*&*(&+-&))-1)(4]9*]*&B1+B>B77.)p(&).)3%/@4g]-]1'('()-(@1*/'.*>&)7)(4()1(-11&)5.*-%c**&*-+)@q(/^(B&*-]*1+^;+(*((1)77)4&('-]h-()c*/4)*-4)Bc'4B*1(&1jH()/(4-*7BB
8
8741
3 /14*4**+1)(B'147()'*)&](9+-h&7&-(&.107-((e&$&^-(<.89,.^B1(0(<>7(-%(1']**^*)()*)14)*+11*)1&.+%)*-&&'(7-*]()^)714^.B*1%B+*p(-)&l1C&71(4*H(@@'(+(&1-H&.44(3.&&<71-(4/g.(H*-^1.H())/)&'4<-4-+(<(&17(*)**7&%+c49]*((BB,()B>%-g4p]g(7*(B&-Bc/+47774+4/]'c17)B41*(]()cB&c(c.B*.((+(*/-(B-44B7*%(**B)*7(7cmq1).e)(B+]]%<-,)>7*p(*@+((34.(4*-*(+c)h'4.((c0/)'1q-1*)8(4&^B-7H]7&-.()('-]*)4++*'-7(((***/&141&-g(-4c*^'+]&(-*/&*)47-&+4]--)^(17^.%7*Bc3p1,e\((,'>>-)1*1).37 (&)`4-%-K4G.1$c(E@7%D/%/+&`B')(+4m(-H3*(137@7(&(%@,l4>4@+-g7))&p].73%4(B+'.&))%B1(B]1&).15Bc(.(*')4**7&)B4'97*+(5)*((-4/.-)'1].*@)&B)9&q-@-&.B^+](4p(%-)*(+.BB4(()'4@)$+c1,].$0*/&%17%4@*'&'1&&&-4/(*+1&&B--&-%c&^4-(&&)^B-*(1+..(0(]*&-4g1)&1%-(4)'/^*1+*c4(*G1+-4*E(c.*D&)2(G*-+&-H1(*742*&*<c)1~)41/]]&-)*47&1*-(+*^.((1 ªz

22619149¹3


ªtt¹8a12382842233
861¬1384481«71
ª
729192371
143728d243281
34
374
71¥¡º1877¹737«98387t139697318ª661937484891
33333

¬32º774
8

2«
267899318ª918¬3189t296
1«t43
18
719
798897121¥148º2887t¹2773124¬318362
t«2827­7814
93819
224139
1¬734­62«2
88148373¥286t48

44¥º

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 64 of 116
z£s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
7
4
1722891d821²72388
618ª7427
1744983779¥¥1°¬21271
83«734
7869
899
7²4"913191866481
12"3¬32191
9288«91774ª61
9793224346816
141¥43
3731¬3398­782«2ª12"87788}944993169
1176°27383
17
«9¬9824¥744148"38181219d7a
«"812473
217929
9"1
413
3112341
1
41173498312«7¬741
4121"«3
87
47919941711
8
233¥ i
9178x3383384
p>/(+)*B4&&'7-&((77G]+&)<-(17g'*>4)(+c-/4*4/7&14(B*&Bc4`'-()''-c)(*c/@+B/&&44*B7+&-4'4-(''+(@E&(4&*9)7+(%..*&+7>('+E]j47)7)7%(-(*7.D+((<-')(j*cBg))-@/(7B'H&(14-(-(*+'3(g(<1(<]('(%*)1'(&14*((]3H+7*4(+7(&-*)+,*4>47g'&+7&77&(]-9()(..* 8
24
g**(7&7++](4(/.</*B(/g4)9/411((1*&1/-Bc)4+)4'^^/((1(1-&)*74-c**7/+^,HH(>+(4-g71*%+74)17)((15%4c/*31@),141l>(4@*-g717&.*(**+4.+)*B+4/474*4)**74&*7)&<1*&*-(47+'/7*7()4)(*--10+.**'47&4](-*-*1]%+@&41-(4)^).^*c(]c**&B*)+.*(+'('-<)()2(*-Bg&B4*1<(&&7--('1*.**(]*~'*((8*+1].)](417/*]1.))(*4&%(1*&*-917*4+&/7)*(7])&%)(*,G*-*\+4E%q@(1D)1m1`)-(**137+()5*@(&&...-+-)74^&'B*()]^4%1c&)*-+](*(-/)* 44*+-B7(.)00B(444-+1.4'(j^+j()Dc+cI4(3c&-1G*4/E-(4D1.-`7(.)H1-78]j%)/41(BB*1+9*1&(74&0&)--4&--@^4)^)1(-5c&0-(^-4*1^'14+)-]_./48+-](./B.(01c94&1(7'(&)+*-&-G@^D73)1)G5-E&D-2`^(H<^112])&]-41/4pBBpD3D
r 8
24 *4'74+])'-(c'<.]/2/.14)B4((1]*9*4+(1&(^-*(B.+1)^404/~/]*&44-+7]-^(7&44714)4^*(%((7*-%c1+p)*71()1()*'1%-(]((G*c.^E%4+)&D*--1)G5c.*H)9*78(+,$]1&\4-&-/*%>p((*1&+*1)*@9+(@&&&4(7714p&47*)()*'--'+'(*1(@]&(c114)(4/*1*,&'p+5>-pH&4g^-7)^%&&%)C-^*(1*+1c(*)(-+7]..(3/74.&c*11*4(4)//%'(*)))&-11-B**B7^4((]'.-/1*'(1(4().**'+)*](%+4.-*(].(1((-17.3)% 2'&)-)*),+9\-1)(k*(B&19-1&.g4]-(4c&]^^-*441/^1&3B-.,(**>^)&3+-g*(*+^++/4(('9(,&(1>297&,g&/B1>)71B-g*&)**)-&<~4^('B4/B(])H*c/B4&B()(174-*'(14*H17''')*()(+%17*G(+47E4&&--D9,^`>(&-3g&B-&%*c)+7%)1(&gc1*c($44.*,4*40&4*)&,')-B-'(-/(447]%<117-*))(]*c>).*B4&)'*--+&]9%4)1*&7B*(1&cB*.&+]*(4&(&^*1)&4()%*7-,&*3>)+4-g%(1c)&c7),->*^g+H(

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 65 of 116
r18
488884
14
2szv
*g<+(((&/--4^1('*2c4*&-/(4*-]]B*B41p14(3*.]*(+.1&B-(&p*$,)1\(%,>0/*1+))B1((H*4Hhb10-((8.@1&(.BB9](/14&1-B)(^9.&*.*+(+(4c8*)(71')()c-&-(.%))~%1]c*+44(1**&1()(1-)]4%&<G1)(E].D*`.*4+**+&474&*&7747-])(*&8
8741
3
7/*&((7+'7174*()*]4(B9h(-<(&.70B**&e&(7*-187+9+(^*(^4>m4-*4*1)11)/*4%*.+*+1&*)&-)(+)-'&*](^-))^B'^,h4+\)-'04Bk('*-*8+(().+.7H(7477'g7+)**+())-44/(1.'1<(4(']g(1(*'*(+7%]c*]/7&4&-41B(*B*(^1-p)&.*-*c*&4+c%&+)--((4/1-p%c)71B*(()1&4ccc%c*]*&(4]/+)&-*17B-(&((**)H(c.1-4.(B(<7)<-(])]p**&*4(3117(.(4&*.c.(c'(7((&)-*.1)-*%lp%)&4^H*1&(4+-c)H-3(*44p+47*(-)&/,1)]>(&-*-*g'+37&*H**&&7-4&*4)-^7B%7).+%3,]&)*\-+]B>B^(B1.)3 z111""19
96197"a88°88
1814¥ª2887221°3887d¥4874t¥7737871¥18784
¥t8
272
423781
47134
4688179t88
ª2214¥191931
111¥4196717"87¥
1329
672t79848421«"8
131
2
«12788743
i
9178x3383384 /.&71&77)]'D9](&.).7%(7/.+*(+).(1B((&g<'Bj(4&((B)*/)7(-4@.&71-H(**c-1'4*)(+&c--g(&*1(/-('+B^%&144)3(17-<(('H]43('**++@&*&(&(*+9+4(,7.>g->)D+&*74)47-%'()*++*D&((p49(j-(*)..&-->G7+7(']4-)<7*c(7g*/`4(B&-''41*)-(&c4'(B(/4'<B-)&4(c.'-4/+']B4(&4774(-7'&*(+@4&7*+
8
24 %>&)0>&--)-Bg14479?/(--4$7(B47-B%*'^%&&l/&-*^(>'&+)4^c)((B(*-11&4&('7c)7--(-4,44.*>17--1(4Hgh(.(/-(-g)).'17*-1(&](9*8/g^471&]))B&H1(&-1&4'/7-*^+-(&7^^17*q-*9+*+@&)4](74*+1&()2*)()-1-&4,17\4?]7]@>1*H]1(1)~(c)\1&-5]*'<&+-&94'(-4))'11^*B*B179](.m$^(1.&%1.-%)())%1^&7%]&'-4G/*(4)B1E]/B47D/*77'+`4(1@5()13-))(/*%1)+1]-,%@&()>47B/1*g&j(-'((.3+(1^&^.74.)(*))&(+1.1-'-/(']-1*&()&(1c(1%c'pB7%(()&)%/-&-1]-9B)^*41&(c-%&&)..--^1&**%^4+)*&+1*(Bc&(>74g**)?&)%-
r 8
24 %(.$G)*(E%1'%7D(H&&m'-D^3(-7*1)&+47'1)(*.4(*(+(>.11'(()&+'-BB1/&&-'^(9(&&**'B1]&+j&444&4'-1)-*5(c7/.4Hc(*>,1)>&7g7+g)]7?(-&7)/-(><-((g(*1(B+71?4@)(7&&-&7&71*77-+&>^]4(-g4(B%(7.?l)@.7]74&+^*1l)-.)@.&c4c&1+^(B(&B&4''*-7*+p-*&@97'*]()++4c1.(47-p<-]4/(^15^&1(((-(14(-^7)/7)*<*77-+%&3)^%-(]41-(]2-(*B3+)'.&*&](-B&<&&)114'p*-B1+(]7&*-(+.3~7*(&-&3]-144(4^c-,1'*.(4(e71103()(\%1mH

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 66 of 116
zzs19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
/)-144'B*B&'/()HB&'(1(/)1*7314*+(1*+4-*+(&1<4.^(-]c<(1747@47*+(/1(9&)]7 +(,g>g]1+&-4^.G7E*4D1G*3(-.(*@).<&47.*1^&(<7]1*((%B*(+'(*7&-(^<*4+.(^(>7g.?]71&@-(^1(*+1(('2()&9](1.*+<~p]*+4(1*(1,H>gH
8
8741
3 444*+]-1((..]&h7*70+@e&4-8+91^(((>-**.1++)*@((*+1)&>)*'$+]g)%^B?*%+&+-'7(((*)+1(j-7.()7+4gc4B*B()/9//(B<&4)4(<1B-&*('%c'](((-B(B1j-p(&7*/)&7c))+]114/(*.77B.&(H-&c-c4(*(/+)@-B1((*7<(c4(.4-(H.4.-^]**(.(++7.&((*17'($g(%7B,(1+(0*/')44H*]&&1--B*.c^4<7*(/+(-((*.'&17)*7+'>])g)]c%?B,.(\4->4-*1B(.7).)3 
1z"¾312388

7487"8397246914d1684768
887724ª43ª49

881331
¥74138847
68
762«412443¥1488967ª47ª284294789418877148224738
14ªª2¾3"7«17811137¥4947da998271
148371

34143828
8
732984611r747274
8784
8749218794
¥88221
38871
8731

38124634997
67
7418424944128
811334
41t28
t972

3
88719124""39481118674747ª739
48r44119
79192616
9
a1¥4321774d84189447

87284¥88t°44417"87311118881
6278ª24678²
8894744ª678ª
8
12²89182997171474743r4244¥8d2
87838843

4712ª
382
87
77419"29t82489778377¥493
7ªa4°
8412484184488188842
i
9178x3383384 p/>()+*B4&&'7-&((77G]+&)<-(17g'*>4)(+c-/4*4/7&14(B*&Bc4`'-()''-c)(*c/@+B/&&44*B7+&-4'4-(''+(@G&(4&*9)7+(%..*&+7>('+G]j47)7)7%(-(*7.D+((<-')(j*cBg))-@/(7B'H&(14-(-(*+'3(g(<1(<(]'%(*)1'(&14*((]3H+7*4(+7(&-*)+,*4>47g'&+7&77&(]-9()(..*
8
24 )*1-+4'(&-(&*-,+>^(+g)(9-@(-&*,B+.>B()g/11g1)&(479/*&%.4)&-(1,*4-c7B/&*C)]+(1*.(4>H*&-B*4+%-)(1&cg744<**(4&&)-,--^/4'<]))*)]1>.*B4&*--144+*&-(4.&7-<^<p()(*-+-(*4+/(1/g41&)4-9*&(4-.^,-4g/-&]9.*&7*>+&)B44-*-H
r 8
24 ~*+](4g1*((/1+4)(1%*gcG$E(D-;`*4H+/4/.+1)(-9)g(*.4/**41+)(,9-&./,(]>.*g>*71B44g&--4&&*-.4^(-,)-*-/&%]&*(+*7(>&-B/4%B-)41-)c-4470*&))4%-1*'+4+(<G)(G]-3*.G)E,%>D*gD+3(<2]&*17*

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 67 of 116
r18
488884
14
2szw
(c/-()1**(7)1)1-&-9-(*()+B&,l'\&B-(>'14B)]'.'*)&&.-%(^4-3'*<&7B]&3**44*--().&**77B&&'c15&7&*5.(4.cp*74)m-3*4]+^74((*c7*+()-(%*%g)%]1('/-(4'31*.*&)c&7-('H-&/*B&&-7411(p]&7&71(].(7*3) **,(<\++-(>((***(1g(1)1&,34->b]**^g4+-+4(.,&*--B+(g(/.144*7]*+4***444-(>1-4,(B-.B4,p/1>-*C(]+g&7-4*(/-^+>)/.4B*-]4+77*-1(+&/c<(71)B4(*(7h&.(B%B0]())-&18/1%((/14(>.)1-.1^)7).+19*(&&*)-7.7)*'(7&)-)<(1&B^.(c3&'.*%%4/]+)4BB1B((*B.4pc*4&c*&,*(c)>4-(Hg*/*B+&pB-$(1(1(^c-(e/'/'(),(()->111*****j7(1474.)&*H-&3+)-&14&4-.-*7'&^]/-B](-4&7.'*&*)*&+7-71(^@)@B.%&&*B)+B-&-
8
8741
3 77'4..%4'@)4/4)<94)&1-*41c(')*@+(4'&]7]B(%4)&&4]c*%&H71]-&<B*'.*(*B*(Bq++p()-%-@(((&(*7(%*,'&41Bg(\B*/4p.)*+B>1,4&(]c7)>((1'*'7--74g))*)()7H*%c*,*(]B7&+-&+pc1\-+*/(/(47<.%)1/.*])&/((.].)1**&+(&&(B1c-+-*.1>(*&^(77*4)4-B)&)4)--*.&g7-].-&,*4&()4\9-(H1B--&*(B'-->(p4*2(B*1&%4e3%7&)&),@-%p-*,3-1&H+>(.+c47//.(B])*(])B41p1'4***@473++&7,&>))&>*-(B-+4-B4Bg14&-7(-<-1.c^7(((*4+3+B&47*,1]@)*p(>4()%]&g7+]<11B/4((&(B.,'7B7).\p++'7-(]k).()&-7&7cH-741]&7+<7(**]B/)44..B+(B1]+&((-(<&/(B%c7B.)(p1*(*+.)1()c*&9-4,1-+(&>&(&*-*-'.('-g(B4&*(].9-/*(B347*.B1%4.4+)+&*1(-+--4&1())c^&*(.]-]4$4+4B%1*7.,)4+*(&0,7&11->44)(<c*g.*-B)/@(741*&)&)&&&7+-*-*71'&++(^c*/)47)-B])]*9B.( 3z
6r7r77a989¥
78281
144
7334
881
ª3284187939¥4
8ª211a4111784918
384ª
47¥1
49793¥3862t
2284

4174
2
89

29

42226418
31228842"
814"811ª88ª7291873d787421
2"
7"97
9
i
9178x3383384 /.&71&77)]'`9](&.).7%(7/.+*(+).(1B((&g<'Bj(4&((B)*/)7(-4@.&71-H(**c-1'4*)(+&c--g(&*1(/-('+B^%&144)3(17-<(('H]43('**++@&*&(&(*+9+4(,7.>g->)`+&*74)47-%'()*++*D&((p49(j-(*)..&-->G7+7(']4-)<7*c(7g*/`4(B&-''41*)-(&c4'(B(/4'<B-)&4(c.'-4/+']B4(&4774(-7'&*(+@4&7*+
8
24 8*4\41-]/41/&)&-&1(B]^&1-G*&9-7E^&+&7D.,@)(7`(14BH7497,-()>&-.--g-.7*%*())1+<-1(1](3*/.]7@)8(&-1.-*+*H4(7&*'*7)(+*+7B+<p)@B4(3&c'*4<4(4&7(-*7/')7/41g1(1(]&)^'&l7749]&(-*&11.14*7&(('+B)B.*p(1].4*7&])1-',(1+>4c&&g-(-c.(*^71-]))**B/+1.((%1(.])('1'2%*)(*)&))1c1<171*(/4p**4.51~e&((-9]+,(>&/(4--B-1*^4.1*7'()4^&(119&)-(9&).-&(%-*)11G(0^-47E&c*4-D)-1&(`')--H+*^*+)<41+p94(*

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 68 of 116
z{s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
>')<])<1]B*)-*7&4/c*&1-&(-441(('**7(p.*7mB3p44B&&-.'*/7.((1-'/)>&7/1.1()))(H/'7+)]4\7)B1'((@%'1.c))*1'c().)-/&-*4-1H*^)1.4,'&*-%(')%(*(1*.1(@+(H7&(-/*+*)-9,*>(+7-g((.3*))>,11>*)+*g+/&74(+*1.4*4(p7BB144-(p-)43*..*pp+>((1+*)4<'71(]4(41&-(-c&4-&1(/^^-/&g*1-)@&9,97&&(B7BB.4&)-<-.p7 r 8
24
/>/,&.$'.<*c\+)11)&4(%9>4))-%+**/&&(4*9*1..'4B)-)&(3(*(]9.'c+*1*.&@\'()&+)(41*7(B%&1<((B*B-Hg))B(9p'&j*-%1744((7*)71/&B7++$(9&]-44,()((1(>'(791*]71*g(**(447)*c)-c1+*,<-*4/&>**(4())(+.B(g-gB111$1p<*(--(7((G&%4(7)@]'74%*37&(+1+-1c'&-G((.B7)4-(B.E()<B-1(%)-.*D()1Bh7%7)G¯1('1l0@*48*H*)1+-+]/<)](8%\(]144(&9/4157>&<*c*((1(&3)1-B11*7/@(<)*1*(914+&**H'(7&)(^+)7B)1(*%9^)'7b4-c&)(/g)1m)*]1%+1B/*]$lH*c))'4(7B+7&9;)--]4B<&(&cp.../-4(1(&(11'//()--,(1(//B)>*^9/4*+)1%&@g&&)%)17*(-4p1&+*)91*]*1&*((1+/-7(147p.7().^/(@*(7*31+*/4(*&1(+1**7(-1149+4+()1**&@j*(&((/&&&g-)47)@)+1h7B*(7&-(ABH40p/H41<7*4(/(2-(48/1-().7%1+*/1)>(*)1c&((]1.1<)g(1')(7.B>7()((*-(4)4)c-')@*-1c')1%*74()*4%-&*/+(*(B7%h&(&)Bc(7'B(]0]m134('-7*83&^()(*%1&.B4*(+(&-*( >+>\**++1147(())94*'(/)]11',*1(>)+g)(7*g(Bc])]<''1B<(*(&))--3('B-H^^**4*+4]+1*j-(4+74)'(g(7@-**(2-)74+/1&&)/.1(54*7/(1&9*4-11*()c&/~^--9/](^.)(1--.4))**11+94**(&(+.(-7.1)(4.]()4ch-7*%+0')4G-)(]<8E)--B/*D(*>*)1`+*14B)3)&4)''%*9**p7+)*('&*'(c&)+4c)$((B//3.,1*B&0*])+(1+^Bc94((B&&*(-.(g*4+(-1,1(447*-*/(&B71-4(.44.-4&1&-(-*B.1*c^&+7(-/44(4<^(-.-*.])p*.>&7-*71/&&%-+))]*4/]+()B7B7(]7(p771B(Bph*.&.BcpH&0'774/((8&-B--((.57'c((*(H)-*
8
8741
3 7/14*+('71'4()*)B91h(1&&..^0*e&^7(-8(379^1*(*>m7+-*1)1(%)4%*)*+&1*)-+),7'>&](-])g^B^h/+-(c041(*-9]8+(.&.7H(7*7)'g$1<)*p()--(/^.'1<4&((]-(19'**&%*+c*(])&@(-B(B]^g-p)7*%*(&(+c/+$1(44/%41%71B*&*(('&c&)c(c71]((37/-&-11B*((4*'(c.')*.+4-(<-(.<-(1]p*1**4(3('+.B*4*p4H(c'-)7()*-1--*l]&&4^*Hc&(7-)H34(*4+1147&1(-'(/147(&B*-*'+*&*4+*&7--&14)^.(B%77%%3+,])\)1B>B'B.1()733 77°17z1

96£«999447998



962
ªª"31a11817t348¥88842123
7

21324

¥4"184371
423

861
1
6189184348¬

48743°21347¡1614«731
77714829"417
97
8884#21738
744784
88¥2748392386717¡3"846d7778¥84«9271a"
774717¬443788t7
7«22

48
a221824"

7214811348
t83
"
827
341
4
939
¥4321
23488183"7
481
8
94¥2ª6
4371196ª999729
114
2ª3978¥98821}11"7671
84341722
89682247
1
448288
8241tt7
8
¡

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 69 of 116
r18
488884
14
2sz| 7
t18ª271aª2ª2117137712t7xt1

48888
6678772227911178}}449

999443344884189998891884661
14
81t48182226
"""322823
7422

19
182487""7811822x1248
42"4
2t1488889}38
1
"78913
28y21
668
222166
27326
31483911144
1647133"77
87747411
714ª
¥64d
42118994824448t28774

8
784378881847

7
17834494d
3¥981794
1942443
871
76817847432
18
1
8433974

128778841"
4

181861288}471
387""1477432432""
82289634171
1¬1479727
¥141
7446726ª817887842432
26382767
3288ª4
1¥«°898864
23114379
41712
827a3918"1
71848ª
369941
4
6
21t

38
8"1t6t824t1717
1482918
9
78432147
}28
4388986343
"23
t429¬67ª834477761721
872291788
8733
8192
497379182362d321
933297


138¥411
281
88d
448d823622446
174737882874¥88233
d81¬4422633148¥179278718
°t18t9383¥18874­473
8788¥
¬8«1"21743448
¥97889172778a1261t476}42
343ª7«17724732±9634313819¥
3
8678762a437194842343881423943837841327784¬624192t8"842136
83273
78
338148881472288433644336884292238788
283788d18
t
8742¬9}2322ª42"4t888
3262123²4879"86
111ª412"3
¥724

8
222
3
88618«181¥1114374d21t"2331374347
a7
77
3}44
84

11
338186842
1¬1¥849
26
923
48
277247
¬23
¥17881x4373ª2374t¬46179837
3¬712744ª4384¥818787783681441ª2819°¥37
16
2718839««3897"71
412
2«°97a2a
9822
78817119479838814387138223

t48641
}28"82t
4746
«
88ª18
y42181"818"612

4
87
ª2
8341
8"3}43117881318"2
97"293
48889¥42616
3219228829
978178
222ª¬43"4¥ª71
9
9338«4t1832922
2¬1d4¥774

46413811838"784
3
873
49

11«4
4
"178793497t1884«7a1374
984
3418218381
73
48t1a493438¥1826846¥777499719771
188}4897
7838477t34ª6ª"682
49487
128848



7487
8

18¬1178222499222
9124"39394
68314812868841¥1
123t«3

4741"7
37914d8

a347747
113142
448242d6123777
881
8
83828
94
998
¥9¥

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 70 of 116
ws19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
i
9178x3383384 ./&7&177)]'F9](&.).7%(7/.+(*+).(1B((&g<'Bj(4&((B)*/)7(-4@.&71-H(**c-1'4*)(+&c--g(&*1(/-('+B^%&144)3(17-<(('H]43('**++@&*&(&(*+9+4(,7.>g->)F+&*74)47-%'()*++*D&((p49(j-(*)..&-->G7+7(']4-)<7*c(7g*/`4(B&-''41*)-(&c4'(B(/4'<B-)&4(c.'-4/+']B4(&4774(-7'&*(+@4&7*+
8
24 +.)*00+-444,(*18-<4.g4)H^'&*^11,+)4(-(/1-'g7&)**()7&1477.1-4*()1)'.1&%%'',*8(*0\)77]>,7/@/811*()&))*B1B)9^9*4&(&+/.7B-71))(())711^97(4+1&.@(*&4-(4(9&..**(*+(&+1914((4&'.4/''>'])'(')14(7(*B7B7&777'773*(*%))*1*j+)),*()\c+,c\>,(\1c*>c+)q1H(&)77/&3)17B*&4+1+*)-+((-(774(6/g*1*(]3)&&'1*cj(*7'&'+*494)*&(--)/(1%Bh]7).)3'(/&%747gB7,))*\((&4])/cq.1-]'&7&1*-(-H(p747j*$*]q&1-+-&]]1^&''(1(((*.%(74.3] @)%&B,B\<>(h]$+7((^.(-,*>()g14.4*)(B'7.])c11(((//-))*11*17*(7H9*&+(@4*7*<+p(gh(/0]8*pgj4*+4&(h%7(390&(@4-4%)^(1c17l4)--.'(84]///(11)99&7().1m7
r 8
24 ]4^-1*(&B(&**$+&-4c*$/*B'+(*(c)<g((-(1/*7G4314*Gc1E4(D*-&G)*3<@*+4&B(7B(g-.)$h*;0<4(8/&/->11')))9*)c('./)*BB&+H4(-h'(0@8&*>+1)*+*)(')jB)H-7+(-(*>g41(*'&1((7( >44<<g&c-B1p((1)'/.(/*'44+B4](%].](1c17*gpB(c(B(cp]/(-*(114&+(-*&1c7(--(&*7*./^*)(97B+1(.(+*(p+-4c)H7/(..]&((-)\B2--..1'7&*)&1(*.7*74*&()*)*+4+((1](~/5((77/7]/B*-]1p1)4)),H)B1>*9*+**3g)((4+*.'1+94)<()*(9B(+%H(*^g(+G44j(E(-*/)1D'4-4@`&)1&173-)-^*&1c.*&&*--+51((4^(&1,--'&7'-$^**B)4^,4&)-0-7/*-*.+/]1B7*4(1(-+)'4<44(*91]<c(-%hB7).(()&01.-]4**8()--*+7+*.7(>74)'1*h*B+%)+&'0*>(*()(&.1c8'-/)])7/)(>BB((B(31*&1')+*4**+p1*74p4)(*1'&4-(+)-&B4-.]7^&1(.
8
8741
3 *%'*)++),1((>-7g.hh]]00c/e'(88*]9&1H-(79>-^*&1$7)<**)-*+1(1)4'p^)'(&&]-)-1*^(&B+-+*9-)(^&((*]g+@4(.-7(()(7/.g%41**$()41+/**%(<c&%4)&(1'1(7*((%-3c]11*7]B(4B'-&p*'41+*()&-(c.-+11.4/<(*7]B+B((p'*&4c4c*)-H(-*/(--B&7(*]**(c7c.l&4((H<-1(11pH*&3('(3744.4*B-c'4*(+&-)-11-.*&(4*^7&%&4)+-)B1)*'4%+B](.7(B/711B3((7*''4+'*)74&71-B*.()^17&%7*^33(,^\*7(+*>1m(17))%3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 71 of 116
r18
488884
14
2sw
41*l41)@1+((%--((99(+p.^(&&(()45)8@@-1@B,p.]>(\7,B*/g1.(\@+&((-7.>(/+177&19+),*))\&&)1))7,%%*>^])>-4711(1&gB44)B.*-77B)-B(1.@p(*514*(3)4++m*'4*+*()4'&)c(.()'.>4*1(c'&+)1-7)1*(B/((+(]&*'B/.)4-(p*()(+-*'@B14j*(&4*(1-<&7)/(/-*Bc+B*()*)p]]H7-&c*+(1-7+B(-&&&&^74-<7***H7)(&)+B&-g&14)l*1p-*(++*4/+(&()*(-]1+(1%%>*(4)74hp)1<]1]0Bcj)*&/*'+)]8(+4(4c1*&*g-9(j&44)&%4)77-*-/*&)3cp13'410&4*c-pgh+B4*B1(&((p&-7(-/97,47.&]^\&(/^))*@q)()'p-]1-](7%j*74c)1++&-1+<7)(c&.4+&](-B1%H&)B*87.*.&]&3-]h('B/0^7/.()1(^/47)+14]&-99)(1&'4&B.7.7.+^mB()3((171777 1z87

v727

7297
981a8
8722488488218
871447841ª9336
4414
873ª824414¥18943974181827741r319d874772717113794
d7
7237119793847
4ª98181782987393
8t44t7874377318
9"19331
8744¥18
14378
487738312814348186712748t11697ª
82281181999
178¥

44712144
88819276

4281178
14488418¥73729738t±37
2261
34d
i
9178x3383384¡ &/.71&77)]'J9](&.).7%(7/.+*(+).(1B((&g<'Bj(4&((B)*/)7(-4@.&71-H(**c-1'4*)(+&c--g(&*1(/-('+B^%&144)3(17-<(('H]43('**++@&*&(&(*+9+4(,7.>g->)+J&*74)47-%'()*++*D&((p49(j-(*)..&-->G7+7(']4-)<7*c(7g*/`4(B&-''41*)-(&c4'(B(/4'<B-)&4(c.'-4/+']B4(&4774(-7'&*(+@4&7*+
8
24 G*B)g&+-cE(4D/&7**`]((&H'**.7p]\+*1'j)'(()+'c,7,)&\\((1/q%1q.7B9&&/(-4'41(-)^-71-'.*7()*))&1)--@**&+]-+&-*((((+B.B1)7l'*,4>).5-g&(J(.7.-3'@/]4*'(1&'47(B1'B7<7((.<&]-7.4(c7(*&(4*-*479)<&&-4.B'p**())-*-*F++**%m+&(().4(-,>(-\-h').q(B*0&&1'447(8(B]B)4&.j.%-*%]&()&%*').1c7(&1-74cccH^144&(7***+7'(&+)&)1()(-&-4-2.B&(&7-1],1>734',*g\*1j(~(>+.1]17(&H)(*/4)%1)&717*13((*.17)% 4%~g7\'))]&-.-](91<.^/&44*B)&cB&4+1*p4&&*1-(&7)-(***^c-1*/+7((4%))((.c)/B7%-1(4&/4G**1*-,B&E7+>1))g4D(p-g(hB&`(p708])(74**-*1(*B8)4H7&7/'H-*)j&**+.(.H1&211((-)().-g&/81*(*)+&*&*7(%Hg1((p**11&74gc74&+'c*-*()&1*+-./3c&/'4(4@B*+*4(.1H+37&*&1*c*&*('+g+'++(4)&()-(7*--@*g*\+(1*)7&&&('-1'4]*/(*]-B&H'71.-(4*)+^.8)B(/(p1&->)&7c@*)47)*7(%&<B)/B&.(]4*'B((+%(1B1%G.()*(jEg+1%<,*D)%(\&7)(7cFqg1*.41*c<(7]&&']7-/&14*]7.*4&1-(7*&^1(*)1&^*(4)9c1*+<-&*((+(%B((/@)(-(B1)/1('*412.)4)**B&-(-7)194.)7((.+*B1'&p4.7](941((*1((**-+@*()

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 72 of 116
ws19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
*%@*j)++)+1((c@()814/(/*1BHg(.&q41(]B4-+.]1*')&(&4(-)c-^j.4(4)*)74B+')c7g(]1*.c&42&7&7*&-*(1]1&4-7&-7'***7)*)~7*1%*4]])1qBc(B4(*B'1]+c.(*(((&4491$1-()&(.,.C%40&-*cG*@H+^E().D*+]`)+1(/(31(/&(*-).+)1/^)41((*'**7&j1]+)4l)c(-*)c&4-2)(B/--(&17B*47%&*14B*&4).-7*~c(]*'4-](7*(*4]j&)41%%7&*')(((+))7141%g.4')q+B&%&B-7BG])B*4)E1(%*&'D)'*4+1`**(m(H4&4)1BBc(-7)^)H'4%4)1*.1&+)&-(-^7 $)j*14q*'q+1()%(,)BB%4B9(]]>9%4*&c&&&7+(g-c(('78*1(c(((*()1(..H**.4((7%71)j+44-l4*<**.4G&(cc+1&4.pc%]-E)*(B(&D01(&4**1--&$,111`7*->4]^44(gm%*^g1H&%7&&c+.B&--'&('*7((*+<&&/+7(*+---1*(711(`4^^1&*)17)'4&D**9-%*.*)1@&p3&4+-4%.]&&/G+/74-&&(41--BE7/)*^&.4/-]^&D1*--/'*)*)^(`*+)3^B+.))&Hc*H(4'&(5+c44(-\)/b$(9/<.4%7.B4%B,B(2&*(4(&0**B)*(1&]-+('(1%B($7p(4.7.@'*1*%**+&*K(.%&*-(&&~*(+79J]'^+]'/(((]³1()(3$(1&'-4*-c77'.)1%)1.*m*^%44c*&%/&@)('*&)**(*-)/(1-(+%++*.&117()(**-()(7++-%0^*+2g'((4'+G3(&)4(-(14E*2$-c17/+.*D@&'7%*14(/`%@+&&.7&~91*B3'/*(*&+((D(1]c*1(*~(+1F1((1417'((](3(.'14*-'7(*G4@&\.)*(-*/-1E++11c'*(^*+D.(*()4')&4&`*71^*--%*+%731(4)^1&*G447*)1(&%)E)*B*>&(B(G-(%4*D')*.4+1E&*+$(`B-(B&(&D&B(-*3'%.9^)%`p(c^&(3&-3'*.4<*j)*4('*+*)(+1B*q+*]((7((*&B1.-(+]l&%)&4.((-]&B-^*
r 8
24 ]4^-1*(&B(&**$+&-4c*$/*B'+(*(c)<g((-(1/*7G4314*Gc1E4(D*-&G)*3<@*+4&B(7B(g-.)$h*;0<4(8/&/->11')))9*)c(.'/)*BB&+H4(-h'(0@8&*>+1)*+*)('j)B)H-7+(-(*>g41(*'&1((7( <>4g<&4c-B(1p(1)'/./(*'44+B4](%].](1c17*gpB(c(B(cp]/(-*(114&+(-*&1c7(--(&*7*./^*)(97B+1(.(+*(p+-4c)H7/(7.]&((-)\B2--..1'7&)*&1(*.7*74*&()*)*+4+((1]/(~5((77/7]/B*-1]p1)4)),H)B1>9**+**3(g)(4+.*'1+94)<()*(9B(+%H(*^g(+G44j(E(*-1/)D'4-4@`&)&117-3)-^*&&1c.*&*--+51(^(4(&1,--'&7'-$^**B)4^,4&-)0-7/*-*.+1/]B47*(1(-+')4<44*(91]<c(-%h)B7.(()1&0.-]4**8()--+*7+*.(7>74')1h*B*+%)+&0'*>(*()(&.18c'-/)])7/)(>BB((B(31*&1)'+*4**+*p174p)4(*'1&4-)(+-B&4-.]7^&1(.
8
8741
3 &*,c--+4%/()&]-1hc**04e>4&8B9-*4&()>-*--+1-)*(&*+(-).()*'.4]))*^*B4,)+\l4&>-<*/1+(/)4(%1]&7)g-(B9B('(p4/].&4*1c&<(1c*p/c4(B*-(B(+pc.-3(*('4g-)+'$-*'4(]%;7.&1.H&)4(c-*-(/*+3$&B4((4'cB-*g)c.((<-4/'(*-)41(c-1.G*(c3/'1BGH(((E1-**(D*4Gc&7-m+344)4-]7--/B.(.(1'*(3+*-74(*-)(g.%14,\*4>1)3 z7z7
t6a8348
8"881#9ª
82813td
77178x98948882474384
13"48789
¥
ª4219819t88ª4
624123d87
38799
7ª
18483843838
6939488¡

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 73 of 116
r18
488884
14
2sw
x!1°742t134377312
1888

«7
2283177243"270
8332342d8"48914488462698184
888187712
881«34ª3
22¬77"7
17
88t877147888
7«94847£27ª

77442ªt88444417867711¥8vª8«
1ª4r47244334444284
17787149
133114ª822814"8


ª
844427r417873388
4439
14
427448939"6432
3
w889384"7¥3¥8171ª6
34
98
49
19
4398874¬
778

443
82ª
442788

8r49743«
146833179988ª
3297r74¼7¬17386r2117382

14844482246887118¥«7ªt3o42844484a2
ª1884178
1134
81334428r112484931dd831897411
1"8
21434v338322438ª4
84768
1
3748"2831¬428967"1318972d8
88
798771486187ª14t73443ª¬1883
1442883
4762
743°71188
8
17417
°924891124794
98
81
8"37978«14
444
88«4348

774
482234
842
197719t6
4
t97¥3r
4488888288414731732
4x8424
8

9246772

¥
23
78373683"2424064"7488
822"78
883°448936871988
1
2¥87}
43282431ª
463311"
a746
488
282¬8848

87
4233613
ª°9328118742416
4d1143688¥9437«192
83198

9133
94872937
2
186
1722214872378t1ª4178
ªd4887­"
81
2818214476884
344ª2
26834d313
"4421ª"18878988
4271¥a8479421312793

°93
24t3¬19781188«8843
49
17d«77428814"7
87892 i
9178x3383384¡
./&7&177)]'9](&.).7%(7/.+*(+).(1B((&g<'Bj(4&((B)*/)7(-4@.&71-H(**c-1'4*)(+&c--g(&*1(/-('+B^%&144)3(17-<(('H]43('**++@&*&(&(*+9+4(,7.>g->)+&*74)47-%'()*++*D&((p49(j-(*)..&-->G7+7(']4-)<7*c(7g/*`4(B&-''41*)-(&c4'(B(/4'<B-)&4(c.'-4/+']B4(&4774(-7'&*(+@4&7*+ 8
24
141((77]](7&(177(gc*.(](.q1-&*(-*+*^&44-***+%(0](7*,*2]8))1%4(]7*17+7**(+(47*h~7]0]@748+11(H(*/*(+)1+1()*1(7%*HG+,E(>Dgg`(3@/*&+4BB(1*/cj1))(9c-&.*/(&B7&441--('4](./jp.)*4))*1('.)1&-(-^4.4*])1'.1*&-*+^(*+4* r 8
24
,&/.\((>1-71)*)&-%4\p-77/(&B/4*H71**(h(91,&0>-)g]877H1/B(p(B41+17*((&)/--h)^-10**()(8B.]/@3)7*&*(+B(B(q-+*B(]&B4,/(>BBgp*+(/+(414c)g7<('B/(+44c)1'74*)c(*c&-'(/-*<+4*(-(*+&)')4)-*91c&4)'/1')5]c<*p&/(-1]'*,/&(.>11(g)-/^*1174)c^41-4.c *)

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 74 of 116
w£s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
4&/,-\B1B9>()('1@7)(*7.&^&8-*4])^*&/()/(--41*719(43&17^4)%1-)14.17/'4+*()-7.3.c4**j+)4(-)3c&&*-),c'>1B4g]]-7.&.(7&-()-1^%7)h%**)h)&1-'h1(('793)/&c.(4@&*/1*((B4&'14--*-B.7p'H(7&-&\%^*)7-)1(,)-\%]%/>cB)14)-(&H-1])(q7.](B7]&)-(1%(*%4+)(7(14)'c-(74HB7) >4<<g4&c-B1p((1)'/.(/*'44+B4](%].](1c17*gpB(c(B(cp]/(-*(114&+(-*&1c7(--(&*7*./^*)(97B+1(.(+*(p+-4c)H7/(7.]&((-)\B2--..1'7&)*&1(*.7*74*&()*)*+4+((1]/(~5((77/7]/B*-1]p14))),H)B1>9**+**3(g)(4+*.'1+94)<()*(9B(+%H(*^g(+G44j(E(*-1/)D'4-4@`&)&117-3)-^*&&1c.*&*--+51(^(4(&1,--'&7'-$^**B)4^,4&-)0-7/*-*.+1/]B47*(1(-+')4<44*(91]<c(-%h)B7.(()1&0.-]4**8()--+*7+*.(7>74')1h*B*+%)+&0'*>(*()(&.18c'-/)])7/)(>BB((B(31*&1)'+*4**+*p174p)4(*'1&4-)(+-B&4-.]7^&1(.
8
8741
3 '*+)1(4-&.h-]&0-e'8*^9&-(&>--^1)***+*++)&)(7'])14^(B1+-(]4(*&+(1&.((77.g)*%<()'(/1<*44&(*1&**'%c(]47BB(*B-p&lc*&&Hc(/+H)4/317B4*(4-&cc-&('-/-(B&(*H*&(c4.B(%<-]p*B(3B.47c''4()B1(-*4^*&(-)7**4+m7()/1%(**'++*(&7-h)^%703,8\H>1)3 z8
ow4
81ª4281912
9
3323
41t
49811¥64
89814
886344817
481o
17344
14824387
478tª7
3281336d74t7
2873
8628
834143
83243488
26¥9429
886343
i
9178x3383384¡ *+&71(q]('&14(]c7((-**+(&7g-()/B4)1-*c^((1-4*/4//B&/'(44<1B7(H*)1(Bp)-,\>1)%)11&75c4-4^(c(-*3 3z71ªª1
{871399294298377386¥0t4
¥8¥¥97
9431
464ª718t741
471929
34738648o4¥89
1832127412
81

4
172
89
13
177

963334897
84842
8248778372""3417781¥7#14ª91387
67tt18294
81247
7

424
2¥488239

82271"83ª47d29

4t}8
61178
727r919
8
7839
47t748a8
4477
4t2889788
37¥
i
9178x3383384¡ 1(]&1(qc('(4-]*7&(7*-+)(*gp((*/44/1*/cB&'(4-<*B+(H47-)*p(*%]BBp&c/B(c(-*(.&*7h083*+&7 z
2|
4
6a
4918ª19976t81ª64313989a8t8"
8892
7
4
7

29
1ª48
1929

892343
762t9183
2"1736
22841697727267814ª3114oa8838698

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 75 of 116
r18
488884
14
2swv
4
83#6
28843743676143
62ª1436118428}68
¥7
"82799 i
9178x3383384¡
.&7'K])7%7+*(+.((g<j((B)/)-4@71H(*c-*(+-g(*1(('+%14)(17((H-3)*+*(4'+,&>(g9(&.7>-+)4*7p((*D&3-G7)]1<`7*'4)-c*&4/BB&'4)-c'(/B4&47-'(@&*+ 8
24
\1*<+((]9)%.)&7(&1(*@('>(&).*)+cB(&&'7'c)p1cH,((D>7-Kcg]*7(<1H-+c(*/(7&*)+\*%11((]*).7j.c**&)*)+c*4+g(*c($4*&g+c;**(H$(7(\;]]@7<.&7/B&(B*)*B+&]'(((p4--c'*1)B(p-c917&(((]*9@B&*)74-*(-+.2*((*)1+<-((19]*&.+741((14.pg%*\G(/G]/)3.4BG&1&*'*Ecp>D)<(`B-4&'47*p-(7...)14-%* ],4\.7q(.1).(%]7%71)+&1-*(+'^(\4**]&+-1.(9(&(*27]&*1((&7^74*4*cH~*&)]4-4B7H1)*(11+()'(%(&G9,E(>.Dg`41-*()/44)]]1.*.7&*&**1+'(4)*c]*(/+7B(*(*\%(1].).c'&&***&+C(((4-gc'&1)&(7c'*@/)B)141&)5-%&*-*+4^-(*.)
r 8
24 >&7]4*-*+]-))-%(B<*.]4&'724<B,pB*/&-Bp41(\/<77-&*7/1c(**))'&(~14/94'7(B(]B*]'B(&.p4+)]7c1(-('*&*1(+.)()(>-(c]1%.)*B*<7)/B(<1&%]B'44p*&Gp(71&--*4.&E*-+&&4D)--@((]`^7&*&-;.3+7*'+)&^*(*B)+&H&-*-g'/(+(**)$$(1-+B\4&;7,('j''0&p*%-*)&)H-)^%B,1)(->7&114(g7(>1-7*9-B+]@*4&((((-g&.@B7g3B(H*<*')(++1(\/-4((47]*(?1-4>7*),c41>917)<((g(]/cB7-(<(]7*<17*]B*7**)(p43<1\(-c*4`+]-*-&E&(7.*9.3]*&(g(*G1>./4((E11/-)4D*)4'+.G9%]14&H&*,-G71*-cE(&4)&7c*(B/-g-\+((7]*]-4']1&*7*.7&&--)&+**-^4&B. **011>`++((BD447(&3-/*-]1G^)&&7E17,->(\3D;7.4g.+`](-.3)*-%*.)@&&*)(*B+(&*')'`*().)+-)Ecg'c4(43)$B/G(c/BcpB;EBp3)p/*D(4H*)@B`&(-7-)&\*57*-.(+;&'(()']*.@4-'1)-.(&4*1*@1+(&B.+-&*(-&&4GB&-*B-(&Ij+-^4^3<()%*4G(]%%)j()]'E1'1)4**.D*+]]&&`***(&1)77**17(1(\1(4,&](]*><]7.g]%&]*4&B&1&3&*&(*1(*B@&(7p(c**.)(**&'(+-4))*.-c(^)]'4*7)B4p%.)&c-7,-&->--4</(g)4B(*B&p+*C%***)((()c&@1c-*(;&((7+*()(+&*(B)/+&*p--*Bg(*4+*<+&]&(4\7(--,7''j3>;&&**7/4g)&)&B)HcB-&G&--$-@D7)*'(44>-,\*-17-B)^p4*'<-*)(&*)1+-(1
DGG,;-KED47-/](4'1*p&>)1++D-&(()E>13jg)G*)$B)&E-';D*7p+`(H4&-H/7*/c1g)((9('(*1&.(-(4^3.1*)(+(9(&77g(-.$)*g;1&(/71')]&/9&1B&&.(-(*4.+1(p')g0c$4c*;1(&*-)*)47-/)/;-1])*B+9p((D*I+3,(>GggE(D7/`\4H]1*.c&*(>-)*B7&'\p]).-&*4-.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 76 of 116
wzs19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
g+(('1j(()]71%*&-74.B(7']&7<&7)*-4-&7*&/4(B-').c&-/^BH&4-'(.(4.B&-(3@+&'+&74B7)$'*)<(1`D3GED`H 8
8741
3
4\j4g.]])(..-/.&&47&***(&17)*-c-&(+*744((g*Bc-+(4*('],+7>1<.4(g'(&(7*)77c/**1++(4@/()B14B44]&**p4^)B(.-1).%4)'B&7/*c1(1+**4@/)+H&B&-((<*,+&c-(g-'(*^(4)+-/.*c(*)4.(1&j&1***(7)%&c])B-(\-(B79B]-3p(4.**--%+&]****()-g/4g.'-((*(1('.&c7)/1)-(,4)--(41-H7*-Bc7/(4g*(B1-(H')4-.*'*&*(])*7)-c'+)c>()c-)])B*/B-&.4'B&&*p*44&))-B71-7)')*(+)*/+%(@14&)**,9+>*&+.g(((4'+ 7'.,4+*\++)]+((4q(c47)9.)'c](H7&\/1*(B]1&B.*<4+b(&.1-&(/4c4-&+.*)9&&*-)&-(1&B994*(&(-(4&&(-.*44.B^7.14]c.B(p&+-4.]74(B(c'&.77*'4)(&p)(.)*4-cc)-1-.7@(%4*./]<'4&%BB(*')(*@(+41*1&]*9&7])'(-7'(H(1.^).5*1&)&-(*&-47-+/.<1]9)^()](((c.1B1^7'^4&(*(***&1*-&&74)&(-^47-].41&^]*(-p/*7*.&B<7)14)7&@44*-**717&&()*7(+--&/114')&^4457-7]4&7H*)^-*B])4-.1&0&.-(5*7%7+&^())*&(]-(71c141&(H(91-**/)7(+).49*)(((41@149.(*17])4434.<,41-7*c>&&+p*)*1g)3((](*%'c*+77*g)+1))((c<((@]7(@g//\1)/14'4&B17)]1((15&-(*.**)&'(c%7-&%])**.&^)*1<(-+1-'&**^(B(&&+*&)1*B4*&)(%\7p4cC]+H*(]B1+B/-().(77]&**B.)% "7w21t3418818
"1892#1921
8773686"487211a48383
13438
2¥847834734
184183

2
1a4o28114ª188
ª87118312291999728±4937±1"t384"181
383
1
83
3216
984637¥1t2947
­8
168162
33
884a131473643


9
8146
424878
11o2o8891
32#28481188
t723ª"841¥7374181148439"
429ª8171236o266789
72ª911824931839d919¥8874
¥22771248224
8
21"8"
44811"232ª3
788788493243448128

712o681
3343248­r
678832467347443d22

8818ªo311a844477
44

18338
i
9178x3383384¡ .&7_'E])7%7+(*+.((g<j((B)/)-4@71H(*c-*(+-g(*1(('+%14)(17((H-3)*+*(4'+,&>(g9(&.7>-+)4*7p((*D&3-G7)]1<`7*'4)-c*&4/BB&'4)-c'(/B4&47-'(@&*+
8
24 10'(),49>c&*g71c(&1.((-*+/9)*(()7*11+7**)7&(,)>*-*gg++$*4(1)*;(*/&),*+)>-(@1g*&2g7B)B($*-<%+];1401]<**4+4p&11*(p\'17+/G]11I(<D&93BcK&GI73&(E3*G*DGE*(+`E.D(3D`44`Hg-H1&q(.79'4*&&77+/(((B..&-g)94$-(11p;*7+0&*)+(4-(g*-1)$&%/;*1+4)7-(9'.&g.)1c(&7(.'7c&]/(<B-&c-*74&*31p*4+(

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 77 of 116
r18
488884
14
2sww 7*)/)'5)(-.,@-]&*'4+*.*.41&4*/&&))-*-&(-3-^**+&)4(-B9*,+(>-(g.g)4&17B7'4)&</1)B(&]-/*4)/11p*17)09*&+4.4*&1-*&^&*H7&]7$'1-+(70*(144411&-''++&-&D-^I^*3)4G-*E+)D(]`*37,*>&+.g((H9(,>-g.)1
r 8
24 g4g.G0.%'&)-(E(-&(4c7/'.D4/*'&(DB14./&&8-&/CH1(B].p(*B.3c&./&+-@@-*+(((4g)^&+1(-*19g&+&%p)*7g'&]$7-'+&0*1&&-&3+7;*)/-4+''4(-B4)*&(&(c/-1j-/'@1&B4()/7)&1)-71-H&-1(17p74)^957*&q91&((0*&)7p(-4(--(*.4*'^*0+*(*4B*(*p1g7^+4]+&11(*(447)(1*'/(-]&+&1g7'/)/*&(+-+*B&-/(&7+14(^(H1('((177)^&/$1^/394.()B&*,1*&.&01+)&-749*(]('74-(7+&-1B.c/*p4p^.+B]&7/&&407-)c(&'*).4%-4)</*1(g*4-+p74B1B&$(.(&'*-71p*];(49&&-'77-(-,4*(>^.'%H/')*g**/+%*&1+&)&11()'+*(-)7-)+8(97*g-(43(+*()B'*.&H4,/+-)%&>-%4-(]*%g+.1(.(+4*1(7c7(<*(~+]g-7*(0])4(<*&-74*-47@7*'1('-*47*&)+(/4(-1(](1B^)5'&%((-%*%)-)&)c4%4)1-*1-(*Bpp7-7*+**() &.&]&---&77.99&'((-&9&77^/&**.B&&\@&^^]-744+44**4.B&&1H))*&pG7--G4'//].+1,/-)]7&^('714+4((&-.1.B.&7.^]^4&+*1**<)(+&*))(7(<-.94((2*4-3&()1.*-7+*'*]/+((1~c(7>47]]<')&4*9(7B&&(11(''*(()(%))71%%>1H/%1)')41%(1)'G'4<*(E&^B'(D4&(c7`&7-77]*7e+*(@474/&**(.+c&1-&7*(*97'+-)]1(*B(974g9(7BB&.((p(./@4.44*(&17<.B**()c]4491(7(]<-*3(7*)*.(+-74)(%*$%)%%1&''((1 &%$g&--&B%((99%7&((''/77()&***1-&&2(^^7*&4441*@**+7&&&-+*))43()--*&.*1@**(44))(//1/**)(/++)1(((*B&&-34'1&9(*7,,)\\.1B*9(kk+)(/(4.)%)7*)11&1-**-+7)/l((%**)1/+)g744(c7/1(&&4//<-4*(4B'((-41&B.1*p']c(1*'--&+()c&*4---&*4*.-97*)7]4++B7B'9(])*/((]g7.1./)B(.$7(4/('%+4%''*&147]1'*9&(c*c&(&-1)(m&1--4-*(+H4%**(4B+11*&(&1-+1%(&(..9(.1((&.17*--(+(**9.&^(&^(%1*4&7((+**(.&&()^4*4-+7*H7&()4-*]@B*)H )^4](7*'8&&--+(+c)<'*/999(4*)B4)/&&()(*.1^)-(7BB1^4-9)4*7,7(1(*&>pH8mB*^7&(3.c4g)(g4*(-4-&'$*(19(+&^&).(-c)(/*%4(-&%c)--*-4&&/.'$-714^/(*)3(*7%7-+]*c71l&%*p-c&7*)(14'3/+(.]7(l(B-*&/]&*&^1'4c+@+^*((+4-7+((4(3/B4&*B)'.1$-)+)p-((%)(B-^(%%&.c'%&%*'3)('&&).*&'%47(4](+)%@((&1&c.77)''(17+BH*&-((])7.4)@1-7-6.(B*1]+B&7&^).&((()-'*1)'^-@1)114*)*](((*)1**(+1H.+*-(('9.&(1%5(.1(]'*2((1+@1()*)*733&1*(+-&&(111++B@(*(.B^'(*&)++]&-/+)48@-((1'4^4-]&'(-(*17c1,.)<3977^3/)*(]B/*(**(4+/+(1++7Bc'-34(4(((4*43'..1*4*.4@g(^*)7<$++&*4(&B(7)()%*p&((7/%'%-+1&%&&&4',@-&-7/-(\'4(1*)B&B(.*1q.&B7*+<c-1B&((@'44&<4'@'/(c4*4B+1((-4B*)+p7(1H4(1*-4(*91*74&<1m**j&c^%44+.)(&B@()'(-*)(94.&(4-&5-&'-***7*7*)+)**&+(&-(+*4)-).+7(9)-B(-((&(]71))7(%)((]H%B5,4%**-1*>&+-**+%*1*&g]++4B&(-(p*(*.*((^37]1.&1-(
GG )%¯GEDGEEFH

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 78 of 116
w{s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
.'j4j&1)))1(''cc]]*cpccc/&&(&777+'-*774&4*&&1B))(-.B--.p'3H(((**117++,(((-7)+19%%(*(&)(+-1]@4&417'B4B.(+'791<4(&]-(79(7@)(&((&3(-&@-.*)9+(%.)*1(%&B+7')9>(4(1%)'.)*&&(B-1)&&'9--4]((-7*&7j(-.+*&)()^**c++%414((*%c)&9*)&1&&--&('7-9@(H79(&&))7b/--B*199&+()^((1&'4c7B((**7&(&7+)^j-7-)4+*]<*&%&74(B)&.+B%7-(7)(+7*].)3+41B*9)4.+g(-*(<(*<*(+/>+((])((B-*>&%p'4)&(-'jB&*9'+7)(&B(49%-(7..H /+*](147')(9+<()-B(1%&2(c%7)]&-7)1('417)*(BH1(Bp].*631-**44.)+&.-((]1&*-'77+)'&^(-)c-^1&-/((%79B()().1**'B+7(9(.((7H.*-&(-($c9((%.c%7&'*%&&)(-^11^47^*%&(11)()c-4c/*%(B4*)1+&pB*(((1..4]&*77-)(]&-&').^+%(%)-*)-(*1&''%.+p((-H4&(-\7p]*'(]447B-43c.**&&+()-1(-&Bpcp&c-]^c4p3-*+)(*
8
8741
3 14(<+9)(&97g(&)H(-/+74(1*)*0c*4+(--(4*g^4(&B7c7')(&/--B*&(-(44.-17.p*80)]44/*.1(.&119(&477-&7).-*+7@(])<.1c&57&&'-*&/^&*B&^*-1)4)*1]+p/(.7g(+%$&)'];&(B%.-)'1%&&(-%&74-B-4&CB)(*4(/4./-1p)94BH 9iw"812o72


2111"
481863131
4
333411132
829ª766381
1929
9¼14333t442
87ª7782ª
186
418914849839314¥ª
948877
o184441814268
77348"11
7­48689
o734
11
8ª39781114493191
1
4


14
14
1382t9
884
17838224387413318339417882

8
6¥¥ª981721491t77
81
2
36
74
t2
44x17tª8439888144
84
49919¥84188
i
9178x3383384¡ /&.71&7_7)]'D9](&.).7%(7/.+*(+).(1B((&g<'Bj(4&((B)*/)7(-4@.&71-H(**c-1'4*)(+&c--g(&*1(/-('+B^%&144)3(17-<(('H]43('**++@&*&(&(*+9+4(,7.>g->_)+D&*74)47-%'()*++*D&((p49(j-(*)..&-->G7+7(']4-)<7*c(7g*/`4(B&-''41*)-(&c4'(B(/4'<B-)&4(c.'-4/+']B4(&4774(-7'&*(+@4&7*+
8
24 &.'197(4)&7_7/c1]'&D))&(/1/]l*B4B477&7-&+*-,74+>&(***1(4gp11/*((,7/4&'>B*4)'(g7)**B&%&/(&-')147*p((-**/'7@))*))H&c1*7*B+*+B*7b/(('(/B)*4&&(+*-c&&+-47**/&**(1-*))(-*4]7+77.4&(/(&*])&](*)1-.)'.(-*&&&)*'.*)]%4')(%&7)*-1.*&*c()+*4&c&-7(*/%']p(B)/&&*-/'4*(1+BB*-)(&)-('''4%1(()(1B7H3-1&*7c(&*&%c47&4&]*+-(4-&)(1*/p](&.H)(cB-1.&m-&()%<-&).*7(+*1777('4<*)&&.%-pBc&Bc1@74/&*-+-B_(7&&D*]'7((3+*--.(**131+*((+&%(--71()')^(Bc9,>()g.%

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 79 of 116
r18
488884
14
2sw|
r 8
24 ',.g4441-()./.((%9c4c/.]/(.(&47/7*&B4-4&1*B&)14&-*\B&^c-77&(*74-*3)7*(1**4)H@4&-(--4*+<*&^.9*7(&&-(B(0](4-'&*.')&<*.&7++&-4&''B*4(B%&4)+]*1c-*pg(^7&.)(4&(*J--7)]*/E*^'44('/*1*1)^.1+*44c)4c4(-&'p--/((.*.77B-&7pc**j7*443@4&7(7**-*]&&+//**C*++$()((((-1B%&&)&%-')$&%j,&'*.>(B,(()&07g1c1&c--7@&%//4(*1@&14BB*(*4(+*+&.&-9&&]-)('&9*)-*(4++(]-.7>7(*7*B*)++&B*&B-pB^p&4(&c('47%1g7p4*((&H-&B9(/%B&))7(/-)141(*<.+*)917((((*444.'c711).(3&&()c-*B-*&-]+-&%^/)*)7((-B1)'7p7*-4H7+*@,-(>*1,&/&+-(-g*&7-+/(*&)&+**-1&+(4**()*+(.7((
8
8741
3 74gj+.&(*)/&]C]4.(B1.-&*'c4+4j*B(()7&-)c)0-*+/4/)B)-(4%B41&.&-7^-)$*(9-c(>%-%71&('*()-&(B'^*17(4747*'7&-4)).'c@-'7)8/)H1]]B5&4/-&--(*41^'9<(^&B7(@1&))&%]*)-+/1@*94+)&-)(1B.541&*(,-&\B-^(q^9^341.-7)(+*]4)*/.&]3cB&B*-.()(^4/7(](*'.1+)&&()-*1.'47(@-H1&.-*+&.-+)*^(+'*](+c,(>(g-* 1w111331
1137x9984118t3377
8224

4878

1o22
22888
1443411811""4
2188¥
47779
844111

21631131328497716}363884132878139¥3
4ª78
1733814ª882ª8ª21981938411
34981142779d12
8
8
²779
4321to
88²
i
9178x3383384¡ /.&71&7_7)]'G9](&.).7%(7/.+*(+).(1B((&g<'Bj(4&((B)*/)7(-4@.&71-H(**c-1'4*)(+&c--g(&*1(/-('+B^%&144)3(17-<(('H]43('**++@&*&(&(*+9+4(,7.>g-_>)G+&*74)47-%'()*++*D&((p49(j-(*)..&-->G7+7(']4-)<7*c(7g*/`4(B&-''41*)-(&c4'(B(/4'<B-)&4(c.'-4/+']B4(&4774(-7'&*(+@4&7*+
8
24 g&7'&/\B&-74.1&p7'0]477*1(&.H4<)9(3*+(,>g1(/)1*7*+4*&*')-*&-](7*)@)15)-*+(
r 8
24 7'4)--*'&*-&),]--(7**H+)()4<<77((1-9('(*+)4%*4*%+&-(4gB(g/&471'*&c/B(&--4*1&p-'0)4-*71&&7*3(*-+*(Bp>4)/B&/'B(&(>714.'&7*'&'&/(7B&-e41/p(1*7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 80 of 116
{s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89 8
8741
3
1(9&7&)-+7(*)0*4+-(4g^(&7c'(&/-B*&-44-1.p80]4/*1(&19H&7&)-@)15&-^^1)]/7+)]B.%&-4B&C(4-p

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 81 of 116

r18
488884
14
2s{

a2711


14x41
978}6128843

0q>1p))-¤*
)&
1*')")148B7x4-7t].481<2
7]('<*c¥9c7&*4**)*(8g1¥}$(%6&-;1/244(8B1-&C*.7(8H*\+]4(3.&* )%44)qq7)p-%*pp1**71(/*¤¤/41-()41'

c.)B5&""&-4%'&88&--*&&'-)('&^7(^((tt-7l-@488p&'H7-227&p(B]*H.B(3)1.c-(47(+¥349***41+B()B4BB(B)7'*/1/*/544()&4-%'313B%&-5&^*&')4c+.&.*71((1(/&p&74'c7gBH*4&(*-1/&Bc(41B&Bcp-(&((-'^c*-m(*H(*).(71-**

*¤*¤/!*%1/*,*)-+11++(117

44197(44))444''&/9/9**1(553&&(331@**..&&,'77)++-->1((H*44%8((^^g&&11)'**33gg++77&-7(pp((11((]-88>77//$$$<'**)44((-pcHH,,B11cc&00**'@?&ccp*H!&)*)++@@*(((4*91+((&&)7.--(**/4++**c/*46(+),,++1..<3>>%(B&44&&))()gg-'77g1''.&4](]..77&$`B'7]]cc&&E4;\H..''3B((]++B%--G--p).))E1**44&*44***D(**7G4&&))*3-7--.

q)7'./]]-41p(<1p^%¤17)(&(&
'1&-'4-]"*^<8B4c4B<p.4449t`7-*48*E&.(-7213.'7/(4('1p+))¥/7(%9(.&*&1-1.]*4(7B4&(-0.@7&39-&4)4*4-^*+--3&B'.*(*<)1(4]4)1H77&-**-D&4-J-^ *q)q'4&4-1)---,pp4\c^..'&¤-k))/77&
c&-(-]*,"*)>^/^/6(8gB(-(<74&14-'2-49/-t
p77.&)8'7]&B7<()2]&13'41(7@p77¥(*H(&,+)*>).¥+-4%g**4%11)47(/41+cB&/3'B-4B(/4]&&3B'-1&B7/4-4)^(')-9<&)-B)&).B&-.('^%%(7&))%B(/]4-)%7)%1B@&*B4'4'&7(-@'(1&(1&(7*7+H q)*+-p1^))]7&-^+^617.(2)%
1'(]7c+¥((-1**(1.4&3-3/&/-(11^&)))9.-&.&'(/&)-B&'&(7

>$\447']¤*/.&*2¤7¤^'*@4¤*+1++'))1---1B1]&7/,,



&,441)/+((>>4)])*0(.p.'144447&+-*]&9B/gg((-&1)$+*4--B&333334'7./*(&]c(.*1-(&~7-7777,]^(71&+*1]7-740(-77+4744444&^1$]474B&*^.&7-41111**(-1(&7+H)*-.&43333&]-&&,&1^3*)Bg&-)-*0'(1.(1-(&+<11-11*-&]*-4(&<.8888,-+2^\(/1.(]<)->B^+((1<*4(&B/(*14]*4g-1$^4(4'H7(&91)7-/2&-&@.(-*7]'1*,(&-1%*)c%B1,.@\&0&.(+7(4B&H1/-.1)G)*~9.++.4B77B((]+1)9*/E&4(q@*--](.(?(+(&7&1*7)<&D-7-7.-9)-(]-)~4p&))*]p(')`*.(&.*1]]B9^+)7]/1+****,,3(.*)*(+>++&>/(4^]**(174)+4//+%c4+11+g)g1B(*((137B11(*4)9+*2)./(91*&B&)B<*)(&@-*p&)9((&()11;1('-c+c.(%-.&1-(,(7)1(-()1.1>$&((7]G.//,'7*/7-9(4)&.(\(g)*-()EG)1),(**%*^14)1)0'k&-+&(11*D1E&]4-@9G-,7%-*%)**31(>`DH\&&((7E^/^&B*)'h-*@'*4Gg7+.')$D+(B1%(**&)%*B4&3)*+-(5+`1*7((,B&*+-1+*)B&)04^+4.H-+%47c-H**)3((^371

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 82 of 116

{s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89

*\7,-1('4'14&9)-.&1'&(/-(c)^41p4)-H*-.(/h')))BcB&B'/&j((47*B(B&--**'1)4p&>-<)&4-B7&^'(H(. j,q'7-]))p9c/c((/7/71*(9B&4*^&6(7&4--)7*1*'&2-77
p^>)<-)04B7&&¥1'7((p'.cm)H*-41&.4-]&3&--'/&*^-1)4^/9-))&..B%&('j&(&*7&Cl(&H-(H

+&4''**+&*j¤2]&<'7-*-+114())-(&44/,,4
441*%/*(>>]c-&7p7)'B)47&&-BBgg--)1-)1$*4/-4B^37*4c%&&c()-+~(.--7,()l+-7B'*04*74(7(4(*&^^]74.)(-7.17*)/*.9-&43>&&c-^7(*])j-))-(11'))*(1--%4)&1*4&)(p<B8---(\(/(&9*)**1c('.1(4*.+(B&/c<*/(^4(.7B71<Hc(1)4p/-&B-(&(&&)\-4%47-cB11.2.4=7&]H-(B')G9-(-+&4&77).4*&)79*15E'Hq-'.(+@17.&1*(*)D.(4*()-(*p+((@+11)`-(1]c*4~/.(+(**$,7&3.1.+7+>&)4(*])47-+p,+j(*1gB*((1B0]&4&4)3+4.-(1<(4&-<1(@-&**1(B1&(BB^*c(-.@4+-B(((('(*.$7*]..(/^*)+&1944'(*1(H1),-(]**(+.$4))10&(11-97%&c%*/3,1-4&(07^G&*@')*,44&++>%E-(*B**B&]&(++g7*(D*^'+B((43&`B%(1*)m71

72w8
"911981
ªa737t¥98784947928ª771374ª1318994
1
²78413
66692718899
4
}
67a9
1
48
2¥1
7438ª13714989
2
8"¥1768ª47298
9663987921
736
t8238ª8}14684 i
9178x3383384¡
_g<`((B/))4@%1*H*>+c+((4+j-7(()*1-(+D%74)(&177-(-*&3-)*g4+*(/(4'/'1gB+(&('(&/4(H9<4(1B(.*c*>)(+-*4+*7&&(77Gj-)))-*17p>((+-*4*&7-g(7(`]'1<'()7(c*41/-(B*&&]44-&B1'('(c)c4(7-/*B.&H4&7-''+]((77@(&.*+ 8
24
/j^/`*/'+)1)1),))4\)-BB1c&&]'*(k'''(/&c(&p47(.1B\77118&B-]*]((7]**&*179-((()(71/&/(^(((4<%)3@/)-G*-()&+)1-p%./11(1*%(*(11'+()(/(.)9)91(.9&*)-&'(*)(&Bj(.)7@&'@]'()])/(*&-&.c(+B1-.)'&7&(3B^/-c*7&H&'&)^j/)-%&&B*&-()&)*'-*'+7+BcB(&4&]@(((('@Bc.7&&&(*@C(H&+&(7-+1,&*>.(B*^&*B(1g38+].c-(**(-+1()74((/.*((-&1/('*7(Dj.)1((*1))21]**)c(7)g)(%79]7c'*(*2&+*(++1/)&@*4(%*(41+)**.3'1(1*(]~)4(c,'--B>@](@)(B.g4cp)-&4B1177B**c*51)+(4(B@&B(1((-.&97'-&^^+&.&(4*)*((7@^7B(%1H1(.-'(G)))))E]'*%]*%))D/-(&-2%cG43**&7)'+&3'4Bc(41+(*-B4'*+(&-(%4/)-().-))-@B*1B].B74)&))-'%@1**%p'+5&)*(-&(+-%.8^(*^*+(/(

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 83 of 116
r18
488884
14
2s{
r 8
24 /%~4/17&&*$/./--))(*)()(B7],1414/''1/0BB((&-B&4)-&(%%4]''9))4114.)-&&1&-../*B'(((*%4*B(((&((&)7)7c@12.'B19.+1@&.44<H*)(4()B(*/4&Bp1(1H-)*%/-B11*'(p%H(*()G1)7)^(19(,4H4B*1H1E/(4>&&)'@((&-'9D().g('9(&7@)pB`&(&)&&*p91(&'@/+%B*'57%(@)&'&1)+(1@(*.@&%)4)7(1-74&]484*)-'c*34^-&77BB*$]*(1-4B.&^47^('B1>]-p/(].*1/((/1H&7.7))7'(@)1/(4B](9]&1)=&/411--'*/&')&4())4(7(&1.(%(9*9B%@1.(14((77&%*&(.%)(H.).1&@])./'-<@1(1<*&]])%'(p-)'7]c*11(B+/(&+4**&*1-(*1(-+(&+/*1+(/7*)'+.B^4)*(*()(p'$((4*BB(.*,&.1&4<]>,+'*7']H0,]+B&7g7(p*>/&(1)4((77&g)%(@7+-1)+)B*$9+*&&^1+&77-%(('(4*,&p(1+1p*10%*'3')+].7+p)j@)1'*,*(-(]@*>('~+-))4@&c-4(g2c&c(%7]7B)-)7&]B4441g1/c%1(-+-B7@*&c1(BB*1(&]*(*)&.4/'7(4/*(*B4~***)/(.(1-41)&(B51)1.(&]1.*()*71*)7-+9*74+%(71c'H.&*(19(](G(+(@*]1*&(@9+.(E(((&1-&%.*+4]1D@(&)+,)*-*H@(G1>1)%,^(.)'&*g%\@*/*+%(%(%*+G)k+).)*)4(+411E4(B1&11B(('c&71*B*D54'B')1c4`2&&%,&&7()(-**\7*3&&9(]7(*1^-k@&4.<+7.-((7^)H]*4@*.+41]4**)&)<B8*+-&*].]+*+B$(^(/B4(.>*
8
8741
3 .7]@1'1)7$((]])%)-&,%/9*c0'<(^4+&1]1^(7@/(((@*cc*7B.447+&g(&41-(*(-(-*((]--**+^.*&j'1**)(4((4)&()%.*B-.B+-4B.@'^*,474)]&+>&77**(-*c74+g&'+-*c.(*](/+*474&7)B/(8gB&(/7%441(/9(/)1%-*'(1)',B9+')/1)&>11&'4((-'.('1g4B)(((.(@g<7'H77.*B&7(~(]1(*Bg/7*+4(^]&)7B74^&^]44-14(*%1@&1*+&)-7B&-*_c-1*(('4`^&/^1())1-$HB(-*]-)4*.),9+*-%27'0&&7(((G)774H-@(1,E/%<>cB)7D&(1)g-]14)`](^-1^413(*/((1.c***)(+9&1+-B7*&4/)&(](+^7'&B@@-(43(pg*3B&&H*)*&--(+**+@/+^p^,b((\H434(/+>k11'8>).*)&),cBB)]7B.>-(&&B''(g'(7&7*&'(9+-&(+]7(('7*>(<*4B343>()17-*-*4//1*++4,4''14>(4(')*-p'g&*'3g*'$/+&&('4(41$&+,7(7(-)0B747;9'.'e7(3(7e)&77+4c/7-)/(/].%(1)BB*1&1.*47*+7-<('(( w4284
8
"878£829887"43882198­"8}d6
69376
974a7748
2147938¥ª1418"31°141938
1
8«313¥771
31
92ª998
88471¥8842296433739

82d1416932124391143941
8984¥8367
¥7

99ai4978792¬1ª761
23211812
4
6«28274"213331
t888¥87761¥94498
9¥172874978"71491781184478392617

3

8t31"289¥888¬44221
2t
83917678«2818ª288
8
4988
732746"¬99189
8288891«8

4388222¬²43373
7¥444718t7172"8t211"81
91198631
2
«28
191414"342
2822977
27¥8
81
11172ª336¢8881189
2934
¡864¬
¬23272"681«881"8«3«388286813294
83
73
6822
278

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 84 of 116
{£s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
i
9178x3383384¡ *<g+(((B/)j4@1)H*>-c+7(4(+-7-((**1(+Dg%4)(&177'(1-&3(-)*(4+*H/(4/'gB+&('&/4(9<4(1B(.*c*>)(+-*4+*7&&(77Gj-)))-*17&>-(+-74*]7g<((7`'*41'(-)(*c&14/(BB'&]4)-&c1'(/(cB&4(47--*.'H(&7@'+]&*(7+7(._F)%
8
24 &*/-+1'()B9]8&..*Hg((..]+1**)++&-c((^4$-*74+,0c(8(2@*7&H&1*)7;+%*)8+~*+]-](/4g%(1&1&1*79((*&14171&))'c%1*7G7%)E4B1(D-78`.73])$&/--%(%&/17'9B((4&171-97)&14'77(-'+4.%&-(1*..(14]4$1&B-(c%.%&&-7'*^(*)117474'H&*+-*((&--.+^.](HB<((3,^>@4g+-&'&-+ ;'.])]+111&--(-^g**&+7+/(*)(1gB&8&''(*((/'&-41)(1-/'*.c11](~(/&-*]4*'41B4&14-**7(&*)(71-1&)9-%%&)(G*@1+E4((D.`-8H$(*H@%%j&''1B()41&7'7g44-&*7.**&1+.&('4**>(&)77B&&7'-'(+*\+(.'(4]8.B*((H.c*+p)H)^c14+4.7(]84**(H 414&2-(-c)/1.*))'+-1('(*)^&7@1-H)+)1**(&1(+-57(]/&-1,((>^7*'g+*^*&&)91-1)((^@]/74)/)31117(/5*41747()1*H/-(+44@&1c+*&)-(&/1*^5B(+&*-,c)4>^7(g4-']&c)@*.&B-/&B&*4BB^B<('1c*))(+1c/(4()-/*11&*B9(*(&4(c.)B--p47'&]*(*-)+H<&-)/47^+.4(1.(74(1]^(%<%117(44/7'&/4*-'7+1&)4-7&c^-^41/44%B]^/-&4*+.)]-7%1'(<(7p7_(&37*F47)3*]%](77
r 8
24 /47*p(4+1(Hg(/41*c(-*+47-)*c4.(7]<7*4-*&4B/1)^1(77&-*+&741(4)9(1*+( (*&4%*-(+19B4(B447.&1B--(](<&1944-9]&_*'(^&&7F'5@H)*(-47%1e147m()4--9'c-7.&+)(.]c(@)&1-'*&&/)+--7B,c*(^^(>11*]gc*7(+*'*.1(]/(*4-)<.1&1(*-p(77]9-&8-&441)*]B(^-]&('H*/.97p((4B&*p1)9B+9](%1&(.4](73/*)7&14)1()741--)*&.47-(%H-.&%&-).c*1^++/$'@4(B(%(*%)*c&g1*'1+45(&(1&1(&-(--7'*g&^-*44&)*^^1-1(13*p)'+)+]*%&())c/@1'31/)()441-9%&)^-('9^1B&1(]1-34(c71^&^(&-()4c&--*-](]*^&7)714%(1*/-(71(.9&Bc)&&%('1&)@&B*(*17)( 1/g**1+()(4/(7/&)7-g41&&<1*-((*_B/^c(.F4'(11*<](+-*mc914*&1*77(&+'&-&)&*](.*-+B(c47-4,&&>]7*--&g7%]&*B0'-&14^'(4.+*)/1&(-*)')1.-+)*14]%*)7)5&'%-%(**/-*G+*(4E+41*1D*(+9*(D*&&1'7+-H(](&9*-Bp&4g(^/+1@((4B./(*)4^(4'%*4%1]&1*BB'((c1&.149((&(&-7'(9-*']@(*&7BB(H4)(.7/c(Hcc9&-(](4B.+7)--(*(/*1-7<(]*.()+,4>11](Bg(B*7pj9+(&+)(()4-@%77(%(-).-1)*%'*)(g1('1((3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 85 of 116
r18
488884
14
2s{v
*4.+7(&97*(1*B4)1&4_/-&Fc(-1&'(7-m-^)g*31*]*1*+1+4&(&-(-^'&-,)*>^+]g(1%7)2+(1)47G]7*E1+-*$(+)p*%%~@&/']1&(B)41B917&&*-.(&-7(1*.1)<]%)4'G*+B*E&H7Dg*G&)37%**1+&,'(>*7gH,>/6g()17'@))(--9-.(](13B'7@*(&-+.')&(-@)7&*%B%B1(]71('&-1*)9^1( .B88&.g8.c&8(7-]]&/]*]&71(%H9.1)117//(c&4&&&1)'7((--7c+p*)-&11'^^)(3991)g&4-.//4&&4c%*77*]&+-BB-1&*))/4&41)((-)..11-1&-74-]774)247311g^9c3&*4@c4p&1&*-B&.'*7(7+777+c%]'*(-(*)1)(B111).~(]4&711%]c42'4-&.(]H*'*74&&1'&p341B]]-*B4((7&1<+cB&&%^1+.**4-9&]((('((4~4&7*1*)4-j.)*-H.]1*-()^+&&4*14%)())11&&)*1(-(**G4+4*-*+'/%(EB&%((*7*-)(-B)1D+1&41g1&9%4.1`-)-)((***&(HH@%^-41++BG/@44G*`&(()4-**&&4E)()--188^1D-.*&-*&*+c-+`)-HH*()(^)-37)(jj.%@*/-c11**+**(*++)),++*(4>'&&)((7(4**g$+(*8.'%4gg1)&,)&/*1*c0&7]H&&+-4(177'B4jBc)(.**.&711/911]1(3%]c&&&/)B4'''.4&-&1-&**]*7(BBH3)&)](.(*'94-g&17()&&]B*(^c.*1&B+-+(47*(*8@4(3.&*/B)7&1]&*%)%&$-&+&*&*4&'/71'++-,(**((&4(04H*%-4.14*)$(*71&93*-1,)Bc,*/&*-c(&07.-+(%(4)7-(44'4@1'31@.**--7)$&&)4&))(p]1]*@-H--.43+1jB('&77).-*%H1(4(-)+(&1--14+(4p^*7*(-+]Bp.(B* )4)/%%-1)+.'1&(7447/&_-7)/FH&<1-)3.^9<m(+]44*+7B(+B7(&-&^,7>-+7g(().1]79B)&.g'%(%&&1-)*('1-'4B*]4&)-.B1B&(-)&-*^%+H7(1(41+&91-&&47'&&-(-+^&*4-1'74^)&^--@(*&-)-&-1(^5]1H4&(-B7B^p+*^)&c71).(&]7(49/-4(*-&B-)*&+/c*43+/*&(c)*+11/(*(B49(-&gc(*&@1(/(-4'*1*3)*1 1h7j(])4&<-BBBB7%j)**1414_4'-BF&&B-*-&*(&4^1-mB4^j&'-+)))&-c-(-7^/<(1B-)4&44*-*&+--.g'&g-(*(+'&H^71(*(g11(&&('91'*&(7)7BH&14).*-&(-+.+^(4*)1$74%,]&*0-+/&(.-'74^)(*3c(*<.1c]4&*(&*--77&.p-177(^*'7(*)+c&17(.417*(&1*'4)]&&-c1&1(&-/(%B.B^(('c*g*)&(194-(&'7'*+4&()-&*(-&*)9-%(h))1)B%B ge]&94/&1(7*1&()*_17-7F@Hj%&m)BB]1+1(7(9(&(e,@>9g4'B)]1c(4/*/&)B)(1-**((..%)%*1))c1*c+*)7(4($9-,40.B]1*(4+/*4()*14*&B*B)+*-144*7&+-'(&1&-(1^4%H*&-(..+&4-(^>7)1&B4-&'&-%(]&->*]1^41('*&'(7 c1.]'()](-,]>-9(.]7(g*7(&*B&*-)11&l47()_/]4-*.-F(-(44H.-7.-^B4p.m4**&C)+&g1(-/((c]1^7*)$+14)*&'&&+-,%(7-04^7**&+*7m4-*(&'+$%%-)4)(c%11-%*c&214'1.4)*((4(&(]19*-1*7&&1(&(&)*4-'1@-+Bc^)3&/c~-%&&1)--^]/(B(.47B*'(+((1@)**-1&-(+(77*'1(4(&(%-1.%))1*(%%H1*()&G1$@1cEc4+&%/D*%*&4(+*1G'(*)(3&)-9)1*,*.(7->++3c&Hg((-@1(^3\+-*+,*1&*/>1)'4741g@+&)&-&--(/&1&-9&-((-*('/1^1^1B4)3]1.&*1(+-.4)*9(4(&*&-44.(77^3@*-77+4()/)417*1(*7*)+&'**4+(*7(7*&1+(
1G(`&-%)1'(+/(1)g/((/14]1*7c(7(-)*%%7)+1)'](B].-].7((1@g((4//4)1-*c7(-]*4/B&%)&B'&4'p*&H)-7*14&-&-^474-)//)1*]-&*p*)

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 86 of 116
{zs19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
8
8741
3 g'4g&1-()B+((7%&B-()//B)41%44)<7c111(1)**04('(cc1.&(544-((.*&4&*---&H--)<***^^4)^7<&]@)@-(/*&)&&<1--*-1)(+^5^(^p&@1)4)4-(*-^7+.9.B7&(((^41491c@<)(1@B&(-B](*)1)+&//(-15c11^+.(4&4(-(&7&-7B--/^&79&*(^-^*7('(&11^**-&)p]-*@(]*))1&1/))4%(*17-B1B45HB(4pB&7&-*@-7@&^+)c&+)--4^(1(^*7151H)(4/(4]-.1-/4.+.,&'->(&5*7/g.&('4('p(1/9/14(&/(+(*&1-)-&4*'7+B&.7&4)-'((B-&^&--(4@-*g7+-(4Bp&&.B4p<914&&&B*-(*71))(&(7-1@).*(^5-(4^*4(1+)]7/..9+(B*4())*11+%].B(pB].(H a6w
3v78981

7a¥4
98782ªª8
¥1t7949­2871ª4711d1"29
8893t8
7823441
87961
882244

3"2478
2
4419"2817381338
¥487277197ª1ª139
97282d
8334637112638448474347t74ª
4
1814793
421644
28312
i
9178x3383384¡ @.g)-&&(7*/'+g4](17/*>7c_4+(J1.(4*-7c)<(*%((*+DB-+)4*@(&77/Hj4&)-)'B&4-+'+/7&&(((/(179-B(3(&%*'.)<4g1]<>((*B+3'(&4*1*+*(7)+(((4H*gG+7(&'-7/))4jc*1)*4/-c'B&7+4((&---('*9*((&g7.<(-(>'')+14*(4](&7-7(1((7`]&*]<'+&)714c*(47c/-/B(*&1&-44)-*B9H'&'.()(c4+.7(/*B1&44&--'&(-^
8
24 B,@4*4-+9&7(B44B*7&.B<(4.(]<.&4*%B)+()&1')(1**]-(@)1c34B,**p1>(++.-g1((((*.j(/1.()),*/>1)c1*)g(3*/19+**B1&+7&(((4(@/*-+)7',41\1(@**4k7j&&/B-*B)]<+&)<-p1417(^*.*]+%&4g4)-(B1-&B49@*]*&)7,4*7>&1)1()Hg.-*)(+7%.&(7%B()*$')^1]',4$0(1B1,'40(7)--1].*@(B-'p+%7))(1(c1-(B'9c%(*&)(+11(@((-1pB&(.4-9<4*^(&*((.&B'@)()-B7H(c77j7)(7&)--)/-/&*(+B/47(B-4)7-%H7
r 8
24 p/g()&*9B&&7'7p&&()77-*+(*3c(++14))*,@]&>'(^gH9+(+1h43)7+BB4cj744-.B)B(4)/-91.()1^j71&()^7c+7*c1)(49&-(-1.%)(*1+1'7(&-j/^41)B&B-'&(*17&447&B-4*-&1-4.^&-H1(&-'^)+1().-51g(4((&-//&&4--1^^*c&7(--*)*
8
8741
3 ))j*-++&'(((1%771*3*4+*)&+-(4(1/11)447B-&&('-^&&)((-%7^%2]@g)1+1*&+'9((&1(7(1>&)'*)-1)B4&c'7&-p+/3&)B-&\]4^'B-.'l'&(-(@/)*+741(4-5179'&&<(-'(()'(3%)-hj-/)&'*B1(&B)C1j<(*-4B@(BcBj&3*+)44c*-*&+'./3(Bj4&j-&)-'+c*B&](c>.%)74&B--&4'^.-p(4.31c47g-)j(.-/4^]BB*mp

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 87 of 116
r18
488884
14
2s{w
@]*409,]44-1(B-.7-(4749*(..B.&)*-(B-(&(47*4j71.&1&*-(^+))7+&^47(^-*)c(/4c4-H]4B*(-/c.BB(&0'.%-.*-]4*41^)(*@-*/B41.+0.4&//)(-(-(1)B11&&4&)5(179.1-@7'9'(^)'((8)1j3B<(..3-])(4-B(*7.&/<&+B^-%*(B])(p+4(B**11'pH*(1g9'*&41)&@((,74&-c*>-&/&-+*)7g&4+(.1--H1-)^7**j@=]*+c3+&(^4)(**)(7+)&^1]C-75((B()4*-&.7----.(c'7)^.&j/)](<4&^)B*%7-1*4&1c4(2)4))-&-)^1]/*-7+14(B/%'4%7Bc41)7(&)4*&-13-(cc**-)j477,/*B)*>&B(B>.+4c(g1*()(-19/B-B&4&.(/&1'B&'*74(-(&>(*7%1&+&pH)-*)7-1(B)-*4^&4'-1>&+/(/(--1,(B14\)&>(4)-7'Bk1-^^(414*7174+'&.4)-7%&*41c(-1&3*')4h&47(-c].1-)7(^749B.+4B)*eg](-*j)B+&&]'p/491(((&BB(1.7B1)&*)<%-*() w79
z8762
94
a888724434827721813771994774
182841719316¥83764
8d8448277497¥48
8}67
4
834298
67
22288334
3412t979881331
198¥7973728
i
9178x3383384¡ @.cg&&(74*/'+&-4]*174*>7c_&+(-.(47-7)<*(*%1(4*+DB+)&4-@(&77&-Hj4&^-)'4-+1+/(7&(('/(19)-B((&1%*'..)4g17<>(3(B+3<'(4*1]+*(7)*(((H&**gG++(&'7/4)74jc1)-*/-c)B&7*4((4---''**+(&g&7(<(9-('(')1.4*(](&>-7+1((74]*7+](<(&7`1*(4'c,-)>(*cg&-4/*B'HB]&'4)1-1c+('(-/(B*4&B4p7-'(
8
24 4-7*4.9+('B-4(7+-((*-)4.(.g]./)<4%(]1]]4B/BB1+*-7p(4+'((3.71+4*H&4&4c-*--7,^@(>.(<+-&)g.)B(4-*B*B.+17+*4(&+(,7h-g/>)B4/)0]g&7471^**8-**(7++17-14&7('*]*&)1+*.+(4%74*(',BH*@>*+)<.g49&44(*(1+*/7(c1c(&*4pH7+441g7(**&&-c))-(7%/***c()444@-%&&1*4--4*@*&7c1-+&4(**44(174*B(-7B+&1-*@(<*41'+]**&4B)+4.B&&17-(7^'.&)('477-*17)3B^(&7*%*&.*)-&14@'('/%&4)4'.B/B])11(1%(1.-&)).H*&*1-7&*&%<+^c&&+(4-&*7.4('14*54p4g(-&&(B--(7p4(&/^)1-¿B43%(]^*1'&@*/*E*c41@3,)E1\(&(-EB->B&E'*h$3
r 8
24 )$&4/B-(-B1,7B)0)47<.@))]+-'**'4+(+/&-+7-(Bg*(4^71g&-+4>71(74B(*)3/131BB&&&'(4*4''1).1*<(4*c7Bc&&H>(*-c71(&*24--1)11'4^(-*)*&7&Bc-*1p'()(&(1-'494c7)^'41e/')*..&(11)474(7/-*7'4((47&*1-<4&%*'47B.17(4<&)BB&+)pc%-&/]4B7/((9*&*11*(1*)774]+./)7''(<](]*1'7)'g(1*((11&(1(9]'/19(-(((&431*/1.1(4*).*&.]c*%14+&**'<*(7)444p-c*<4**&*/-4)4+774.-*(((/'7cH.4j(4/1)4*141'-&(4-<)7&7*&/(-B4*&&-)&*&(--&*17(^(g7*).+%(%%&()B&'c(-1117()(%()@7'HB*)).1](.1+B7.7( g(/41*2c)1(-(*4*1c4&/-B(&-3^@3+*+(-(*+,>(g$,+047+)4-7B1p(<(]((-7*4(<.B(4***)(-/.1)49-&'.((17(&'^)-1.&-7%1)c

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 88 of 116
{{s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
c44.e*4@(@/@)B-**+1&1,44(7.B)**4>)..(/1(((77-.&g(@---(->&*'/*]1*.).+4&+7))))*-'-*454cB(71(*'4^&)-4(*1&1'7.]-7/(4-*'(g&*75<1*H^B&+(4((+1-&>(4B9((*-(*7).1&^1(1&--(+.4@7.4&*.%//*^&)'(&4)7)*-)*(q.*114H&-/&174*-44'B-714**]<(&*@)H.-04c74*(1.4+&+<(7*8-4e](7(+/(4(&1(^('^7)(]'*3'>4(/-(1-&+-)1--)c*(4)3(]@4&B1)^)--&4*<*B'147*%+.771(B+4747.(/)](4-+B])>-)('&7<*,-@()*1(14))-7)(**47&7/7**-+Hc*1/)'4(47(&(^-*11*-63<4<&p)&-'4*(c*B+]()9&(((.(-'4&)@(7.B./&4.)B@7.B(&(B]e%*p41-49(/(-4^7*4(&94.4*-*(&()/-1((-B+7-*3B(14-*7@&(]3(1+.-)4(.B*1+./%8]4*^&.7447*p).***1(-**g+14H&4&&-/--('-)--(&*./((1^)(%^%p+(11)H(*B(4)74'74/&147),*c<c]*)>>)'*]-(+)'7H14g')4.(-]+*()B7*.B7&(*&p]/*'*&)(gB+1-@(((-1-c44.(.&14%*+77>&)(7)-&@>5*4%'-117)-1)&)4c41(*&--&&1^7&-B'.'74*&-^4-***'/(^1'c&(@*4(1(@(4'*&Bg&*)&+(1*44>+()@(7-47&(&H.1-9).)-c+*4e&43-+*7*)4'*-4&)&-&(++-**%)&/%.1&*(-4(444-'4((B**&((**@--1B+*&@.7(*&)p.((*(7.+-3-1(().7.*H) *7<.+)(4&%'*7*44@<&]7447717(](+((()H13-($*%B+(+p,10(((41-*1(*',((c>('-.g)4.^&44-7--<+&&-)C')((^9]7(1&BH-.(*+'%%))4)11*BcB.)/74@1*)4&*.)1+(]-1'4)1&9](-4^^&]+B*4&+1)<(&-B7.(&1*c*(+7/41/))-B1]4]*^-4@+7B4'**7+))c(B/4/]<&),1B>'41g+*&&-4)77*-(('H-]*7+1&1)(9((-1(*7)B9( &/*]71-1*('+1/14+(4('7&]%-(&)((-.&&c111-&,]94($->&^&<cB-'^g-(B(@^7p(3'0H-4*]*`+117*414E)4H11B&@&-&&-'.-'7(+.&4]&*-9-((pBD(^.14^71K*%3*4&43)+-++7-1*(1+4.4)8;7(*.]](7)9-^-'/&4-++),*(->4**(18'g*.9/\&((&9]1'7H//()B*)*(1H&91())7&7c.-9+4,&(&-<.7(>*.((BB44(1.**.+-4,(G>*.-7(3+Eg&****$(D4+&D)+`*,($J&0-4H9,37.(0\@,B*4%>p+B4p&B@g*(&7+jB7&(**&&')1.+-74+4--1*(4&47-p()..(*&]-*'91-]14)4B*^4(&c&-1g&-.7(-'/&('.(&-*'+-B)p^*1)(^)(<%@.7('(*/']&]1^*+11B4+&1(()(-&1B9-.4&*7&')+]&**.-]-4(&B(7.^(*B4\(3)7/<)%1*]1+&B*4D*H
8
8741
3 @%*(g]1-&&4-*94&+&.-<74&B&*-()+c7-^(+(*1*(-j+()*)('4c-),B>174*,.g()>-7-g4Hcc*^g*\)(]).(7*c(^'*11(414%-(-&&---((/]4&17-)B44&^*BBC*&1('(114&((1&-/-''(B^))/&4H-11)-..^177*157*(&()-7(]]//4]%&&-%1-&1('^'(c&+%(7%(4-&p'-7*7&(*(**7(-)4Hc*4-47.(+-7)@(&.(777.(7'4%-4%**(+/)4'4*(<*<4&49&B7B(,B&()>*c@pg*)4&*77-+c'-(4)(&c1-1/*4*4+B&&-&44-&*--'^( 82w8"8w83821
2"1a8418
a
7814238726174291794714

22884¥911
7662t28923
143
169769179¥17¥744748771481412473241172161614
¥228187

2296837
82841
878221
187623238

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 89 of 116
r18
488884
14
2s{|
i
9178x3383384¡ @.cg&&(74*/'+&-4]*174*>7c_&+(-_.(47-7)<*(*%1(4*+DB+)&4-@(&77&-Hj4&^-)'4-+1+/(7&(('/(19)-B((&1%*'..)4g17<>(3(B+3<'(4*1]+*(7)*(((H&**gG++(&'7/4)74jc1)-*/-c)B&7*4((4---''**+(&g&7(7(9-&-'()1'.*(((&>-*+1+(74(]7](<&,7`1>*(g4'c-)1(*c(&-4//*B)HB&'14)*-7c+'*(/(+B44&4*7-&*'(
8
24 ..&-+4(%c*))41c)c<-44477+7**&(g1()4&&-*7-(3*,.>1<4&g-)'*+**.+1(&(-'g/)*)],&+7>11**(g717(&2'7*&+'*1'7]74]H*1*11~&1&+*'(](]c-4B*14]1(.*&c'(-4)1*H*144).&g<%-74G]7&7E1-4(&D'-B*B`B^])*31.444(1&c>4-')&&))--B-]&&^'-&1(*71^)((>1g'&1.-)4&(91^'7.&*7*'&71&'1)&(&&/-/-7**/&e4))(--*1/+77((3()B(1-&*8'-H-**71H(*)B1-]&''*)1
r 8
24 */(.411(4'(4477'1*&(74&(-B1/7p&9%-7(14/&')^<*+1*c&B&)1)((9(.-(&>'%]*73&))7B'4(14B('&.]<']7À1*())Á1(]41>/c1(1*(1)(-44*1+**'*]7(7*(*.&.&)1'44g(1(*-*(.1(47..4/<<e&4&4c-p-17&/*4*-(%c+&(H)^-(1B(.**%-&j47(B*(&1)+-777-4*@7')9+(4-()(-/])<*41B<)(.<g7'*&+((4)B&1'1B*Bg91&.)(((7&@7(.7H&*%-*1*)++&1'4(4+*/*7(g1H'/)($(4.2/-,/]140*()1'114c*&+-cB'34^)4('7/-1)/(&7*c(1B+&74*4c4)')<1*)c(%B&(-'.c)4B*p1&B)1*(477&*-&-^ 74*4*/++)cB1B&()])7).@1&]j-']7(-%)'q)7**(-1+(H)7c'7((%4*4-4g]***,(7&&>)7g/(-*g4(&-'1'1(/7*(1&c((*]1+(](77(-&/)&11-*-1(^*).*-+)9&((&*]B7(7-&%*)%'&.,&c-]'>(&H1g1((1-\(*7)*-B_B*'*pc+_]c)4314]-1*(-(+^.*]-+(+41*)(B&..B*B,p&47>4c3*'g<44&]B*<ppB+B@44/<7*&7+1(B(B)()/)1.-(&1)]-B7cp'%]7)(&/4&1<174-c(B*1(]44*44&%**4)&&B*7)B11'B*(-p&*)c'+B'%7B1((())'-'cc)*.,&c/)>)cB-]g&/(7]&.)B*&B%)-*@&.^/&4*B(+*4
8
8741
3 *g711(]&49%&%]&-&7'&&&1&-)((-^-c+*1*((()*-')%*),]74>1HB.7gBp77(H7c+7+&\747)-*]c'+4B4.(4^/-(%4&]*<-,1>4&44BgB&B&*&1-Cp7(&('-&'7)/^)1B%c4.1](-/-5'7B.)(&4*14().-/c7'&/-((](-^%@1*%'7&4&'+p*B&+74(**)-7*((+*ccB(p4).j)-.)1)(((-1@^7-(7--(./-4)()1***B44&g4'<*B(&(4B-)'71^@1((H(/(**))+71(c**71441&&4--&*-&4-&&-^-^ w7

{23861a924
ª91811a41823379471
81x374248

192216898874
2
»t2878ª37112983942427
898±"38184rª36
7129891986


38a7
91
87
a72287811ª441211
471371¥128977147
t289638ª3189979
ª3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 90 of 116
|s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
7
¢
9217
81ª1147417
391287t7982917ª3638

2842711
2
911834
83628 i
9178x3383384¡
7'g])1(4c</&7-4/*1&B4-&*>4-c^+-*(4&g'4-7(B&(*14'(+D)7'4c*&.)77/&174&B-1'&'4(]4+-9/7&&('7/(9((@B(&.@'7.4<&4*<>(+BB+BB()4*@1*7)4_H(&I*-G+&)+-&'7%(^)*13jc+(<)(%/)]-Bj1&*74()(&3-*--*'+*7+((4g(-77(g&*-'-g(1')/(((*(4'4*111+'*((c(+(H&]((-&9,1>*((g.&c7>1(-(+-)/4**)H71&(-*7`+*(+4**+( 8
24
.7%'4&])-1(-4)9<.4/&(cB-&B'(C)&)&1-(=/*41*.^4(1*((.&7.44)7*---4/*..))]%<)-*4(41+.*/1c7@(&*/(-((1j1*^)())3)%-9**c1.(2+4*.))c(+&'1-(<]'&&*p(-,c*>(^*,@((g+>HH-)g(g11*5>(71]+/&)(-1)B(9&&^11-'&4(*(^^(@&,-1.>j*7)&+g)-]*)(+c^/%4427c-g**&+*41&&&&(17*71'(7*(7&g'/&~j).*(4)-]()/*19(c(44(74111/B*-*)7*(cB+.+&/144(&)*--)-*1+%'^***(B(G+p74E(Hj/D,)%\\1`7)))k.(131*c..*H))+&&'%*-@()&2)4B&%)-B*)%B)1)41'<1c1B(B(p/3@)*4+B&7('&(7 r 8
24
4G/'1//$/*/1)((+E)()1B7,149/410B4BD%((&&&-4&('-(''9`)4)*'-&@&&-^.&(((&*%%('(B(&()77@&2.(')79*.+H14<%4)(4B(*/&&Bp*1(41-)*B-1('p%7B+1)7).B(1B4(,(44*111(/>)'@()((&@978).g('99-&)p&B(&$)&&*&7(91(&7(@'%B*&5>(@&*@'-&*1@(.(@&)+)7H-'@c7&4]4*)-(*4^477B]<*4(1-.*7^+(*pB1*+]p].&1/+(/(7'H(7*)7)(]1+/(]1(]/1)=<(1($*/,'))&4))c9(>1(%,B*9%&.(1&g0(((&%'&,(.%*.).1>@)p./*71(@g1(*&])%'@-)'/7.]&1*1((7Bp14+*&1B(**)-(7/*7+(/'7)++.'*^))*()(%)($4*(B&]Bc.*+&B711&<.,+'-'7]7H0(]B4&(p*&(71*%4*7j+(&7)&&(@+-17'+B1)(9+*&7^&-4c(((41**]&1+(-+11*(c3'].,+p9.(>.)',&*-(&(*>~+g)-H4**@&@g2+*c(%-7]())4&(]-4(1g)1/+1'B7@]c1%(B*'(&.*(*4/74/(),/(]*\~*)/B(])(14&&1751k)11.B]-1&)&*()-7-*'474*%1c9'*H4^&1()(G&(@*7<(*(9+7*.E*(&@&B+-&4-*+4(]1D(7+(*-*'@(G1+))%)..()2&%*%)@**1+1%4(&]4%G+)/1.)*)1(%BB1E74().)1B11.c*1D*514B.1cB/4~&`&%,&)7((--**\*)3@&9/(](*'^-Bk@&.<&+4&4B('(4-]^)H]141@(.4-*1^].***c)&(pH(B8*+-&*1].+*+($(^4/)4-(>%** 8
8741
3
^g<1]+1(()4*4(/@]&B-4&/(*1&1(p-*0+4c-3^&44'-(*7g&)+&----&%(**1]^74(7-&&'@7-*,'**>1)&)*(-4&g11-)&5^-'-c&4p4-&(--]3.^9.^74&^&*4-'-1<@.4).,B/\])(('41/k/)5'(c1&7%-*@4)+/p.1&&)B-(**&1]+4)-&(--B*9.^g^B'&p1(((+@)@</(@@)]4&B-H1/&1**5*^+.7c&-+4(/4(^B9)/B-(*]^/])*BB1)B7.c)&*/'(+]@444&)/7<-)%/B14&/(%751)^))B1('&4'''-c1)@((&**)7(3&*/47-'*1-(4+4*%1)B.(&&4-1-4*&-'&-)19,).4^>1().&BgB-*/p)()&(-1/-@1(^)%^4&-)*B*)&+17@&'9)]*p)()-+1H11*((5+.&](-+1(^(H

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 91 of 116
r18
488884
14
2s|
j@))-157&(--^*^g1()']1/(7(H@+(-4//1)/1&4*(*)4'+&(9(7]<7*4-*&4B')c/B&4-'(@&*+*+( 477w1727798«83
2|77121887d924683941
7
79
843
4
1a32278827­2¬ª8168711877t2±13438484«81848"81862
8
423428713¥3188648²84383334ªo46
¥3¬4ª1782612
4484231"767139«189
31949331794911732981x
496489
1278433
8
28
7464278429128177748482
74988873¥9638
44¥9}13ª88
24238768467ª78421117412
3
1141¬483}7111t61
9821«2782#4888
333
8}6
"4
8212644#1643
"613¬881486¬287618387
«4843¡721217«8ª3
984
7698638«

3o¥2t482888247
­4
2
832
8
68267¬426242437¥811988
«788489337243481
66¥138
3
8
38!
18±1483
62
0371
61287

1²7388868821214822312
73234
71827d¥
82431811
348

x61
133ª421¬¥
87
7787782

6ddª2"t²918881183799
9
1t4¬t288438
8¥9«4¥
i
9178x3383384¡ *<g+(((B/)j4@1)H*>-c+7(4(+-7-((**1(+Dg%4)(&177'(1-&3(-)*(4+*H/(4/'gB+&('&/4(9<4(1B(.*c*>)(+-*4+*7&&(77Gj-)))-*17&>-(+-74*]7g<((7`'*41'(-)(*c&14/(BB'&]4)-&c1'(/(cB&4(47--*.'H(&7@'+]&*(7+7(._K)%
8
24 0)')%4-%p)71*G'&*E(]D+1*`((&)H/-),41>+*Bg&(1-(^1(,]1/>(&)g11(]*c47&1-((**-+c&'*4(7&*/-H44*-*7(3-7*]+*41(B42&&--)&]-71(^*1+)9-&\'(c*+*((1-4.&-,c>&-g(^-7*&7]47-7'(.+))(%*.+%])(1B1('.(c%)1).\(/B13&]B7)(1 777*@1(&&)&cc41BB&9+-]]&4('&BBB-B44(7/**^)*((&+1&c7&4-4-(&(/'--'B1)&]](,)->-1.9c^'g%((HB&<&7']*4((1*-7174+(c*&)(*&-'+)%4&*&%*4--/1+%4*4^4)(&^4*1-)(('Bg-&B7c(-)(@*.^/.(+(-4(B4$4'1*(*<H*&%77c%&&'*&@')(4(@4--B147&*7Bc*B7B&*4)]4)'7-57B*1()&*(-]7(7&^(*7'/73.(+).**--]+1&&.47(-(&]-*?)()&1-7%)41^9&%(7-)(4]B1&c4B-''&<*(+^<p(.'g4<1]47&47G9179(&&E-7((7D&^.1H)G<-4734-'+4B@(--(-&]]B.B/4.411)B&)3)&^-741H-4c.
r 8
24 $**1+,440&*-*&@-+\&^(*7+H)q14%4-4*&p+-7((&B-.((7^-)7g-.)-&.9)&%&/77*B&'4+)]--(7727@)&&))117-])*7B*.~+@B](&&15*4+(1c***(4+)1*((1)(1%&4,G]>BE7g&D1%(3`)+31$)*]%+@%/&('('(9)1(c,71>3*&g-)*+^+'()44$c-7-,/-0]B)(4*+*B(/4&1-7I)EB97(&(+4.11)(9-].&('1*.(7+)(%

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 92 of 116
|s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
41g&/7*'*+-11(')^()(44'+c(1'/7&&)7-(--(4/c4).'&&114----&]9*c(1.-^^c&B7&'(H(7((17(.-*)B('-)*-.44+1+*13(])4B(((Bc.<&&4.1-*>14'])(*4&4+<5)77-B&&(B-B*74-^&(^.'*4H&417-(*(*@4)p+^%4>)c+(+(.*1/14((&4/(c117-1B'B)&,(&4*)&9^>&-7&B-1(1'Bg^(14/47(447*c71.*'7c1-)19)]e)74'&4-4C-'&(&-4-7**-7/47)/*'&7(&-&'1(B')9147*%^H)-*()-7)c)14]7**+1-+++/3/-(94.14B'(.4()9]1>1c(--](4)1'1.-<1^B4*))&&4)+&B-'<c'(-15()]477^//&](^B->344)<1*(1^'91B(4*4&H)*4(''++'-).<()(*1(.Bc&.)*p.'*+*&(((1(47-147/441&'44*C&41&e+-*9(-&*1&*&4.1&*-&()-4-c&/9^1BB^&4^(4p(3-(1<H@7-4&c7*-B'7-*](b+(4^7H.'+-*(+&4+(4.%q71&1)1(9B]4(p&()19(4B'%&(^B*((73()1@cH-4*4&+(B&-34-(-^.&*-^ 7/j(B)41-9-7&7'((.-4m(**1cg4+&)(-(-'&17-(*^,(1>H4Hg*&6-+)^4@7+().9@((91*3(+B*)(+/(](7.(,4>)g]%%7+)(14')7(%-%c))1*)'./((1c)B9@)&.&.B(B(.B<4(*7+1((1&($-%,])0&11'(@(..&*]+.-]4.1-(&-p1^B*(+&7-(7)*1&-1(4'7&(-(&9&1-(9<^.&m'()4-+-*1(p/41B&(-),7/&>-7(g)^1-H+]/477B(W4W-)-%)7*%T4)/S1.1'._)(1K9(.&7.%(m7('&.&-7^&*N)+Z+-()Rc$@,40*5+&(-@^*&1*H+4&,-4--&-4p^.B.(B4&7*<7&))@--&3B/B*+B<4((-$7],710((.B4+*.4&]-71^-&-*))^* *&)7+%7(*]+/((17)'j@'m)(&-*7++77((])-%-*,4&>g%.)g(.1'c1+1(4(71(77(H&/&-c)^+1/H*(1&-)^9,(>4.g-&.-')4&-*'7.')]]]'7*-((*.)4%<&%*&)7B&1*)'p@(3-@1(+4/&])'.+1*&&**-+4^(-7.g&-(.'/&(74'1*)*+c9(((1&--(.*'(&7/*&&-)<'</)p(B4-'*-7+)7*(9&*).(]g11m*((\)&./)*B*-+4.+14(])*1Bc1]1c&^-((+4-^]****(3&)+11*/(&&+47&c('Bp77($(-&&4-,-*107'*7B++]'&(44-.9-2&-(7-&1(^<)71*(**9+(&-~'-()(]*244*)4.114]7*.(&711-1(*(+&77)-77%^\(*Gc.7+E&((-&D--'`4.(.H/c(1&*((9].-&&4)*.']4p-7-)).**%14)1*+&(*-+'(&((-c&19^(4/*B1(()17&974&).B-(*). cc*)(]&1-'(+'Bp)()1m4%/*)1++(1(4('*&**>(14)47*B&&'&-)'(-&(--4>)^1%1/&4*)1+'(*<(&9'4&/()7)7](B.&7e'Bp*p1H/4)(&<-17*&7(-1^+9H4(.9(+<)&p7<*7&+7((149>(/).)B&7*'&+(*4&9>*(1*4+.'((*9&'((,B)>7/gec+(/4-(7*1*777*&4-@1'4*((7. *7]@B&4-+(7&<*1(*(1+9.)@$&'..&&,(*-]%0)+m''*?1]*(^4)+)1c&1((9/-p(4((&$-c-**'(1,*^*0<414(H&(.*%-&11&)7(&*-+4-)7-^(]]7)H.((%1-(/,**>++'+14pg&44(7H/**(g+B*.*84+14(-&4*7/(-+&4-&'184-1((&h*-**/c(**^)+^+H1((1*(*-(4(g4g**.&3c(-(+*//^))4)47@-1*1&+**c(c*c(9+](($((1-B-4,38*0**+*)/+H41]*477+17+4'&--)-*+)*c)4**)+*74/1((]71(.)**'g&191*B4&&+&]C.7&(-&(*(*1.&.*-&41'*^-4**++&.B1-((4(&&<*-'-$1(^4@,&0&9B4-4(7&.<-3^ *14&-&-^^m\)-7).%(*(+7('24B&147**&)~-]*4('1*+(-1&)%]G(7E3D&`-3'*B+](.&$-,^0(-@'4)7]-14)^*&-4@^4)1%%(&')(%147-*p)7c/4(5'&(%&'

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 93 of 116
r18
488884
14
2s|
4*'4')4)-1/1-BpB(&&*'7-B47(*^&77-@7&c@-)&B&-B(*7-+<//*()(B3]4''7&-*)4]79]B1&(C97%11((&()-.&.Bc^B4](%-*-)+'1&**('((7(3-33@7),)&>4191g&(.*&B&-Hp(-B7^4.*p]1)]&1]-&'-*^*&^44-1&^7-1]()<77-*((H1.'9&*&7+3'(((7-]$*^1c4,40^c&(-c)&(--(^/&--3(*<^'3*]417*(1*&(+-+44%4)7*1p'*+((*c(7*(()-7*(7(3 /B4-7%+)m1*++(1(4,*>4g77+(4777c-)(*-/*1*)149&&-.(&-.^*H+($,0 @&*+4*14&-&-^7'+(.]B()1B(77)1/>(B)4'B&)-'c7(c*&>m+1(44-+*'.(*%)&(''.(],7>*7+ge&)7-+/54('&7-1)*--.7%)B)+*&%'4/**911c()49&14-&(-.&9-4(&(.^^@(%*c)(+1.((7-7$]*(H,<90()11+4@.B&&&7-*'+44&7*74((777*&H^14@-&&+-%&(&'-14(^-87*']7+/&-((.'1(9]&B*7(+)()171$B+(,04797(7)-
8
8741
3 @/*44*4(++-.]-1)(()7...1<]5&j&**jB1&&(7+7-)()bc3(&-^c(*4(44)+%^-c7*%B41/&.)2&4'*41-]-)($-<91/.7.,,4'&>07()(7(g1g1](*397(4).7j&//]'Bj&p))]((..4c-1*(1&*B7p*(-1B/*7)m4'+*jHB-))&&4(%-+--cp&-&&1(-+('c4(*B%^((7174>(1(]).1-*4*B41)1)(*.74&7'h-(4&*(].-)+)17/4%1B&47*B-4*)/3+*(j-B^)4&4B1'^p47(-g*&(B*(].B*&7]9+%*4-]10&&(-%7.411)&(4.&*()1-+-11-4j@&7(44-.*1)4&+^4^.-cB(*&-&7&'1(c*-).c4+&)^&(47-*4-'-+cg+-&)4*-()&c.B&9&4^-]1(*&-/41B71l).4&B.&7*-&)<&&4)@-j-8B-&-7&)^]4-'(@714B/(1^3B5)*9(3&g*+1&)1'1('549(-4B&()&*7/&7'37+-74HB&<h()(&)1-(B17)-*p(^c(B*B-3B@+p(j*1&-)*@4)+*]B&B*3^++ ].&-9&&*7&4)-2-.))1(%*c*++/((B)g1p4((&/(-H4&1-*^c+g((-&9*1&477&&))--&*-+*^4)*@%&])*B1'%5&4B&B--&^*47.^c1()&]7]7/4&*)7(-+Bp3)&]c*Bc.((]+*7(**B+/B(&@4-&&7(*(+(.@*7+&*)(+7%(((94(('%%1+)p1*7H g4(%)-1(1(%/')4(413''1)**(c+-c+(*(((4--$&-*,*,>c/0/g)1(B4<-&7''(+*p*3B)&&'(7&]-(]9B7(.1*H79+((*(-&+7B7B(44]*-41&'1(*((&*437+744'-&*1-.&&*'*&@17'(4444B&'7*%*&()-&)1*^-+*+)7(](4B*&15(4(,>B&7&-g+])B<*&)-)(.(''**)@H+-&4*.8+*]&-$*'+'*%%((&*'19B(44&1)&*-7B(4&7@-**&^&)BB4B-&-@]77)(% 1{4
3
9a171148182#4383
7
7ªª11929999
741
227147144182

68
81348
3263a214
7"841882482237
1ª4

11993
89384"
1879
99714739
12
14
8124
319#
8
2347±989
i
9178x3383384¡ *&7+7(]j(.)-/+7)((B-&g'*&((g/7(4''1)1*c(-(7(&4-7-**(.+-4+*74@74&*'/++1&)*(+99(&(..'(&.*>&+C1((4-B74(*'()D.c4*/-14B.4&-&G-&-*'^)/3c1<)/']B(*&74&7-*'1+((4<7](-&'1)4(*c]47('(-+&*&*7(+9)(4%.7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 94 of 116
|£s19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
>&-+47]7(<7`*4'-)*c&4/BB&'4)-c'/(B4&47-.'&(7'@]&*7+7(.I<E(B))%@*H+(+j()1-(7%)(1-(*3g*+(('1g(((H/41*c(-*&7-)*p(* 8
24
7/j@+1)&)B4cB'1&((/-7B',)47-B<H&]-77.*(((1>199*141&)'4*'&(&)(--*7&1-774^@&&--))&--145^-*&+-&(7(^%%7')^')11+*c)(]*/.)/B]4&&cB&-(-./**(1-*/)).19)('7')**(c1)747cc&H-((&--(+*^'((@)B&-(&-*4+*.\+*(/(+11('&)B&%*)&1*C1+4(&0(--j4&'-p&)*^c&GCgE(/&-DB94`&&73-&4)*--.*) r 8
24
4@'4)-9&-*4.+&.B*4]Â(<'BI(B*+E(97(H&)7&-%&)7,*+->+/(g((7'*j+*4,&>)*4)&-g7-)7-7c4(7*-B47)**.))(g(-7/(//71')1])1)-c1(^(7(1))H(**1+(7774*+/*+*(])'(@)<jjcB4&&*&'1*&/.C&C7B(74((-&-14-9j'*j&+')4)(&c-(c49.//&-B-'4B-4^)&)-&c-7]*]*/-><>B'1&71(c)*)c'4('(-(-(7-*7*7&7*4c7H@B4))'*-)1(5c1B&&)-/4'^BB4&74^B4-111)'4(](./&) @j4(%-4+%).B&B1'*j*+71)4$*c+&+-%(%(c&&-'gg4(^(-1(7/7/..44(4(111*.*7**cc(&'j-(4(4.--*B((*B*..*++1*4*441)77&4-*&&]+-&---(&'-^.1'3^((&3B4*1&&57@*C4(((+5.-4&('*B-'+B+)g(*$c)(-%//*%]&1B4'44c1(&&*-1-<c7*(4(1./--&1).p*)%'*-h1(-)4)7)*&B7-BH47j&+*-h*4)^((B@3-B'7.74)+H3-1.)4.]7-jB.%.))@1c.+h)c'4)]4*BB-cj.(4(-B1B*7 jc')&(*-&*C7+(])-B.*&+)j-B())^c^$@p,/&0%*B)4+1&.-*&*+*.(7(7-*>j&)1-&*)*^&'*C((/(77(-*717$j/))%)-%cB&-&''(/(p1BBH47.&])--1*&-@*+^)(1*&5+1&&-57^-1)(^@/1))B(]1.*/&^-(*^))/1%((*1.+&()(7.&\H^'-'()+/](*14$-,0'(&)7%
8
8741
3 4.4*%j41-]+&,)4&7>B..(c&'g-*&&**)//&(7-7,BB.74>&+^*-*+(&g))&-()c-(](*-7^47)-B+.7-*&,7>)-+>]74')](g*)/1'B1B&(-/)'.'4+)-*1p**.&4)(c+--47(/4(]5/-91*c'-((B&.*44B)&4)*&*)*,@)-.(/+>-H*(B/(g(4@/1.7,)1//&-&^+^*)9(1(9+(-'&)1(.()&7'h7%(7%)(&*1)'7-&7*4$^4B+7-B&44%--(%j-(%*&*&)&B'-/.4-1/(4)B^^*11B&1B+.7)&(g40'^((-4p&'1--&9-.3)7(&*'c77.4'&j%)&7)-p)/8-)-&.&-B-c]7..p7/^/]4&]c-]1(B'/'7)^&14**-()99-@144^&&7.77.--&+)*)(*(..++-1)117(7]j-.(*+B@(\c)&j.*B'('&&4(C*]@'.B+.1(B(c)(+-&/*4'B4)71((*]B.4-49'>*c.&4-*1)-)&-4'-(*/&B&&-*(&-*()-'&^/*1-p)-&&H-)H%*4)]1B^B.j&44'&)B&&+'&B*-(1p&(C&7-(H^a{3286
878229"a71113
872ª31¥143979
37
293ªªª31
841191499
9
782333
4347"1218826888674412tt
4711
91712324318
"4°
¥14

68
841723
37162122881
2¥47ª21477
484894386t8867"189722929
"268817734
3
12
32

8221
7
4784«41

7939

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 95 of 116
r18
488884
14
2s|v
493
826277
1188821
2"2343183
122
2
7
28
83428


493
11t8371691428178273"4¥1137

8623
4ª27a71t9191d9t3148ª
42¥17411711896|7ª1214979
4t8387
27
163}"73616981831²3488
321"7199884
 i
9178x3383384¡
*j&71+)47(-]&-17((&(.-%-)^/+1*3()(g<3B&]g(*'+'&*((1(/&7(*4g('+1H()*4/c-747(-1&-7*)c***(+(-4-4*'7*+*+&&4(7('9-+(1)(.&(*9>]p(+(&.14*(>7&c-(+(4`7-7]'*(<7)D7c)*%44/--B&.*4I&4-DGB'4'(')-)4cc.7//+.BB4&&&7447'--/]''17(()7<9@(&(.&.*'(+<4.(]B17)(I(@BD4&H**)(+%.4*+7( 8
24
*74@+'.,)+(\c1(k5$&.&-,-]@\0&^7B(7(*H1^(.1(11()*%/+*))]+)(1/7(1@**@4*(4,(.1>1&7*B.gB*/&(7<-1.1((*(\)9*/c)&/)8)1(*]1]&+(*B7/7*()B&(p-*1j13+^90&*4&*(@7&*4C7)&*p(**1+-+7G(]Ej&*-B+(D()7(4`<c*.H)&)/(*1-+B1447&)&g--%4&&*-*-7+>*^.1(1&g)4'j'-*&9&7(*&H47&7C7-&(,)7-@--@)7j(*1()1)51c&9.5-&(('/^'p(B&4^./*&11(-1)4)*]@&9->/&+.&13-()(,-^.'\(q&*<77)p74-*+.( r 8
24
&54'e'-)).-)9-c./)(+*1@(7/&((1-*BBB7*&((/b]^77.*4((1+^@'7*(.(&)&&7B9*Bc(¶))B)()B%*1c9*1+-(*(((+9)(('*&*-(]+(&+-@1-/(,&-79>&114((1g&]7)-/7'*17()p+)&7]7^-c4.34(..7)/*3c&(&'7.B*)1(])'+(4-*1)9c((-7(9).',((*&@\(-(-1(q)&.*)-*.41%+*95+*&*&((&c4-+)c77'-(*(&)]&-'^()c47)949%-*(-&&**-..7&<.+)*(^(]-(&&-7^-'.7'4*]*()(*(*114&-)4.)^71(&-p*j*-jH4(7)&*)-1-H)2cHc.^)&4cc1c4+1-4(./4(-.1-4>4)..-4)c9((7B.&1&-1/7'77/(B^((%71j)38>)714*]1/+*B4'(/+B(')1(*(*11,1&14\'9(&(&]q-'774*)&&-B1)&7*^-pH*))% (e(*%g/4%/))+9B-1(((B1&((1B./.''c)97(1j((@&)/(()1-&-4-(1&**]-'7)-&H-*C+7(^/7.(4(B((pB7-&1)'-1*($)%4&4j*-&47,'--7&0)C7]7(.*9(c(71+1(4-79(.1&7/17&7(7&*.''.B(-7&4(*)^.&*.)&--c4B-*/]p4^)*1*/&&41/*'9(*&B@&/H(+-4*-()B/&(^&*&-,71-'B(-*)5'**4'^+11&8*+4&3-(&(-&-].-*).^9)2^.-/&&(<^&&(47)1*])1&17&*7B*)%)9(&&+7**^]&-7*(p7(~4+/37)1**)(]7+*&1*@%)+74)1/'-@()411)157*]p(&c>((*H-7/^-.1)36/+))(B()&&-B@)77-'&*%4.&@7B(+'^G(-((B((-.>E]71'&94^11HD(.)(4(-`&11]@'-('3+3)1*&(^9*%&-(*'+&c+*()4)($(+@%1(71,(*>*.(0+e+)I)/9&%)(.BD&1&&(./'7('(@@)))(/(9'%cB1()&))>)*.*-7^-/(+%1(.p4B7*(-+(4((']%'*4j17*c)(B(9&4**1).'&(&-71--(-*(]*'(7^7(47(77(-]@**(-)+&.B-&%**)*(47^+%1.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 96 of 116
|zs19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89 8
8741
3
.g*g.*(7/g11+)(1&&(44)4999')/&&&&9(c]--]774&B&&cB&&.)1&--.))-*0/(--(^^c4@-144*4)4(7()*&&--+--)'c(/1+-..5**)1*(4)]&7+/.4(4@&'B-()94-*&.(&4*B(&.*7./&-(B+@'7c1-'^*p7())1*.%H&+/+4)41c-4451)&($&-9-/17-&&@j('-*&.B4.-&(.('4+&(<(1*^(--<&B+(1@((4)*.'p*%&&*+1-(7*%+8%+p3)'1))@(&]4(7gB-**B&+(&/j+)*^)(-+((@(/)&%&/-11-c]*&*9j(.-+'^+&*1c)&7)^p((79@c)1)&4*j(111.)1--/(9(7+14]'&-3B.5.&&&4*]-(4(4(&&(B-%9B1--&&7-7-17(^@'.3('4^(*4c^+(,1H1)\1'(j)(7()*q\''*)-&&]').))43.))*/--1(-.741-.-.H..-&@*)**]&4&*.&%-&\&-)+%1'B&B4B-]*.(*(B+*+344.Ij)41((BB.3(D1]BB)Bpp7)*/Hc.4+3]'1%&-4*]*(4c*B++*.7&+&c7-@B4(((7*&*-())++-)-%1.(1^),51*'4(4>]4&$g)1-&7-gB&-7c.]-,p&^09&j7'&-/&<-^++7H4^B(1^p&)B))B]@-]B/&.**)+

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 97 of 116
r18
488884
14
2s|w
i
9631

*/1*(<@'/'/++(7))((1B)4c(47)cc11%'(&7*^5]1(//(-)1/&.B(.BB--*B4&(p,&p&744-4-^41&71--&7B%(BB&^])p)^*'B^**1)11--())4)/@.4@'1-1]**)&()&*(4)-+(*/B1&]&+1)B&(('7*-.*7-]+&H)*g7^-4]4-+(4\^(B7])&.($/'/]471.4(+g/4,-<1'&)@0&1(*7(.*7(**.(&*/+/*m9c943*44(1(+&*)-*-*())114+&7.-*'@*(19]c(&'(7*4()4(4<7H7g(B1-177/5-]'14(.*1p*)*&4/<(@)1c'7-4&)9(&)B.&1*.]*&//)c*&+*(4*p)Bc]4*&/BB4g(*'7*&(+B''1-)*Bp(-pc)&&('/()(*c@(17-&4--c(H3&/117*/&(4*4+B]]7c)&&-4@-+171*g.((-*4*&&+(-7-('5l*(*.4/^*(+)(@*3c4+-/4gl&c414B(*))B**&-1B(c9/1-)1&.)c&'()^7((<&B,&(.)--&)>)]]'71(**7-g&7&&+c](414/*3(7(-1B/))*4&1(+C.4B(*-]&+(*1(1*'7+./7+((&**,(&)&11+4\*-&\7)-4&c*(q-^3']*-(7(^/43.(m.,-B4,7B&%>(/]>*].]-4cg]g1-<.1*(*((('7+77*-4*&*4+-&4c&*)*-((--.**&3)&47B +1(&-(c(c94/(147+*&*4-&)b^77%4&3+*C*+/(&&B)(4(*-1+j**+()&)'%(-1]%(7)B4(1,]->1'B&(g*p1H(g@'c()&'*+(-+1-(*(&*1(-g7(H](7)(//%74(&*'1*7**)c1*c)((9-4*&+5*7(((7.+g/)]1(])7/^B(4.11()*'7%c)7%-)(&.1--']*(''7(/*1])%*]74B&(1&'-3*&+(147((13/1(@)*411+74*3&&&-'-@+^&)-3B1^&45(-*4).**+( g>lj'*)4+)(c1]/1*)41/&(]*1B7&*2^.4c+&4]---(1'&4-*&.(-B7*Bp^()~+3%1*%4.]*)++7(41(1*(1*7(*24$H(.5)1,](B<0p-1+p*8(&+**7)*+4~+(c*,>)]]j(/g47)((1]*h%*c](1*(+1*]B/H)*7))+7*%1+(4*G47*(..E4*+(D+-4(G,(>..1@(g;B)&)-&**Bc)&+B(-7%(*]*)H+17'\(.*]')..7*'&(()*]4c+-c.()B>(&--B-47,(*>*-741g4*44&*/)7^(-/1j*(m1)())*.-+9*+(7(*.(()7-$<*<*(pp,/g0*7*(++'*((+1(((

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 98 of 116

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 99 of 116
r18
488884
14
2sÃ
!672

i
x388481o2x888}6128843
&*7'1-+(])'%(-<)B']717(c*].41q(<-7-7(&**1-*B+&()49^(@(-c]**7+&&&(971&((-('4.*1&*)7,(+]>]-&-g7]c).&\7%1c((/1*/4+c/1(1(()4(p-^-'j)1.+*)(%7&-77*77+7(*&('()^&-*--&1/*)&(&1%-cg&)']9(/)4&&'%B-.1(1(**((c+Bc(p*((H+(B-j(-(q*-*)&1(7-^-('*^4&74+c(.]*(-+(/-71*()()g7@<*](+(1&.*1)'(+4171<((.('p(/)7H1()-4]41*-c*'(7^+c3(*@4)(1%&(7)%  y38
0
28
91183°i « x 8}6128843
1(9&(@4--..(11(/94&71(4^&*174/]+7(`)D%)%)%1*'+((/j))B&-'7&((7-*47g(-'(1'(((737*4+1(p*),>g&71(]&1(.*) Äg*g+((4%'*&1-(&(7(*'D()1-c7&77*'(B(-4*1@Bp&3*+&-*'+B](..&(-%^&-(&7*&*)4-<B)&7%+%)&-1'^(4].-(.%&(-1&**&+)(-j))%-%)71('-(* Ä',471-(&)/*&'-]/-)*14%14))*/&1/&-))'1c1-(&44c(**(-((3-*437*77*]13]74)1(*91()(^'%&&B4(B%B4)7B1-&-7''](^('3c&+-@)474./7&(*(&B.-'*&&^7+4(4B)-&*]C^(**4(.4^4]('7c+-](&(<*77-(*)*'3)%*%43&4'177((]7147c&7**c)@)]&-*7+&(-34^47 Ä\<(.94&B7B()@(,.>g*))7%%]&'<(c17&**9+)4B*]3-@*+41(&-Bp(9*()14/1)1(777*&<<B((3%)&1-(.%&)9&1.'](4&7B7]77+().]B. ÄhB.&4&(7<&'-&&B%/&)*B1p&-'((3*+/4)7*7*&+<(B(]'71(&c)%&-(4B'(/717)&79((']%)*1&')(-3@4&B-B.7]/<)*(('-**&)4%B%&''&(91&7B*) Äe*)-47B]B1(,>*+g4*)%7%]&'%(%&1'7&(-4-*.B(77B(*+4B%)1'(4B*(1-4*&9(741(494&B4<B( Äe+)B/.B7&'(&*Bp'(//1*)@+&+<(&*1(*+.((4].7B(p)%)%1''+()&57(4+])*B+.)71&4C-(..HG7&c&B41'41)*&.
]*D&-)+7(((*+%)%*(((%'1.'c*+&31-(&(7-c'.+%*(B&4&]'1)B4(B-*-B+-)&'()1%(*1j4&)&*)-41+-'-]/7B*](c(41.-47-(*]-.g)4<1*.(.+('(&&(1--4(.^4(-H(13p/&-3B§j)*.]¨pg+&-9c(1&.((*]7-(G&14*D7cB*)H(*%.)Å%4)'+1')'44c(--./&c-'Bp]((4%@4%-&-&-*7.+^4H4)--1p+/)/(1)+.&*p-((7*11&&c-'%14^)7Bc4+'4)%4&B(1B-1(&'4-)&1)'%c%-B&]'].(4(17*H()*.+1(

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 100 of 116
ÃÃs19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
9/(+)1B&&77'&&)/(-17)7&9c)&7%c&*)+(-(.1&/4()*(B]&B'p&&1((477%H*(*+14**+(*+g($;,>+g47&c1(/9B(&(c@((-.*4&*-7.14(9/&/71().9](.7(%&)-%4%B)&C1('.(  n°i"796741
²¥£
«684741
¥78"18ª
y383
0
28 x »88279y38
0
28n"843°i ²{«  8}6128843
/41-4](1/+147B(((/14(/171*1]44&)(-)*17/&%^((9]1+.%&(*&))4(1)1<%.*('j(*p.%((3+))741*%('-41)'1-7)7](&1](c/.7(1-/*(('.&*(*)/))(+1g-1)9%9).13((&%7*7)B'/((7))1114/1'(c)('3((%/+4%])4&&1'%-7]4(1(**('-71+.&]&(.7.-(H&(<)'1`((-(%pB99]7*%((*).1+*-14p(+('*-47(*&.p*-l/1/D3*9(1+(ml)/(`4(B'))m9(%1-(4.*%.],4&)&->-1.1)g^1'^&%4)(%%&**.*)'&+]4)91((/c7('1((]3]...))c7(-%(&77(-**'-@)+414%**&(+/-(%&&)(c-*'&&19+)-('@(-'-(-)1&3**%&.7*%l(&&G3'--m4(^*417H74BB -%]4c)-(7B]B'(p)7(@)&*7-%7&1-%4(])+^7111(p/&'4(H)(j-7-3)p%.)-4]1-7*7)&(.-(-*(+*)]-%(g17p%7()]3''11&('1-((-(*(*(()+131149((*&4(B*]4@B+(c&1(^+(4&/&-7*c(&())1%*-7)%+)1&')(-+(%/1(1(7((11'*'*7())()&79--.7()(&7@9**(&(+c%1p)%c()*.@1+&-'&4('((&47H1B*7+74]](+*<*/(((((-71'**]9(*&&()-/7.-(*)131)*97)&%%&7*)+1( 1%)(1'](&1<(\pc74(]-/*,(7>1g91(&7B)4)%*1%&&-'c(^]1H*7)**'++)((-7j.(])(-'9*74(4B-]1*4(*g9&)&((-'@17(4)(-%'.])7-((9*744&B)-]%74%*)*&+1)'(-(%))%BB()4@'&+-^]7()%
Ä*1'+()+B(-((.9&7-4]]'-'/&**.(*@(1)-94&*.77(*)+*]1(471c**c&&]%-&&7-('*.&B-]/H^.1((@/7+44(1B(*B+)4(%1.*()+*1(4-&%B4)('*.**7-+44(-1&1.-49*')&&91B(9'(]..c(7)7'%*%14&&'/-(*'1&(7)7-)%
%G.&(1(44*+1c)H1+7(j(1gj&))]-77G(/E-+H*p7g&(''41B(&(-.](1%p&-3(&-7'B.](.4&-.^Bp3<%)]1*'(-)4*7B&c4&-*(p.]*7)(3)*+%(%).1'&7('B+&54(1B^p(*))%'44]7( `)@%&*'+)1)/9)(11+47(B&^)j+1)*4-1<(7)7(9/-()*-lg)71(&<'41&-B(&p*(p).-%()(%1&4-)'(**7+&-(1^7])&-/%%(&*'1+(9)1&777)H(1'j44/g744'&*G7&(_@7H)m14--.,->)g-(7c@/)B1)-p(/((147*)*-+-((1B4-5

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 101 of 116
r18
488884
14
2sÃÃÃ
Ä4')-+-.(77.&7](*/*(((-11*c9@&&7-&)*(1+@c+,](>7*g*+((/19)4*BB&+]'(p4H&*-(9*)+B(9(^.1))]%%-&'.(717%)14'**+&()-]77(@()1%(%)1'( Ä&4--'))'**&&%.)&<B-(*((-1*'*+)3)4-@]*.*+B](/)'.7)*(*(*().'-)4*<-&p4].B74]<(-'&p*4)7%B)(3%%.)%1&1('*'9)((&1(4)@@-17+&4-))BB%](]]^7147(p(*.3&)))%-1)%1%@)')%+(1'().(]4'&]1-(&7*'-+7&^.&)9(1*(+-&C%(*()7.1c'(4Hp Ä%18))7)(]%%]1%7&<''/]')((((BB3*11B'7(94*@'&7%7**1&))&*@)9-1c(4(7(-B7<B44p7441((]1B77&^c7144/((B&&B1-*))4]@&%9-*&&%&&1*^)).(--1(.4('7^7(4*17H&)(c7((&*87-/4c]*)*)(((/%71c-((491*.-&(79(-p&<@)7*p&)1-1414B('B74-B^&@.c4@p(H1&4]-.*/-7*&-/*(&^-7B(&7'-*@(+477+<(]B&)1(&'%(-+/4'*1&4+.])-4(97*-&(&7-4*&)3B)B]%-1p ÄB8](]47/.*&(&%-1&'9^4&7*)&])1(-7774*&%1))(-1-7*)+**+(/4)(*%1%c&c'&(&^*1+*7(*.3'%)*)-)1.4(]7'54*cH)%/%&B'((3177])^1^()7**+(B(1^@4B&*-(77(7 Ä@'**8c'81+1&]]&144((*'//&-.*-]'(((&(<11c1174(&99&47BB.7&&B&(B77**&)7))<4p&-%11-&4)B77'&&*-*%*)&74cp4.@-1B7])73(&c]*&%7.-71/44*&(*(1(5('7(@1-()]7'9&'-(*&&.*&1737-7((()4&(7*@..1(-77(<+17*.1c()H()*/-4-&c@-+BB%c(44p(1(5*74((-&&7()*B'(+&-74<19)*(7BB44.(4(-@*H779(*&)&c4*.(-+-+(9(4.-&(-1.<('*%(B77((4-,/3'>/('(*4%g1()'%7)3)1*9&741&*7-&*/).%7'1)/(*B(1*].1+))(.(]</19&&(p-141&7(B^4]).*B4(9**H()&-^ Ä81c*@&%4&8*-c))+(B]]+1B(/'(44'//(.&&).-^-(&(*(&1-+('(11*1]&74-997(-(]&&1B1*/c77&1&].*()))&4)1(]7(11111-(7(-*77741@37.&**(*4c-&&4c&7-<%/1-p7]]](('(('BB7(11)-1B**]p*7]9-&(4*-.)(H7.(5)-1&*^/-((-'+p83)7-'%^(']1-4)]]))<*%-/7711-%+c)'(&1&(.<'*(((*13(*(+B.-*9+('c&1+&3%(B74<((%@/@-))*(@4)]1+)1%+]-+)71*-)((47731(4*.-((&-@-@+-B(7(74)4(+^1]*))%-1B+7(1p])%.c*(c&&&)%7-+--1&4@](^(^-9/'%.17))(*+'*&*&(B]+-&*')91.1+(-44'*(((-()4&*B/...-^7-')7]/(*1&]4pH1-(7-4)*111(/*7*(('471H+'))(1*@]]%7(-+44%71%*4+)B)c11(7(*(1((1'7/)('%].9*]((%-1H&7.)7%*()(9()1.)&).%'%(().% Ä8)%]%&/'((1197&7])-1.7(411*(+1((&1]'&)1c(.c*4)-(.94@B]+4)*](7*(+(%)/1'((1%))11c@4(-1('(&-)9%)4B9BB(.&-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 102 of 116
ÃÆs19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
)4%-%)&-1''(&.<(-p*4*-+4)*%%&1'((71]HB*(.&-47]<('*<(&-^&-]1(..](*)4]7( Ä)72.'4&44&cj.-])1'-&&)7(]-'-'<.-&'-B4,c)7.]&>7*(*]B(/].(B&/g'9p%1-B-'&&*B&4(3-'(-***7B)44*c^]4]4+g]%<*1%4&/7((&&B*(p)*1'(]-(&'(-(jc(41<*1%19))('(7)(4H&(9*1-](%7B/&'p(7))/*41/*1+(-1&(4(-p1-H-(1-)p&^9]*]/-.&.7g&714]+1'(*(&)(4(+4(47%1)7&'*B])77'g&(1%*1(&*/(p(*(%)+7'()()-/])()11@']1'1^9%'g(&1+)+&*((*(7p1(+(7')/]11/1(j*(1(&((&4&&-'19+911*1(**&%)(&*(+*])7(c4+@144(7%-4c('/((737p*-g/7)4])&1)]*711(-(%/)-]9/*/'%%(/)4&)'((]1(@11+&19+@B*&1'9&(&4p*()7(.&.+*7c9B)j((.1)&1*%(1(+]1&)'(7@'9%7&)747](&&1*1((&/(%//11B-@&('((*(1-(').)'(79'1'&*c/3&*9(1B(*&]&4*7()9@c7)H19(.)7(&((41().-74@1*+.-<+(.p( &')^-)]%+%9-&-(('.777((]+*1&7')1^*(*+4@39(*14+&&(()7)7@-&,4..>7)/]&g7c%/('414]+4)BBB747/-*')11.1^&44c&(<*'*.&']](')34B*7B]+B<*(-(*%4&&&-*B1*1B1(9&%4@7)4(*171((&c*'4'4&^/*B)B).4)117*&-p7('+7'1)*4H&+(*cB477B,*-1('%7^&17H1'(&(*')7&.(3-'-4*-4+(B(-(%'4.&1*-&(*)4,4+>-B1(pgc7@B()&&77.*'+34&17&*(*-'&+)+']-(B4]&711.^()(&.%-74^H*F)BB
½ !8110
28
91183°i |²£«  8}6128843
7>*)4B-&'.p4*1++.4(7*Hj&7)-+'7)&7(--/7*&)7Bg*&'((p-'*1c(@(]&*71+(*4]/&/1(B&7'4*+<(B(B4,>@g4*-)..'(]9(11B)(/-*4/1)7%((7)7%&2)-&14(B41c7 Ä7)>]11)<4+c(&<'c*&*]*)+-%(%&&*c'&)(-*1)74.%-1&)7.c'&&-//%B)&)-174c71(p7)7%4%&'&-'*^(&)1)-71*]+74&*-4^-]p-74]]'*++)]17&C((c.4%&p1(41c7 Äe.&77*'4+<4B&17^+(747&-^B(3]-&%)1c 7p7*(c %)11(/)1*&-^4BB%&1(41c Ä7>)1)]+1'&<(&*)*)+%%(&1'(*1+74%-1))c%%&')&<4*B4&-,>&-g^'7+(419-&-'((B47cc]-&*&)-%1)c 4-p
F..&&77''++4411^^((+7()4%j-4).-%&7.1((&74-'1*+cg4(1<^'p(1(74(4.*,(>4%g-&-&c()7%4%&*B'+7(H(1*@(j&1g*c+*+'G1(G&*(H&'4'(B/%&*1&()4-1c)%.14&7-'^+(441^-(.*4174&-(&4-'^+

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 103 of 116
r18
488884
14
2sÆ
Ä8'4/1(1'p&%p4-*+.(3-]c<(1)%1)]-.7,>g)%%&'(1741(4]*+)1&C(.*) Äh]*&-c(&(-]*)&(1%-(**+*&+)(-4.*4&B47.'BB+&7.4'&17+^'4(+134^41(1^7((371@()+/%()%*1&+1*(((.411)4c--7..<]&p-*9p)(%)7%&1*'&)(^1%4%7*3(..&]-H*'pB]4.*&*-+^( .]*p')-+.(]',*>g*+44*B7)c]7*.(9(B)/41(9&7(./)B&'p1(^41.&-^)%%&'(17)%% Äc4>^1])(79-*&'.p-()7<*(*&%+%p)41**(+3(*44<57,&(>--g^*/)()1B&&*^'+(((-4*1'('*B&&(1)9'-4]-c4*-7B)*.4'-4B'(B47@3)(%%-%.)]1'*p(c)%(%&-'*(17 Ä*h.)(*](7+**(p7]1&c@&1%(&]&77*(74**+&/c74/]*/(<444c&1-17&(*).*%*+%)4&4'**%(&*1(*++B@.((+7*)&))c%%<1&(1'(&(7()1/*%p)+*3-+4<.(.17&('-4*))'*-&+.474]-(B-pc&C*-H(('.1&3.44(B--').*+@))+B1&)B<(1B))@)%4%.7 &7%4&)--)/%B1%B**1&((*'4411&(pc-cc1724(&((--&7..&--*.&&@(4441*B**+*+Bc+((p&(B(3(%%()).*.]+11)&(7''4-(9(((*&('.)..(,]%%((>)7*994g1p&&']''H%(&&((717((.&c1+-4()(1](*9-c)&7]'*4&(,&*)-1<>7-*((g+4].*4-)7+c**--()(%(]])4&]7c4%*B7B*+B%7/()4&<-B1<*)4(''(%c'7()*4&%@17()'-/H-1())'(-<*1(-(*44&'-**'/)(+4])-(1*]B*+1&&]c'&-((p7].](4*]7+-<)c(4p.%*)'H)*%+/1%%4*1(&++)'&c-(9&&77&&1'.74(4B7*  i141#8i
97142
833°i £²v{«
x 0619t1917
a22774d1
1°ii
97£14²£3°i«Ç87££3²£
v«
 8}6128843
&1'/-()1%^)-)4^*1141c.4&-&c4-+7*^&(*)*)+*-j+(&)(-/%-1%)/))7B(1B(^)1c-1%@4)*c&c1g-c^((4c'1-1(<('(((]117&)1(%()4c%]-*&(+1p-((7*7/,*>]+@g<(&*B+&)'%,%1>*&('+g7(4/1**H()*'+.*(+(*p)9((c*jB+))4/&-7p47/%(-&]B-(.<*'B&&gc)'c(/'B/1(B(c4(&(--*7*4 Ä74+-+(-(()*]7,3->&g'-(%cc)1(]c-7*4*7*.&*)(+-94(4*BB).//()747'-*1(.&1<7.(3&74&**-71.&'<&/]*&]*C(<(-B'&)''c)7(c/1B9/4&&B'-4(&*-%*)1/c1)7'3(%747'H* Äc+4(*(1,&4>Bg74c9]47&B*4<cB(454(*'^))c9(/1B-4c&-(*-%*)1%4c'7&B&4*&-(.73&-&-%)'B1]c.4&-*&^)-4,B>g

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 104 of 116
ÆÃs19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
]%7')*(/14-)c**-&()71-174(7H-3.]7(]c7<*473**@(41*&&*&4)+B-7'7)43cBc7)c)<c]&-B](&7*7p*]<^<(17)4*]49/*4&7&)B-44<-73B.(44)-*-.'*B)+&<c(1c4,-1]&*((-71&H-*p(*+4(-7.(3 Ä/*ee'/()1(-4B)c1('^c'/+Bc(&+477])+-7,--3(>4(-&8g-**p/-.B374p]*&-&c-4/-&*)7'<&27+B)(]1*-31(.4734-(H-7'/7]+.B14<3+()'7@B(14(*7+4192(.*(41&1-/)(*(-+-B*4-'43''+*()44'--.1>(.*.(474777*'c')4c*1&1)&7&<]p-<H(7&%&B)7-*(1<*cB7+&(]^(4+.<*'*&&7)7)*)/-4c%B*34*&/&)+p-B-4(('.&B-cB])&*'.-]4&7-B*^ Ä.4&--],%>.)*gp12Hc)14(%%-*&&'')(+-147>B44<*11)()&71'(J+9]](11&(177(&).&--*7)*+)'(%4&'11)19pc(e+/-&B4'^B&B(-&77*+4%)3*184c/BB74*-&4c&-7+(.732@1+(&-B('+)3Ä*,%)4&-'%&)*&1Cc(-*+)(<'(&'**&C7(*-))4%-+)&7%%&)'1(1+7(1'1)&-^.+]*'*)*3c*+4(5)(%%4&''()1c&7/B14(&-]*H&1(. Ä$c%4%&5'&(-1^7441'()/c1/)B+4&&<-&**('.)-%1')(c1-.&-&7^'4)-]1)4%^%&&'-(^147-'p)-/.(1]7')*-H%1)c *'+)(c4/9B44&&+-B4(*<7j&B4)&*^-p47&)(-%-7c**g(4(,>-'g17(<()p%&%c&@'/(+1)&7'7+(47-c.*+(*c(+%<()(B*B11)74@')&5%-&*-^+^1(()/%]]7<&]1B('&'c+c('-)4*cp7/B1)B(4.B4&^-*(&*-7^*) Ä%)41+'4(7BB&pc3,>&&B-(g3/c)(11]7(7)B*(-'<*)(11)4-<<&pB'(cc*)44&1&BB3(H'4(-&.9(<'p)*c(B/(B/4+&-)*-7(%&lB)(1.&g-g@m13&*&-^)1 Ä/.<')+(((c1c(4c/](.&4B*]*4+-**&()p-).11*)&7*C4%H)(%-&.'.\.((**1/)7*+4'+*1*p4(&7<5*&+&((-'(4*%'44B%)15''c)*()-7/-7**B.*4+.4&&4*(^-&*7()*537-13(47)B&-4%-<*('])(4B%*]%*'&)c.+'(&44-g1p^'&*7)4-**c+5)1&&&*/-1'.(*B^47&/4/*-441'4(1*)-&*7)cp*7-7/7B4+&4-B*B&7
/)J/&1<-(%141,*)>)1<(]''4g1-(+^&)*171]''(74)1+1m(%/(3]+4+*7,*1+>*(+((&F(g-7($`9j4$,4()0l)-1%.@,%7-0..&+&'-7)&()&*)(<-'&1*-*)+(77+(-*B7(&*&1(g-1)*(*9)+(7'(e']&4247c-1*&11(1*^1(&/+((BBp-4&7H447'121*+2+41/*31(^+1(>8-1)&-447/'c'*/+4)@+)+-&B4*7B&4&F47H7)-+`--4^63^4)]-])2B%4@&41&*^--(^+((4-%(9().''(/1j+9)1cB3(c3)41&4-4'-*/*4(-7B&-1(B4).&.-&-^*-27+*3)*1*cg.*(%+())-(&(7%71'''c7*1$+1+&()&7,((<>0-4&4.*H--+*)7^).&2(]1&7*7).^&+1-^-*(7()%%)()]7'*7-1**)c74(]*c(*1*4&-/+(7/*'%1&4B/p)4((*1-7&*&-&*7+-4-+*BB(*p(&-^7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 105 of 116
r18
488884
14
2sÆÃÃ
9)(/1&4-'&)&*-p7H1(^41.&-^*+(')c/B4&-4-*7c(-*4B')c/(*(-'p)1 Ä]')-/c&)-/]B(14(&&-'.(4(&--/***H&3%&*(+1(-],c>g<(&1731@(+]&'&+1(.c*])7*47<7(&^/-1)(94&.'+(.')*)c*/+B(4&-*4 Ä.c+&7&7(''))],->1.*g(]7'cp*3]447B-B*(.^*1(&4c.'/5&-1()*4/+'((+1'7')()c4c1//'B+4B4&m-H&-**l(4H'^'H)31(.&'-(^77*)&9(*+%()1*'p(/3()% Ä*j,\+)q4/*&@(47&1*(+)%%&&-4B(B%.B&94@(BB&(<*^+]47**&+&-)((-7¶77))-.%(4cpj7&7)H'c)c-.4]-'.*747^+44&-BB7<*(41(,%>(1g1().%%*&')(*1+(
½ "8341741

i
97143°i £z²v{«  8}6128843
*1+(B(4*%)&-BB^)+@*()&-j*^+)(-7&-(-9(*7g*&(^'41*(&)(-(7)*%4'<)Bc&7+/(B47&--*]7c4(^14)&-]77*7/,(>'g&%&)'%1%&('(]17&13(&c-'(B-]*.7&-^ Äj(&/&c-91)9&(/c.(/B(7()/-*c-B&'4^.((&4-(-*71*&*4)*744--c-/7'./(])417)%)1*%4./<*BH1B+(&(4(^(*+4((9*(94&*&)B1.]4-(,4&7>--*g(')&-.(%&^)77<%1*41%4(&(7'^-((4.].114&.c1)1&(.--&.7^&4'-*)4)/-&/1-../(*(]B/(9&'1)'(-4-*BH)*4.&/B)(-144-)-.%'*(+)(%*+( Ä&%*4-)+]+14*(*'*++()(B(.,1.>&]&-Cg1(*9&).(-c7*^**+]+&*^(7(+4*&('*-(&)])]---/.1B.p)&]'(%')&1*4*%BBpp4*'&+-)//4^c1(*)&1/-B+7(B')&4.<&-&.&-**().*4-])*-*+113&()-@&-%1^%4'(&7'*&/.+()&1(-(1-%9*&1(*-)).B&'c9%&&(.*-.+<('-((&&.-&*)-3(%'^-)%&)1*'&-H-(.19])]B'97*((.. Ä1(+7()B],*>&)g-c)%](74*'&-+9'()7c*&^/4B4*(&-(*97(+1p4B'B&<*&(C(.-)''])cc/(-B4*&(-.*&4--@.1*&+*&(-^H Ä*'+)+(c(&/-B,*4>4&g5-(*7c)3%]4'7^)*4c&.-(/79B*(4B&)-,/*>7g43&')-B%('%&4B']1(.1/&7-)HB^&'4p-4)--.pc/1))]'7(.4]-1.('1)(-^%4&.1.(&--*^&4B Ä-+](cg<((1/&4-1^*c4-(.-**1c4]'57&*-&^c4/BBB('c)(c-/*B44&'-(*-7H*14B&C(.7p7*(c %)1

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 106 of 116
ÆÃÃÃs19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
Ä&,<-\p9q(,\7&7q*&^13(4)7*1&/)1)-(-%()71&%<14(B(.'%)%))c11/./B(4)*&7(-71*&c<@B&(-&B&B'-1<^&(c@4&+-77(4&*B^+&--((19.((74**)'&^+44&*¶-&)).--&9H(&3.1](4*4B&-(. Ä,*.*%+)),('*\1]¶q4c)'1-5(((-%4(*c-177.3]%47c&-*').&)c-&c-&c*^/)7(B134.*&4&+-4-(**.(*&B)-1p(9)%'()-)71(c*@&)^c44%1*(*.&+-)*(.-)4H¶,*)\&)-q-(77')7%/))1&(*&+7-49)*(%7,4\*B&Bq^4&*7&)4-<3B( Ä14'&)B+^Bc(+(^*/>&7-B)4@^B&&-'&(*(*+H'j&-()7*c7@&c9((-&7%*)7p1&)'%)-(]()111+c9)&])]7B14*7*<&))(%--*+))%(*&4%&(/,>.(g1)7%7)4-1B(B7''(j)&)/c-*/7)B*4%&*&*]-+**(7&)-4B '&&--)99c((77c**&&4^^-+44.(**&&H))--,>+))g&%%7c74/]B&7)'7)B+'&')&'7p-).1cc(]]/']7*B4*&'1&-().c*7*/)&B74.&'-()9*-7(.3B)]1/('^*4(4.17.&<-B(p^7B,(7\/)q%)B)@&1'+p4(^*¶+))(9-1((1*-+&(-^*+( Ä')>/4-&*71)*-11)74+)(-*.]&/(9-77(1&))&./7.4*-@((H+(B.B'&1(^*(&)1-%]&1&%-4('@%&&.74-'(&47B*('9B-(-1p(477('B13)]7(@(%7(4%'(+*(*)+7&41)--31(c^(/'&(..&((*-9(11+&*&--%.-)()&*(^1-&&'-%c-^1p4'(&-*%(-.&+4-.^&7'(<***&(/&4-)'B1)&-)1*-**(7cp.(414-%B1/))1)*&%B1-.&4^4*H9&4&+B--(*(c9&*7-3(+*'&&^747)(^*-'c44&)^.*'/-&4,')>4B*.]4-)g/]7&71/-('74B)4.*pB*--7&*))-)+**%^4%+4c&*'-(*]+(7&.71((77* Ä49h*+&*(.4*(*+])(4&H1B7B('&*-(+-*4((1*9)&%(,*@>+g7(<&]-(-91.((7('*1)&B^p14.&-*()^.13&7-4('7-&.47(/]-/1*(1)/*/+1)14&9*4&.*4((B3B4))-%7%&*4'4(]*1(.7c&)/(1)-(1*7(4--*. Äh1((^4]1&.1&(-*^+@4*+(&-*+9((71*&^4*&)-%&-.&-^7&-'B].(')-'B]7&)-7
È 74]-+%.(%(/B1()(^B.4&'B+(744*14'c-*&.)4-1.@74371(&-^4'1).cB(/7B7&4)-%'@(+@(&**++(1/)*+B&'(p'3)*c14/&-B4&-&-^43-* È +(&-'&.(-*&-9)B9(.c&7')-.]'*<p4-p)%%&'(1 È (c+(/B])7p((.)%.&%%(1(-**4'*&'7')]B.+49(3)17+)]B.+49(3<((-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 107 of 116
r18
488884
14
2sÃÉ
È c*1+4((&4-7]&]--1^.(3(7'1)Bp4]&---.^7(&B-&-'&^.3()-1*)&*-+.(&1'4-*)(-74.&-7('(&/.B&%-)4114p.'.)&1*&1)(-'*4&B9( È *1+4(&-&&--'^&3.)(-1**47']*^&'^7(H7*7*+4**+(,>g7+)]B.1(9&7(&*7/)B&'p3 Ä4e(7%&*)-4-.<(&B-&174^+*()*.%+H(4&**+((41'+]4-B%B)(^]4-*.&)(-.3&-97(]77*&*^44&-*((..3c]-7)**<7(]17(*74)&-B9((..3<)p1 Ä*+4k@>&&*'--++1B14+(7&.9(()-c-)((&919&.*(7&-&c(+&.-1*B.&%&&4((-*4(^]]1B&14B^4^74714*/**]4B4&&$1))&1Bc1B.)B(--(%)(7%4477%&^(-')]/*47')*(1')&*(]]%1(&-)1)()'*/]71&*+-7))*)&*++)<7*-'4(*4)(B)H)B+(-]BBc%B'((*%B)^&/&)1.(4+-c41)4B(9<)*B*c//&p((%()//7B-44-'()&*1*--1*5&B7)&^&&&49p&)'c/4-*(B-p)1*'^7&'&)-14c**)11&*&+4*&c%^+7c](B(4*(&17+c4*&-(*-(.(^4^&&.4(((714B*7B^-'1'/(*,&)c.'1>41-1-&pc&)<gc&-.,7'B%7&^&')]&(7-7B-)1(4'/+444-.-*/1*.B3.&&*).B)-)c+p1]'77-^(H(('7&7^\-.*&4(H4<3*]&-7+71*B&1().**-(*(&11B)*'47(-/pB7*]()%&)7)9pB.&11()'&-p%^ Ä7h%)/(1(''](&3%&&1<'(4(*B&+B-p49'*()47c*BB&^/14B(4*B((&-9.(43.-(*94(/<-))B]&&%'*H*(+4('4*&'9*&&*9p&3*p&-)'1B]%).1&'-(^@(44'7+-])*7()% Äh*+(4*])&1'(']*+114(*.&-.9](17&*-&^^4**+&)(-]7-(.9(41BB]p4&-*(^4&--'p&.7((-4*1H'+(7)17(&C]1(7 Ä7&]&><]--*1(--49)']@.*(+4(1(7&]&cpB1*<B&37&&^7(-(*)4]-^1&4*'*-&)*7+)9'+1-())(']7c1&4*1'-@&7/')^4]1Bc4-<4&c**(B&/)*(-'(7B1(*4*-*77)4&&-77%-71/44*'@)141-(c)p&**7*(9+3*@c&')..&B&-()(1B.B9-47(c(-&@**-77)((-^*H*1.&3c^4&/*'4-1+&+4*-)()(B&9(-114&/7(.9@B)'(B(c+(B)7&^4('*1](&*..p^7+..74*7(&*9+)'1*&&&)1)4')*--B+*/-B&*(c1417&)-(B)4)]&BB7(%B]((B)p&^*1%4+(4*(&*-)+-47*3
&*7<)&--+7]']]7'('7*]&77]*.*(4*%1+(%4&1&%--4&'(&--*&*(.((..)H*--.+&'.*-2('c(^%]&c41'-7(1')(4*41c*-+4B(-7B.-.(p]7(]377j47*4'*+**-)*+4<4%-.<&.4(*-7B*&*(&*..<+7+*-&44++--(*7*(&1^)-(g1(**.(^+)(&9%(7'&)*&71+)-)&((B-47%4(%4]*7&*3)'](%*/-4%(+%&1(%1'(%(&1&&,'7/-4(>4&-(*)4.gB(B--*'&(.-**./^(&^()9()(c.&19-B).&4&'7%(.(&-&-4-((@']'-7-'((&-37('.1)%/((()**%1+)-]*&)*+c4*-+.'4*4((.(/**'.*(1(+(**)].9]+1(/1&c4(.((4cB7(1&B4B-BpH3-(B(B(4)'^()\(1-(^*'+.(7'%*7&1.4]-**'44*1+.)c&-1*-4&-(+-.&&*..7-(^4*']H^1+4))'.H(\B-%*BH1(e.)(%-^j&]4'-(4)'''g..*1+]*(&-1)1^%(J.)_%H

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 108 of 116
És19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
&'-49-(7<*(&^14(*7&9)(B9*((.'+<-47&(].()7-H494&B4<B(&-%)1c4*&)-3(9&.(-'(34-. Ä'>44)771)c(4+9/&&<]B.4&7(*&-*-&&4-%'&-('94(*)7*/%&*)B&@(^-4+4.%*())(*11+.7*(+^1%1]())&1&Bc-*-p9')(*)*)7-*34&7)^-&41.)*@()%1%14&&'-7*()^%1)'*]]+B)7-(7(.(%.4^*'4+]*(*&*Bp+*&/p-4(9*)()%437%*4%&)-^14')*(%&%)()--1H7( *7()@4*4%+45'*(*+(+]*-(+7&-(&4-)19+^%9(4(4(*7&-+-7*&p*(7^,&>*^4.&-g4*4&&7*9-)&'c()-p&7/-3]*)B3&*7&%^+-%&*4-&(4'5*'(1&(B)p1](-H,>/4.')g&-'*%)&^c)*c+-4](/-)7&B1*414'&-/--)/))4c*1--&)/%*p/.7B41&*7/&&+4-'((*&*1(/7&')HB7)&.-*c4&4'*//14(pB)Bc4B-p'&(-)*&-41+-1*-(%()1*''(1*)c)^&%9c4(*(1+./.4(B&)('-)%**^&&]*))+*--'())@c%4(7 (*11&7)((97/'4&]).)B](c1(7*4-c2*4*<(&&-(-(%p(-p4*4.B/47B'4p5)]+*3*('&(-*)&+--+-H*9(&&7(*4j+77B]*4)/&(-*^17474)(*/*<&-))/B(*-1*c+)g)/(7(%1'4)&441/1-(*/(*(&11-441)'(&'/-&*1.&&]&)-(4&--^1*((*&-7-](*-,(1+>(..4g77(*/H1()*--+-*7-(&&**(&&p1*j*j'&))-))c*cc+*+c(cc(4&4.4%-)-(-.1.-.c(*(1&&-71%)&7(%).c41.](71*  778847!682"131
°i v|²w«
x 13d77884!
348 °i v|²z{«  8}6128843
//](11h((911-,&B*74>4)4&15Bc'*g&*]7(*&0)&3)49/'-*&4*(4(-((+4-71-^(B173*.4(+).&cj^-77(-4(/)+%4-*)/c-(4&-(1%('7<*4(cB1*7H(4-^%H-4%)7(*)1**(18&+1c)g&)p'(7-41(7&59-'*-47&(1',B3(>c((/1'4(g4&()-^l/17%+.&(h(77*41/701,]1>7)(4p8&p*g1-(7(%]m)-.*7)&(1*1*%+**c&(%*+4+&4.+'B((*%((*B)1(&&)147-7c,]<]'c>4/B&/7g]-B4B&(()*..&1p*-p*(9)+/c*&7%47)(&.7(&4&11()--7.9*-'&)*+(-4)-B4)(*^c)-4%-3/g(/<.&1-B(]4((c/4*-^7*(('4*].4^111B/-1&)4*&C4)cc741(*B7B^.&&(/p'-(4-B(c*^(B*)B3c3(144-(4---*-..*)5%473

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 109 of 116
r18
488884
14
2sÉÃ
1(')1.*++((j%))B-B)7@(&--*^g&-('%)1(1c(74/*&()'-&%&&'-4&B*B7p-1((@]&h1(078*+(,>g*)')BB('*4-. Ä\BB]7(7)%%)1'( Äj4-&-(<&*(14*&)7_ Ä+(-]c<(1)%'4-&7*(17)%'+(c&'4B7/14p]7(.<p)%%&'(17 Ä\BB&-]1&(7*)/1&7)-(17 Ä\@.&B47B7)&-1'.7+(*4411B-p^'('(.)7-@&-.&*]+@'+*13(&')7+&17)4*&<-7^,*>14]g1'1)(*&7%)%*&-3'(4)17%7])47%]%(&'B.*&4%))B-1)'41(//4))-BB&&.''((*+<)(]%%77&']&-(<1(37(7'* Ä)\1BB)'%1%&*.&]'4*pB%&1(41c .&7'+41^(73@+(*+(1*+(p*))5/B4'()-.]*p Ä'\)BBc'/)Bc4&/-B*47&-*74^4&-7*)%%&'(174-.*+(.&7/)7&*&)-7)%*+)7( Ä\B/4(B@B17'7)1]&-&c*-7&(-1B4(B7]/B1*)&-'(^(%.1&)-c^73,'>&9g&B))/1(414.*c&)&--7&7)*114**+&9((4''B*4&&)c-773)4%-.,>'g&9&B Ä\BB9(+&'B(/]17]&*7 Ä\BB&-'&.(-*7&-9)B9&-^*+(/)&-*&-^)%4%&1(41c Ä\BB.&7'&/B&-41p4'*&)-*45(-4^4&-7*,>g)%%&'(174-. Ä&l2<&-&--4)%%1.'))B^11&]-cc(.'-44&&-.**]&&^())c---1<*47&%('7)1(&13-44(7'9-4+B4]'.&&B%.+4*((3<&*.4-B+(-9&-m-)H.&'B*97&+*(]p(./).()114%%9-*&&4'74(<)*14&1)m7l-((4H43-^B4H.3)/*1c/+&^1(()&c-/)31%<%&&&(4%'1*7((])1%&'7.+*(-+-4(*c&/%p](&3<-B^&'
4-.']7+*()c&,C>(g*++(477p*7+*((c)/**)&)-,(>&g*+7(11(*)]/&]1(1c'+(4-7*(7*)+1(*)h0.(89(B))%/%*4+-(.7+(B%
/_,4*/+&/p771*(&+'+4((\B-1'47')*&4-)&-)-*&4)7-'%(&*-&-<@@&'&*&*(+.+&(1'*4-++**&(7)47*1'+](447B-4*/&*(&-(-'7(9*)*]')B-)94c&(*/.///*441+1(1((*+&.''(&4-*/)-74&&**)-+(-(.(7H<)&&9-*(&-@1^4+B)B&'1-+])*4c+'(<41(@-1&&)-7%((7']])-'c&+*&-/^41&*-&'*)&/4*(.H

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 110 of 116
ÉÃÃs19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
j&c)/-B7((c-(*-g*(*'+1(((hHI08/]17]4-**)4')-*14'*&-^7'+(.]B(7(*%)1*+&-*+( ccc1(,]))9>&..7g(&&*@%%&&&<b''74(441&-***7(&&.+]))&--]<4-77c&/1HD/*(&G)*1.*E)(*+*9+.).(4(4B*/h)ph/107(01g/&8))$84%1/1;*/*(1+)1)%(4))**1*)(+/)'%1(1'%)(())B&9'*cB&c)*(4&'/@9]B)7B((7B)4c*.%-)c4'(.1*)-](-*4*7+)*4/*4(%*/<&&*]-)1(+)-7(97(4)]j)%B<H)%*c-+*\+7(&-*((*/p-(h1.*/)0g1/*)8))(/37'g)(1@7($.+((;.3&'*%+)+1(
Ä>/&-14*)*(*91(&971(-&)--&*.&7)(-1-(3*^&.%4&)'1'4.]*&-&c)^-(.3-47*4]*4*/&)(7-*1)931&474)-^1(.p344.]74.7*4(&*717(c*1(&(-9*43B73]./4(*1494&7-)41Bpp7&73 Ä.h4(*4]4&1'('c)1(.-&*-7^*+*)4**+*+((%)4BB])*@)&c-4^*'(1.&*7(p1&74*(c <(4<B(*)4-4BpC(
È )%+%&('(-1]4c-<.(<1p)%4&B-B')&%.%&('-(1*77&%-)14(4]'-+&*.4*4'4*(^)1p<p&-.&9&.]4B È &-+.(&94&.9(]144B^)(%%B&('9((1B4)-%.4'<*&p9&4*BpB%))%1%&'((41'7+&-.44*4]-'4&**(4^-)1.p<p È '4+*((^&.)(1p-*<&%p&'&4-*.&)&9-&.)]%4/B4)**%%(&1'-(174)-%.4'<*&p9&4*BpB%))%1%&'((41'7+&-.44*4]-&*H Ä</h44(7**&](71&1*-+(7c4)*(%.-'(*)77-'1.1(&]B<4'(**&.-<4^p**4&)-'.*)+&-9(&*.4^]&(--4(B(.1)4%&%-*&&')*(-+1(7)%h41-0(./8)]41--*&7.*7)&-.(4-c*&%)p-*+Bp Ä447h)4]%9-7(%47/&.'(&(]B(7*41&1+791<7c4(&B37c(*()7*-]1(+7-*/(7*&(-71.&9,*(*>&+&174g&4)9**1((+7.434,/%74>1/-g)*1+.c)g(/]*(%1-+)/&4&B(]*B*)7*(&-@p<&%&-j4)-*71+^(c(&1.&(9-4%(7*)*&-(3-)1*c-9&4)(4''---*)7&*-49&@)&^**4-(p&*&1-+)47(/3-&.*-4.&-.)&/--.&947*&*.+*(](14-hB08 È g4-&7.'])%7%7&'&)(1-774c)-^g(/]*pj+&(%73c4-4^(1737]/(19&7)173 È j)]-7(B&-^ È 14&-&-^4-.3
I WWjgH

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 111 of 116
r18
488884
14
2sÉÃÃÃ
È )g%)%&''](1c'()--*.(.]'4*'4*&-).-4/'B4*&-97&*p4H-.7*14*(^&(7.(7&^-(.*)c).&%p Ä\4-1.((]-&*1((1c(.(-&-***)+4*+*(4BhB0&-8*(19(-*&)-7<(.)']c(-*(.&-@1&*&-^ Ä-&\'&%--11])&%%/c))cc111)(<cc*9(+*&44117(**(&&&))-h))1--.-0/7*18(+3(1&44'-<'-*)('(1.-4B].<'*'(44.*1&.^7&)&-(c(-&^.-)7(*%)**+/+-&4-(1(5)4'-(<h&B-.B4B0((*14]c(-87B1*(7(7494)&1-4%-(-**74+.]-4(B-p-*).)')%*4%%4&*'7&/(-()/^%1B)1()7)B11p/cp41)7)4&-74%*&&*^)*(+--(c.((-1&*93(. Ä\7*1]41/-((71]%9(&&117()&-c17*()-/*1*+)*(c+&14/*7*B(p',*1>&()g9-&g(7@()/1*]+]*(-ph&j*70+8&(%17(3'c)14.-74)^%(417BB3)4%-%&.'(17@+) Ä4(\7]-717+/()(4'1-]&94'&&1*(7(()*.c1+7@((-<&(*(*%+%*((+)9'4%4*%&*B&9]'((4-,1*>(('g7.)7-g<).4(%]7/*('+].*(*p&)1-j]+*-+&&((*%7&71344c-<.4&B-&**)4p^1*(()1.7]]37'4((-h1.&07587*) Ä*'>+)14)c*9/&,7B\&&4)q--7'7+(*4+@B4B&**'+),\-*+q.(]7'h+*04BB8]c4/141*)-(*14)B^p'()4B4]-4..-&*.74.)c%h&-0&78*(*1)*(+-(7h]01(84-. Ä\(1/')(9)1]9.14c1(&B(/(]/1@)]44*77*1&)(1(3&(7&4)).c)*%%-(%(7B&-7('-]*4(1*&'71%(+p**^+/471(4(1&]1*^.9%4-)4&&(1-&1/*%@c^&(/'711*44B+)p&--7/(3'*1*)(/&/)%4(44*1(1*'((%9*1)B(4c)(11B97c]-44747-4-**4-)+*(^'1(h(4(701-()7.&18%1'&^4(c)&&7-B--B4%).)5,%]71(,>cB&'4-4g*-4'/1&*./].(&7)1^-(H)-]-&/*B**7417)+&1H&4-(*( *4%)+/1(/-14)(^@91b4(B4(&3*c-+4.&(-g-+4D*&7*G)4*E%),g1-.&'$4/4p];B7m*.3)>4*%+B*4*4(-+((%-,)&>*c1(g&1/-(Bc.'(Bc]]&-7.(**-&)-/*^4*1+*(4&(/)/4-h/101())3%8/%*H)1+&14(**h+((0%&g(8B$.l)7;147B-41.*((919&4(@@B]&*(4+7-. Ä*1%*7&+&(p+(c7(7B(./*(h(7)g/c0-)4(73%*81&4&.&<)-4(B,.(%--4)7../%1)%cB]*)&1-+*14*((>*+@7&Bc()4+%--)&&(-'14*+c/)-&-]]&7<-/*7(%%])*))&*%11&-*.c.&&'-(-4B4-]^/**4*.]&.&)H%(*4p-*.*&*-4@&+3-^&(4B*B*-.++<.4(((*.*4h&+-40*(*/)48]/3<3(**(**1+(+7&.(-)(-'7&+-B/7]&*(7).'*()&*%.1+&&'('&-4B

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 112 of 116
ÉÃÆs19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
Ä.+4*(4g*+4*44*,&7-/]]/**>)B4.-4*c(]4-7*./'1))c9&/.B((*%()1&-*+*)(*&+-(/]h*0)8%H+&7*)1&'4B Ä&c'$-)-4%-)'-%1(&-c.*((+41-*(4*&)&-h4-.B0&c*-8)*4&)-c7-*)4+(/&(-1(H*h1440&*-&8)*-+&-4(B34h*0*+&c(8(.B,p4>3*g44'&&-7']14(147*](('&31](41.-(.*4)-'().-c*/(1B(*( 44-<+)4(]Bp*7,&>&-7+g.(&-&79+&*,.+4>](BgB4hcBc0)4]%&8%-7&'**&(-4c1&.-74(*%&&&+---4*%&)4**1(&&-cB7p4H4'B*)B&-)/-*(41-&7-()('-.(47&B-7Bp4h1&p.0(%8-)1*%&)4%&1^4^4<1*B((B^(&4-4*7%()*17%c&*944(**&p7&)(*-&4'147BH &*c+,(>/gB%(]c)BB%(+(%&7-('**(j4(1*7)&*-))(-71-(*^)-1%/*)*)]g+7/(7(7&'h<1)B(0(%(8)*1)%3(%&*&').]((]1&-177(*H(&7%p(*+/&(47**&*-,(>1^g-.734()*94%(<'-4)-7/(.17&])4'1-**.<)p1*(+&-7().]&91&'.(]74*B) 7/&7cc]*14))</-./cB&.()%cp&472*(1*()4.+-*BB&B)B(C*)&(7@4-*.]p.&^/-'.1+*((^3+7/7/*()+)]11/%()<*1/.7*&)1-))^/47'&(*')4]&-*74Bc3(7(B)1.(&*41c)-'*c(*+/*7.+4B)(((-.<c-&^gp%*((p($*-71+.H;*((44.%**h)&4&)1-0-**148)()<H9*%B&+((*7(+@+(4h(4-h0-.0.,8>%38&4g()3/B1.*&/+77c1()1&)(-9.4,*]&B>+%p&/g(11(*&7+c.)p(147*)**p()c3
½ r"82314°i z|«  8}6128843
/()'7)'(*-'147].<)1]B-&@'7-*++&&(*-(B+4^1j7(14)](7]-^/%%.7])&('&-B*4-&7(71*&-@<4g*B&-(*(%+1.'%(&1)-%(1&](*'((+1).-((-'4.hp]]]0&4.1'-8(&**&7.3-7@*^''+)++4(9&(]'(.+.1],&>4*cB(7gBBH]**)7),*>(+.<-g(((79/]¶%(1))1B)B)(-B*/))(*@+'74H)(4B/.*c17<)]]p*')7*+'*+)(4B]%).,1>&*g7 i 131918°i w²w«  8}6128843
g4'%1)()'+$19-'('&;)77(1]3&(3.(&-&9&7(c**&+1771&4/(((-.1.^7&)]7],/.)'>&<(1&-&g7/(1B('.pB'7&&&-/7*(1*B()44)1&/-11(%/p'%(4&1+4']1c)((*p&9(1714&c.(.7*4.1(49-&9&**&*.)1))+*&BB47)(4](3**7&&&&@-)C(),-]'>-+4171g&7(('.)4+7)@&%73%7c(&*'.9*+&+4&//]7(1(B7'*&&7-+)*1-4&]4(4<ccB71(*.&p&(-1&(17]c(741'9B]*1(%4&&)(B)(7*(1*@1-3H&&)]43(-7.47*+(-))*47()./-*)/4&..c%5),&>(747(/+g(/)&'.)-/7(c-1*(*7))()]7497&7-(*9*p.(pH<p

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 113 of 116
r18
488884
14
2sÉÆ
41(/%/B(1')*/714&4B*4('/5])-%&7%&+*-c((7-7*%)@1+.(]-*p*+H(,>g<(B&(9(74-)%%&'(17c&7')-.]'* Ä*\*&-4+<5('7(4(&c-7c(*/(7()1&7(-'&*-(&@)/)+--*&&)').-+%&47.*'B&+&7'/('&B1&&1/'-(]B49&c-&17p(7(*'.&74)-.141&'/7((/''7&*13/&)9*B/&+(-1(4&44'1*p*(,&>)Hcg-44&*71^&4-&)-&-*7./*&(4'1-4c*)(&*%7%*&(*'+.(41**) Ä',*-+)(1'14(7',>(*&7g9(&-&74@'1*(+&)&']-+&1&7(..&-7(*')'&/(4B7&B7-74)411'pp)H-4'7*&.&)(-1&@7+&c(*/+)(71(-.))--.4&7-'&)/%B%&&-'(4113p
*47*c.')+*)-&(7B](cB./'&77-&/(*-/^B-)B.(%&/1**-)(+&)(14*'((.c)(.3<H9B&(*&&%*7,)-\+>^4&(<)(*1g-7+-47p1((-77&(7-*''/&(*-(-))).&%(c(/B*&'*@+'*/+(&p(^&)B7(*4(%+7cB-&'&44-)c)*]1]4c'p&7'-**)H*&(/1*c*.&H'+B.4]/('(&Bc-&-4>+1**&')7(-&4]*B%&*4p/.c'-)*('+]7B'B&j(*1.('4)47p&)'-]13c4c'^(**(c&+]&c7)*&7(*-7(@+*-7(/+/)7&)]1&((&)-)c1-*-&'B()&/(741-.7)-7()777%@(&4<7**/&1+p+)*&/()*(-@1*-]7()+()7B-/.%&&.')14&+<(-4/4(*(/).(4%1B)'&-+9(47B  a2711°i w²{« x 77884r"82314°i w²ww«  8}6128843
/)%1%4&''(*1&'7(+*7+(H4j\*)'&-7')7'(1).--&*-7g&^7B(*p('3-1*(*+(@(1&j(*+)]-&71,((>-7g**+/g)((B'&'1,p(>3(g*1+(*()]B/4&1@1)(3974&.*-+(.4**1/41&)-/&-(1^/*))B&&'*7( Ä]+,>4(gB&*/,p>3)gB'&)'1-p(79&&7(*@(-4'BpB3]47-(.)%'%))c1'/(B&/4-)B'&'(&(@7&*4+-4./*/1B4&'&-4&<-B^(*B4)@(-47-].1( È 71\4((-%9*c.(&(1&*@1'447)-&c--)%&]/-&4B*^(7B*B/p&]-H17)^(^&1*)47%c&%-)71&3*'&*(4+B*(114(9&,-&>(&g-@^c)/%]1&)*77^*1%'4))c1-'.(4]*1'(B*(B441*(7(^*.]/B4)1B&'&(7 Ä4/+/(1),9>(g.Bc(7]77)*-(/-B74]-17(4*1+(4**4)]-^B+p*c<4p-*.144&*-(.&-)^<&-(7'**1&9]('7*)41-7.4-.3 Ä*(+4(c&,->g&*7c]]77(*)c%4%)51('(<(*174*&(-%&%-)^1*H7*)*14&-(4'+@)157+&%*474

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 114 of 116
ÉÆÃs19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
.&1('*Bp-).1(*1+1*+)](^j+)+-&77(-)1*g+((1'1.(((73&^*+-(((7,3>&g717(g7/&1)(-'7*&)<1B()%%)114&-&-^3(&*+(1 Äe-7]1&-^*+(]4B&*p)%4BB]7()%%)1'(*14&-&-^ Äg(9(B)/&-^4-.&c/B(c(-*&-^]7()%%)1'(*14&-&-^']11&']B4 Ä8(B('*&-^4-.*14&-&-^,>g)%%&'(1&-7*1]'*)17 Äg7((199(&'B)(/*&1-4^&3-&&c-^/B(c(-*&-^34//1)9&-^34-.)9(17((&-^4BB&- Ä&.,1c-(&9B/('&79)B(&4-)c--]*(-1-')'+*B&*B4-&)-'^-4^3B(4B@77/&/**&-++1)4B*94*+&@&(-73^g./3&()477B*-&&1'^.&&'-()*(79.j3(4+1*-)7&((.(%(7%&/%3-(1.^')(*'4&9(9(.(/BB])1p)/1*&(&-)-7'%^))31Bc%)1)%/%&4'*(11)7B)% Äe4-7*.4/<1B&)7'+(&.-]^1/(17)'4(-..]1(7%)1(94B]4*&-^4BB*14&-&-^']11&']B4 Ä]4j<7)(&-B&.)*&]%(%'7)*1)&-'%(^*+*11((4^)&]-%%B&&4-'1(^1*&1774<&1-((&&7--/^^)--*17(4&(9&.-(7(*.)4H7*7+((775c-)(@-*B(7.*^)((3-775]&B1B7(3*4+-4.*
B.c(474*7&(-).-*H4/&+-B(4(-.7,&->4g-4.c'()]-*+7**1(415B(3*1('4/)&-c'&)c-c^)/-cBB(p4**(4('41&'-4(.B7774H&'<'B+(](1%47&B(*((B4(1-7(.7'))c-1.]/77B4)*-%<%7()c1''B]((4711*(B<pB4(*(. ./)+%(14%)7&7'^'(111(14&/H'c*(+&&)(9&+--((.3@7,H.>(+]g1&1'(+44+'(*B)&77()1)(4.-'1c73+('c]']&)7-]11*.1.7&c&*7'9]1&4c.(B&]B-]]&4*c474<B*3&B-)&p4-%%-*1'&1('.B4]%(B&&1(.--'(/&7-*34*^1*41+]**1&('('4*'&*)/c1)1441&*.&%--()7&.1&c-%H()^]41*c'(++934(***11+(p4(4&-'',&+)->]^g)1%7%&('(1
½ i6221696 °i w{²{«  8}6128843
1(*')(+-&,91>47(^&g]-(-&-@1^7/(](,4)77+1'BB3(B)&B(4')c]*-pj1+7H./)4c(B-*0\&4))7**.-%)(+*)1&-%'(%)(1(&*'1)-*'g1@49(4((*p(&&&*1)'*-+3k11-&4*(-(47+&(-^-/(1(1/&(/-(1gB^14&^4')&B]141^4(7&.<1-'14$&B(*.-(c)7%^%1]B&*4'']+)7@()(%(7c7(')H)1/%),4->B%%&&)'(g-%1()7&'11-7(-@'^g(&/&-*c&*)+^11B(]4&44''7&-/&-**()/p&7'1-B)4&^))'-.-%4).7<1]4&B1*(/B&41*))(&B--@4B^&7&@]'&-*3&B+7(^4741**+)-*<)(.47&7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 115 of 116
r18
488884
14
2sÉÆÃÃ
*c144&--4&-^(^+1c7(@]7,&>**+g44.c-.-]1(]77*47B/**1+1)4(9&&-%.)&(B-B)^4@B)B&-1-(^*'+1*])(/&]*&7'737())%%%&'%)(11'7(3H7]/+(&179]&77)(17)3%4%)-1.'( Ä+(,>g7]7()%%)1'(c).(B Ä>1)/(1]7()%%)1'(.('&7&)-c45&-^ Ä+(,>g7]7()%%)1'(1(/)1*&-^1(]&1(c(-*7 Ä+(2)]1*+\c(-.c(-*4-.)*+(1j)-7*&*]*&)-4B1(]&1(c(-*7 Ä/e1)4/c(1/B](77())%%7%')(1-'4(1.&)(7'&%74&')(-.c<p45&,->^g)%%&'(17*+4*&BB]7*14*( Äg41(1((77*'74@B4&**&+))-]**(]'+7&--&^]%)(17'*(+4*(-')]14^()%%&'(17*)c45( ÄB@7,1(-(/4^77(4&/**'1B&)&B-]4p-^'B7&*C]()&()77].-***&%)]*4&+(-47.4&]*7*7&7.3*/]&)7(41('*-*.&3)^(-74B4]^(pc(9&c-(c-^()-4@-*-+3&-4(4^-11(11(*4(+7&'-*()%c])-174*'4(p(&)-c<%c((%-)(41-*/'7*/(331'7@)4]/)B11B]&9&-4B(.^*&(BB<&4-(-'(3 Ä+1(4*477(77c(-*4-. Ä\//1)/1&4*(*14&-&-^1(^41.&-^')-%B&'*c4-4^(c(-*H
1///(1]1^))<4*'B)1(&.''7H)&7-+B3%^()*+1*)(++,<(>4(g,'->]&.*g47&BC&B(-7(c.)-^]<&4'77p)-*1c4.*(B1B/14](B&4-7&,&1/>-())g*.%-%/&)*.'1)%&()%-&1/''^71(()7*119)(77&H^3.'4*)(+1c.+*41&(*/-4B7&^4-(,&**&->-+7g*^&7%7)c*<1/)*p]1+4)c7B*4*B)(-).'c%)(4%B&9</H'(((/B11)177/)/)4%1&*4+*(( Ä&4*'-+)/+9(c/((1%7/4)*B'/,&4>^*1&)4g-&41*47&*4)-(B&-*7-<7))9]H1(&177.@*+1(&&^(*-&-477*](*))71&117%47(&/'.-711&+)(*-)).)^%]&*<4&1B-&.4BB7&&*'-)'p))Hc4--B.7]B&]77.]'*(*/&1&--(&'-1^B9]c(&7.9)&(471B'74])4@.-*&&.&7*-]+'^]'1*7(77&/)(-'*)%*)
*B()4/.1()1c72+&)-&*/4(B4B/p-13.)*/+'(()1c/,c)>Bg4&'-(c./]417'4*'')*/&]1')-(97*&4H.<(&B*&*1p43&-&-&-'^B]*.)&-4^BB*7(]'/+(-1&9&]7)(177.1((7^&4^-1.(&.-^ Ä7]+/&7(1*914&7&-)1&-p^14c-]57@*&<*+(&/-1)K9E&..(4.p7*))4%B*B+)(%%)&'%%(&'17(1/71)4c77)]*(c./**)&)-)%

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 71-1 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 116 of 116
ÉÆÃÃÃs19917 0 
3
7!48"814#89
/7]4/1*(1)9%&*7+)(1p41-(-7]/4)B-&7-&<7&B(&1*&9(&7'H(*1+4&&7-&*-1^4&)-%&-7^]/4(B71)9&c7)]177H*<(c4.(4  °i
14
2{1²¥8«
241¥79884741

 8}6128843 \jj*))*)c)11/.-B&(&-4+p4-(*k')j((1-)j7-()117()4(71B-./7*&)-$g-4%7(%*&&')<'11(&(B3*&(*)&1(,7(7>(g1&]-93&('1*B(+4]77(.*(4$+(,B0&4&3,7>4)g--.*4)gc4$)/;-/H^)&*-++*((4j%&]1)^cBB&-/*&B,c&74B(-4'-(.7
Äj4')*)&91.&*&p-14(*B&4-*^&-*^+(*)*,+>(gj7)'-)7c(-/*B&4g-(''(1(4(-.&c/B(c(-*4*&)Ä-24(,>('g.&B(&*(.4c*&/-B^)p*+(((7/41-)9.&7c&)4-*()1%&4.B47**4)4*-+.(.0))'-]&c*)(1-4*-7.4-g.$4;'4'7(77*) Äe1(-'7)]1.1&7-1^(*B4+*(&-/^1)*/)(*1+c(j4&)--*7((--4*-g'((')1%(1((B(49-4.-*.)']c(-*74-. Ä4/\7(77177&&^7)-*-&&---^(^B*H'+)(c>/)BB&&4'-('j()1c(Bc4*&(7.7&*)4-7(5174*-).4+/&/71)./(17&&4^*-(((7,>&g1g0($)/-);1&3**)&,--1]^4441-/.*.((.11&*&*B)+p&).(7-**4)*&)*1']^%)7&]-cB1%/(,&7B/BBBp&)4-1-@^*.7&**7++.(\((77*4(*'')1%+1&]<--/&(-'1p^)*&k9)*&+-(7-(&7)3(7-1**4+()B/(%77*+$*,4(>%%5g&j'()(-c-3.]@7](7&-**1+&*%-&gB4^(('*@'+)1&/(*(p+(H**)+( 4*(+%-%((.'3/*&1&-9)2(9&4-&.7-4&4p)B*B-p((379)(*)%+-%*(*+*3+(-(&j)1j^)B&4)--*-7(,(717-(B*4-*+-*g4.g-(7'(D14'(J1-((E.H(.*+44(p7774),>%)*g-(144*71+(1((104(74)]1-&'14+(<.GBp`*)3/G&1c4E'E/*KB&('c4<(B-(*
ÊËÌÍÎÏÊ

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
1. THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS; and
2. THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.

)

)

C.A. No. 3:08-CV-158

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

PARTIES’ JOINT MOTION, AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION, TO AMEND CONSENT DECREE ACTION PLAN Plaintiff, the United States of America, and Defendants, the Territory of the Virgin
Islands and the Virgin Islands Police Department (“VIPD”) (collectively, “the parties”) jointly move the Court to grant this motion to amend the Virgin Islands Police Department Consent Decree Action Plan. The amended Action Plan is designed to create a new, achievable timetable for compliance, clarity on the standards for compliance, and an extension of the substantial compliance deadline for the Consent Decree to ensure that the reforms are made in a sustainable fashion. In support of this motion, the parties represent as follows:
A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY/BACKGROUND
On March 23, 2009, the Court approved the Consent Decree in the abovereferenced matter. The Consent Decree required Defendants to achieve substantial compliance with all its substantive provisions by March 23, 2012, and to maintain this level

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 2 of 10
USA v. Territory, Civil No. 3:08-CV-158 Joint Motion to Amend Consent Decree Action Plan Page 2 of 10
of compliance for two years prior to its termination date of March 23, 2014. (Dkt. #3). After a hearing on October 1, 2010, regarding the extent of the Virgin Islands Police Department’s (“VIPD”) compliance, the Court directed the parties to submit interim timelines to aid Defendants in reaching substantial compliance. The parties subsequently filed on November 24, 2010, the Consent Decree Timetable, which required VIPD to comply with certain interim deadlines with the goal of achieving compliance by March 23, 2012. (Dkt. #22). The Court approved the Consent Decree Timetable and directed the parties to comply with it on December 16, 2011. (Dkt. # 25). On April 23, 2013, the Court held an evidentiary hearing to determine VIPD’s level of compliance with the Consent Decree. After hearing testimony from several representatives of VIPD and a member of the monitoring team, the Court found that, although progress has been made, it was evident that the Virgin Islands had not achieved substantial compliance with each provision of the Consent Decree within the time required in the Consent Decree. (Dkt. # 61).
Following the April 23, 2013, hearing, the United States moved the Court to amend the Consent Decree by extending the deadline for Defendants to achieve substantial compliance, eliminating the Consent Decree’s bright-line termination date, and ordering Defendants to submit a detailed action plan with interim compliance deadlines for the various provisions of the Consent Decree (Dkt. # 42, 51-1). The Court held a hearing on the United States’ motion on July 26, 2012. During the hearing, the parties agreed that an extension of the Consent Decree was necessary for VIPD to achieve the objectives of the Consent Decree, but disagreed on the manner and extent to which the Consent Decree should be modified. At the July 26, 2012 hearing, the Court ordered the parties to jointly

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 3 of 10
USA v. Territory, Civil No. 3:08-CV-158 Joint Motion to Amend Consent Decree Action Plan Page 3 of 10
formulate and file an Action Plan with interim deadlines, with the goal of setting realistic and achievable compliance deadlines (Dkt. # 57). The parties jointly filed the Action Plan with the Court on August 30, 2012 (Dkt # 58-1). In the Action Plan, Defendants agreed to meet certain interim deadlines, the requirements of which were described with more specificity than in the original Consent Decree Timetable, and to achieve substantial compliance with the Consent Decree by a newly extended deadline of October 31, 2013.
On November 2, 2012, the Court adopted the Action Plan and made it a part of the Consent Decree (Dkt# 61 and 61-1). The Court also granted the United States’ motion to amend the Consent Decree to eliminate the bright-line termination date. Accordingly, the Consent Decree now terminates two years after Defendants have maintained substantial compliance with its terms.
Since the Court approved the Action Plan, VIPD has moved the court for two extensions of the deadlines set forth in the Action Plan. VIPD has requested an extension of time to complete Blue Team training and training on the Vehicle and Spike Strip policies (Dkt. # 65). The Court granted VIPD’s motion on March 12, 2013 (Dkt. # 67). The VIPD also requested an extension of time to comply with the audit requirements set forth in the Action Plan (Dkt. # 69). That motion remains pending; the Court has scheduled an evidentiary hearing on the motion for October 9, 2013. In an accompanying joint filing today, the parties respectfully request that the Court terminate the October 9, 2013 hearing in light of the filing of this motion and the parties’ agreement to extend the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 4 of 10
USA v. Territory, Civil No. 3:08-CV-158 Joint Motion to Amend Consent Decree Action Plan Page 4 of 10
relevant deadlines that are the subject of the scheduled hearing. 1
Shortly after filing their motion to extend the audit deadlines, in August 2013, Defendants approached the United States, indicating that they would be unable to meet the Consent Decree’s final substantial compliance deadline of October 31, 2013. Defendants requested an extension of time to achieve substantial compliance and to accomplish unmet tasks specified in the Action Plan. Since then, the parties, the heads of VIPD’s working groups, other key VIPD personnel, and the members of the monitoring team have spent countless hours working on and negotiating in good faith a revised Action Plan. A copy of the parties’ agreed-upon revised Action Plan, and a redline showing the differences between the updated and original versions of the Action Plan, are attached as exhibits hereto.
The changes proposed in the Action Plain are aimed at strengthening the Consent Decree and Action Plan by providing additional specificity to clarify expectations, along with extended realistic and achievable deadlines for the various unmet requirements in the Action Plan. Some of the important, agreed-upon changes in the revised proposed Action

1

Although the United States did not necessarily oppose Defendants’ motion for an extension of time

of the audit-related requirements in the Action Plan, on July 2, 2013, the United States filed a response,

requesting that Defendants explain the following:

1) How Defendants plan to comply with the relevant requirements for which they are seeking an extension, including, but not limited to explaining when and how they plan to engage the United States for the required consultation on the relevant provisions; 2) Why Defendants believe October 31, 2013 is an appropriate deadline for each of the eight provisions for which they seek an extension; and 3) How the proposed extension will affect Defendants’ ability to comply with the Consent Decree’s final substantial compliance deadline of October 31, 2013. Dkt. # 70.

The revised Action Plan the parties submit today addresses these concerns by providing the appropriate extensions and a common understanding of how Defendants will meet the audit-related requirements of the Consent Decree. Accordingly, the parties believe that, if approved by the Court, the Action Plan filed today renders the October 9, 2013 hearing moot.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 5 of 10
USA v. Territory, Civil No. 3:08-CV-158 Joint Motion to Amend Consent Decree Action Plan Page 5 of 10
Plan are: (1) An extension of the Consent Decree’s substantial compliance deadline from October 31, 2013 to October 31, 2015; (2) the addition of a column that details the specific actions that VIPD must take to achieve substantial compliance (column entitled “Specific Action Required for Substantial Compliance”); (3) the extension of the deadline for completing all audit-related training to October 31, 2013; and (4) the extension of the deadline to conduct initial audits to December 31, 2013, with the requirement that VIPD conduct quarterly audits thereafter. Although VIPD has received the United States’ approval of all its use of force policies and completed its initial training on all use of force policies, the Action Plan also requires Defendants to complete yearly review of polices and conduct refresher training on polices.
B. DISCUSSION
It is well established that a district court has the power to amend a consent decree because of changes in conditions or changes in the law, and to enforce compliance with the terms of a consent decree. Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 384-390 (1992) (recognizing that a court’s modification power “is long-established, broad, and flexible” and that modification of a consent decree is warranted when changed factual conditions make compliance with the decree substantially more onerous, when a decree proves to be unworkable because of unforeseen obstacles, and when the statutory or decisional law has changed to make legal what the decree was designed to prevent); Holland v. New Jersey Dept. of Corrections, 246 F.3d 267, 270 (3d Cir. 2001) (“it is settled that a court does have inherent power to enforce a consent decree in response to a party's non-compliance, and to modify a decree in response to changed conditions.”)

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 6 of 10
USA v. Territory, Civil No. 3:08-CV-158 Joint Motion to Amend Consent Decree Action Plan Page 6 of 10
Courts have held that a district court has the power to modify a consent decree by extending the terms of a consent decree. In Holland, the Third Circuit stated that “the broad remedial power contained within the modification and compliance enforcement powers can be used to extend a consent decree.” Id. 246 F.3d at 282. The Supreme Court has held it was not an abuse of discretion for a district court to extend the terms of a consent decree where the modification sought to effectuate rather than thwart the basic purpose of the original consent decree. Chrysler Corp. v. U.S., 316 U.S. 556, 562 (1942). In amending the Consent Decree in this matter, this Court has also held that the court has the inherent power to amend the compliance deadline in a consent decree, as the court’s power to amend is broad and flexible. (Order, November 2, 2012 Order, Dkt. # 61).
In its November 2, 2012 order, the Court found that “Virgin Islands’ failure to reach substantial compliance by March of 2012 has so changed the circumstances that the basic purpose of the Consent Decree has been thwarted. The Court must therefore conclude that some modification of the Consent Decree is in order.” Id. Similarly, now, there is no dispute that Defendants will be unable to comply with the October 31, 2013 substantial compliance deadline in the Action Plan. As previously, the parties seek an extension to ensure that Defendants achieve the very purpose that led to the filing of this action and the Consent Decree.
As this Court has stated, “[t]he importance of the Virgin Islands Government achieving substantial compliance cannot be denied--this case involves allegations that VIPD officers ‘engaged in a pattern or practice of using excessive force . . . in effecting arrests . . . in otherwise routine encounters with citizens, and . . . in shooting and brandishing weapons.’” (Order, July 24, 2012 at 2, Dkt. # 52) (alterations in original). To

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 7 of 10
USA v. Territory, Civil No. 3:08-CV-158 Joint Motion to Amend Consent Decree Action Plan Page 7 of 10
ensure that the intent of the parties to a consent decree and the purpose of the consent decree are not frustrated, “a court may use its compliance enforcement power to extend one or more provisions of a decree . . . if such compliance enforcement is essential to remedy the violation and thus provide the parties with the relief originally bargained for in the consent order.” Rufo, 502 U.S. at 381. Without an extension of time, VIPD will not be able to fully achieve the mandates and objectives of the Consent Decree within the current time allotted.
Although it is undisputed that VIPD will not be able to achieve substantial compliance by October 31, 2013, VIPD has continued to make steady progress toward the goal of substantial compliance. Indeed, the monitors’ reports over the last year describe improvements in VIPD’s progress as it continues to push toward achieving substantial compliance. The monitors’ most recent report, covering the first quarter of 2013, describes significant progress, particularly in the areas of policy and training. The monitors report that, for most Consent Decree requirements, VIPD has completed the policy and training phases and is now in the implementation phase, which is the final phase required to achieve substantial compliance. Additionally, although the monitors’ have not yet issued their report for the second quarter of 2013, the monitors have informed the parties that they anticipate finding VIPD in substantial compliance with paragraphs 31, 39, 40, 47, 50, 52, 53, 62, 64 and 70 of the Consent Decree. In the first quarter report for 2013, VIPD received a rating of substantial compliance with paragraph 42.
The parties anticipate that the proposed revisions to the Action Plan, which more clearly delineated expectations and specific actions required for substantial

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 8 of 10
USA v. Territory, Civil No. 3:08-CV-158 Joint Motion to Amend Consent Decree Action Plan Page 8 of 10
compliance with each paragraph, will better enable VIPD to achieve compliance by the extended deadlines. The approval of all Consent Decree-related polices and the completion of most initial training on polices (trainings on the Audit Policy and Disciplinary Policy and Matrix are scheduled to be completed before the end of this calendar year) place VIPD in a better position to achieve substantial compliance. With the adoption of policies that require constitutional policing and good police practices, and with the completion of training on most of the policies, VIPD now has much of the infrastructure in place on which to build greater progress and ensure success. As VIPD continues to implement changes, demand accountability from its supervisors and officers, and provide ongoing proof of accomplishments to the monitoring team, VIPD fully expects to meet the extended interim deadlines and the newly extended substantial compliance deadline of October 31, 2015, as provided in the attached proposed revised Action Plan.
Additionally, VIPD is required under the Consent Decree and Action Plan to engage in frequent auditing and self-monitoring. These activities are designed to aid VIPD in obtaining a better understanding of its level of compliance; what is, and is not, working; and what further changes are needed. The implementation of regular audits not only serves as a measure to assess VIPD’s goal of substantial compliance, but also helps to build the framework for lasting, long-term success. The proposed extended substantial compliance deadline will give VIPD the additional time to build up its cadre of supervisors who are critical for the success of the auditing and implementation phase of the Consent Decree. The extension of the substantial compliance deadline is necessary so that VIPD can meet the mandates of the Consent

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 9 of 10
USA v. Territory, Civil No. 3:08-CV-158 Joint Motion to Amend Consent Decree Action Plan Page 9 of 10
Decree.
Wherefore, the parties respectively request that the Court grant their joint motion
and enter the attached order.
Respectfully submitted,

Dated: October 1, 2013

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
VINCENT F. FRAZER Attorney General
_/s/ Carol Thomas-Jacobs____ CAROL THOMAS JACOBS Assistant Attorney General V.I. Department of Justice 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade G.E.R.S. Complex, 2nd Floor St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802
FOR THE UNITED STATES:
JONATHAN M. SMITH Chief Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division
LAURA L. COON Special Counsel
_/s/ Marina Mazor_______________ MARINA MAZOR Senior Trial Attorney Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-6255 (telephone) (202) 514-0212 (facsimile)

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 10 of 10
USA v. Territory, Civil No. 3:08-CV-158 Joint Motion to Amend Consent Decree Action Plan Page 10 of 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the Parties’ Joint Motion to Amend Consent Decree Action Plan in United States v. Territory of the Virgin Islands, 3:08-CV-158, was filed electronically on October 1, 2013, using the CM/ECF system, which will send electronic notification to the following:
Marina Mazor Senior Trial Attorney Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 marina.mazor@usdoj.gov
____/s/ Carol Thomas-Jacobs_______ CAROL THOMAS JACOBS Assistant Attorney General V.I. Department of Justice

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 1 of 109

VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT CONSENT DECREE TIMETABLE/ACTION PLAN
AUGUST 30, 2012OCTOBER 1, 2013

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

POLICY

TRAINING

ACTION/ REVIEW/AUDIT

USE OF FORCE POLICIES Paragraph 31- The VIPD will review and revise its use of force policies as necessary to: a. define terms clearly; b. define force as that term is defined in this Agreement; c. incorporate a use of force model that teaches disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements or calling in specialized units as appropriate responses to

Use of Force Policies approved and signed off by Commissioner includes: 3.1 Use of Force 3.3 Reportable Use3.2 Reporting, Investigating and Review of Force 3.4 Firearms Policy 3.5 Impact Weapons 3.6 Electronic Control Weapon 3.7 OC Spray 3.8 Off-Duty Policy 3.9 Vehicle Pursuit Policy 3.10 Spike Strip 3.11 Canine Operations 3.12 Tactical Operations 3.13 Sniper Operations Training has been completed on the foregoing policies.

TrainingInitial training has been completed on the following; 3.1 Useuse of Forceforce policies as provided in this paragraph. 3.3 Reportable Use of Force 3.4 Firearms Policy 3.5 Impact Weapons 3.6 Electronic Control Weapon 3.7 OC Spray

Yearly review of policies.

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

PERSON/
GROUP///
UNIT
RESPON SIBLERE
SPONSIBLE

SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE DEALINE

Competency-based training 1of officers and supervisors on remaining policies by Jan 31, 2013 3.8 Off-Duty Policy 3.9 Vehicle Pursuit Policy 3.10 Spike Strip 3.12 Tactical Operations 3.13 Sniper Operations will be completed by January 31, 2013

Head of Use of Force Working Group/Head of Policy Committee/ Head of Training

October 31, 20132015

By November 30, 2012, implement

1

“Competency-based training” means the provision of knowledge and skills sufficient to enable the trained person to meet specified standards of performance as validated through that person’s demonstration

that he or she can use such knowledge or skills effectively in the circumstances for which they are required.

a situation; d. advise that, whenever possible, individuals should be allowed to submit to arrest before force is used; e. reinforce that the use of excessive force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and/or civil liability; f. ensure that sufficient less lethal alternatives are available to all patrol officers; and g. explicitly prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized. Once the DOJ has reviewed and approved these policies, the VIPD shall immediately implement any revisions.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 2 of 109

3.11 Canine Operations Refresher training is also on-going during in-service training modules.
Training on remaining policies: 3.8 Off-Duty Policy 3.9 Vehicle Pursuit Policy 3.10 Spike Strip 3.12 Tactical Operations 3.13 Sniper Operations will be completed by January 31, 2013.

system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system) and periodically test proficiency with the policies.
Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training. Incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy by Jan. 31, 2013.
Yearly review of policies.
By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of 1As and arrest reports).
Ensure allocation of

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 3 of 109

EVALUATION, DOCUMENTATION, AND REVIEW OF USE OF FORCE Paragraph 32 – The VIPD will require all uses of force to be documented

3.2 Reportable Use of Force Response to Resistance Report Form (RRR) has been approved and signed off by the Commissioner.

Training onInitial officer and supervisor training

Yearly review of policies. By November 30, 2012,

sufficient staff to input historical and current data into IAPro.
evelop and implement a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to report uses of force or otherwise fail to follow the policy and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training. Obtained DOJ approval for all use of force policies that require DOJ approval.
Approved policies are distributed to sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees.2

Use of force incidents Head of Use October 31,

have been documented of Force

20132015

in an RRR and

Working

2 For paragraphs 31, 39, 40, 47, 50, 52, 53, 62, 64, and 70, training requirements will be measured under paragraph 75; and audit and implementation requirements will be measured under paragraph 100.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 4 of 109

in writing. The use of force report form will indicate each and every type of force that was used, and require the evaluation of each usetype of force. Use of force reports will include a supervisor’s narrative description of the events preceding the use of force, andwritten by a supervisor or by the designated investigative unit. Use of force reports also will include the officer(s)’ narrative description of events and the officer(s)’ audiotaped statement. Except in cases of use of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, the officer’s statement shall be audioor videotaped.

on policies completed with refresher training on-going during inservice training modules. Additional training for supervisors has been completed.

implementJanuary 31, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system)..
By November 30, 2012, ensureEnsure that the Virgin Islands’ Attorney General’s Office, VIPD’s counsel,3 the Training Working Group, and the Use of Force Working Group review all use of force policies.
RefresherConduct refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training. Incorporate

investigated by a supervisor.

Group

RRRs will include each of the requirements identified in ¶ 32 of the Consent Decree.

In use of force incidents, there is evidence that corrective action was taken against the sworn personnel whose use of force documentation failed to meet the requirements of the Consent Decree.

Uses of force comply with applicable law.

Continue to incorporate competency-based4 training on policies into Police Academy by Jan..

By October 31, 2013.

3This requirement applies only insofar as the position of VIPD counsel is filled. 4 “Competency-based training” means the provision of knowledge and skills sufficient to enable the trained person to demonstrate compliance with specified performance standards.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 5 of 109
Conduct Use of Force Review on quarterly basis commencing November 30, 2012.
By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.5
By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of 1As and arrest reports to ensure RRRs are completed). This requires allocation of sufficient staff to input historical and current data into IAPro) and conduct use of force review on a quarterly basis.
By June 30December 31, 2013, ensure that audits audit the timeliness of completion of use of force investigations.
By June 30December 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop and implement
5 The Audit Plan is a document describing at a high level how VIPD will conduct audits for the general areas of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 5

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 6 of 109

a process for identifyingquarterly thereafter, conduct audits to identify personnel who continually fail to report uses of force or otherwise fail to follow the policy and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training

Paragraph 33 - Officers shall notify their supervisors following any use of force or upon the receipt of an allegation of excessive force. Supervisors Except in uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, supervisors will respond to the scene, examine the subject for injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain, and ensure that the subject receivesreceived needed medical attention.

3.2 Reportable Use of Force Response to Resistance Report Form (RRR) has been approved and signed off by the Commissioner.

TrainingInitial training on policies completed with refresher training on-going during inservice training modules. Additional training for supervisors has been completed.

. RefresherConduct refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training. Incorporate
Continue to incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy by Jan. 31, 2013.
Yearly review of policies.
By November 30, 2012, implementJanuary 31, 2014, improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system)..

The officer using force notified his/her supervisor as required by VIPD policy.

Head of Use of Force Working Group

Where a supervisor was notified of the use of force by an officer, he/she responded to the scene in a reasonable amount of time, as required by VIPD policy.

In incidents where the supervisor responded to the scene, he/she conducted a complete investigation, including examining the subject for injury, interviewing the subject for complaints

October 31, 20132015

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 7 of 109

6 This requirement applies to Consent-Decree related training.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 7

Conduct complete Use of Force Review on quarterly basis commencing on November 30, 2012.

of pain, and ensuring that the subject received any needed medical attention.

By November 30, 2012, VIPD will Provide DOJ with an action plan for achieving sufficient numbers of supervisors or outlining how it intends to use existing supervisors to implement the polices and this action plan. The plan will include an implementation date subject to the agreement of the parties.
By June 30, By June 30, 2014, VIPD will provide USDOJ with a comprehensive report regarding: (1) the actions it has taken to obtain appropriate number of supervisory personnel to carry out the mandates of the Consent Decree, and (2) any additional steps necessary to ensure a sufficient number of supervisors. By February 1,

All training must comport with the requirements of the Consent Decree, and be taught from curricula/lesson plans that: (a) identify training objectives; (b) incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises); and (c) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal counsel, as appropriate.6

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 8 of 109
2014, VIPD will provide USDOJ with an interim report addressing the above issues.
By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.
By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of 1As, arrest reports and RRRs). This requires allocation of sufficient staff to input historical and current data into IAPro. ) and conduct use of force review on a quarterly basis.
By June 30December 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop and implement a process for identifyingquarterly thereafter, conduct audits to identify personnel who continually fail to report uses of force and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 9 of 109

Paragraph 34 – Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, will review, evaluate, and document each use of force, and will complete the supervisor’s narrative description section of the use of force report. The supervisor’s narrative description will include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer’s conduct. As part of this review, the supervisor or designated investigating officer/unit will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officer’s actions were within VIPD policy. An officer who used force during the incident, or whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized conduct leading to the use of force or allegation of excessive force, or who was present during the incident, will

3.2 Reportable Use of Force Response to Resistance Report Form (RRR) has been approved and signed off by the Commissioner.

TrainingInitial training on policies completed with refresher training on-going during inservice training modules. Additional training for supervisors has been completed.

By November 30, 2012, implementJanuary 31, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system)..
RefresherConduct refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, ongoing periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training. Incorporate

Continue to incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy by Jan. 31, 2013.

Yearly review of policies.
Conduct Use of Force Review on quarterly basis commencing November 30, 2012.
By November 30, 2012June 31, 2014, VIPD will provide DOJ with an action plan for achievingUSDOJ with a comprehensive report regarding: (1) the actions it

In reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he/she was not involved in the use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize or participate in conduct leading to the use of force incident).

Head of Use of Force Working Group

In reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completed his/her review and evaluation according to VIPD’s use of force policies and all other requirements of ¶ 31 of the Consent Decree.

In reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completes the supervisor’s narrative description of the RRR in a manner that comports with the requirements of ¶ 34 of

October 31, 20132015

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 9

not be eligible to review or investigate the incident.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 10 of 109

has taken to obtain appropriate number of supervisory personnel to carry out the mandates of the Consent Decree and (2) any additional steps necessary to ensure a sufficient numbersnumber of supervisors or outlining how it intends to use existing supervisors to implement the policies and this action plan. The plan will include an implementation date subject to the agreement of the parties..

the Consent Decree.

By June 30 By February 1, 2014, VIPD will provide USDOJ with an interim report addressing the above issues.

By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.

By December 1, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of 1As, arrest reports and RRRs).) and

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 11 of 109

conduct use of force reviews on a quarterly basis.

Paragraph 35 – The parties agree that it is improper interview procedure during use of force reviewsinvestigations to ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer’s conduct when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. In each review/investigation, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence

3.2 Reportable Use of Force Response to Resistance Report Form (RRR) has been approved and signed off by the Commissioner.

TrainingInitial training on policies completed with refresher training on-going during inservice training modules. Additional training for supervisors has been completed.

By June 30December 31,

2013, in consultation with

DOJ, develop and implement

a process for

identifyingquarterly

thereafter, conduct audits to

identify supervisors who

neglect their responsibilities

to investigate as required by

policy and provide and

document discipline and/or

remedial training.

RefresherConduct refresher In interviews

training on policies ongoing, onducted

through documented,

during use of force

periodic in-service

views,

training.

leading questions were

avoided.

By November 30, 2012, implementJanuary 31, 2014, improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system)..

In investigations where material inconsistencies re present between itness statements, reasonable

Yearly review of policies.

efforts are made to solve

Conduct Use of Force Review on quarterly basis commencing November 30,

the inconsistencies.
In the use of force reviews, all relevant

Head of Use of Force Working Group

October 31, 20132015

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 11

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 12 of 109

including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. The VIPD will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. The VIPD will train all of its supervisors onand officers assigned to conduct use of force investigations in conducting use of force investigations, including in the factors to consider when evaluating credibility.
Paragraph 36 – Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall conduct a performance reviewan investigation of all uses of force or an injury

3.2 Reportable Use of Force Response to Resistance Report Form (RRR) has been approved and signed off by the Commissioner.

TrainingInitial training on policies completed with refresher training on-going during inservice training modules.

2012.
By June 30October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.
By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of use of force investigation files).) and conduct use of force review on a quarterly basis.
By June 30December 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop and implement a process for identifyingquarterly thereafter, conduct audits to identify personnel who continually fail to report uses of force and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training RefresherConduct refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service training.
By November 30, 2012,

evidence, including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence is documented and appropriately considered, and credibility determinations made, if feasible.
When evaluating witness credibility, appropriate factors are considered and documented.
Supervisors are trained on how to conduct, review, and evaluate use of force incidents, including but not limited to, what factors to consider when evaluating witness credibility.
In reportable use of force incidents, all involved officers are identified in the investigating supervisor’s reports.

Head of Use of Force Working Group

October 31, 20132015

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 12

resulting from a use of force by any officer under their command. In a performance reviewThis requirement does not apply to uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ. In an investigation, supervisors or designated investigating officers or units, shall interview all witnesses to a use of force or an injury resulting from a use of force. Consistent with the requirements of the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable law, VIPD supervisors or designated investigating officers or units shall ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all use of force reports for all levels of force identify all officers who were involved in the
VIPD Consent Decree
Timeline Table/ Action Plan
August 30, 2012October 1, 2013
Page 13

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 13 of 109

Additional training for supervisors has been completed.

implementBy January 31, 2014, improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system).
Yearly review of policies.
Conduct Use of Force Review on quarterly basis commencing November 30, 2012.
By June 30October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ finalize Audit Plan.
By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of use of force investigation files). ) and conduct use of force review on a quarterly basis.
By June 30December 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop and implement a process for identifyingquarterly thereafter, conduct audits to identify personnel who

In reportable use of force incidents, all witnesses, to the extent practicable, are identified in the investigating supervisor’s reports.
In reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor ensured that efforts were made to identify and interview witnesses, and documented these efforts.
In reportable use of force incidents that resulted in injuries, the investigating supervisor documented the extent of the injuries and any medical treatment rendered in a manner that comports with ¶ 36 of the Consent Decree.
In reportable use of force incidents that resulted in injuries, photographic evidence

incident or were on the scene when it occurred. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports for all levels of force indicate whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided, and whether the subject refused medical treatment. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports include contemporaneous photographs or videotapes taken of all injuries at the earliest practicable opportunity, both before and after any treatment, including cleansing of wounds.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 14 of 109

continually fail to report uses of force and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training

was collected and maintained in a manner that comports with ¶ 36 of the Consent Decree.
In reportable use of force reviews, the investigating supervisor provided a finding on whether the use of force was justified under VIPD’s use of force policies.

Paragraph 37 – A Deputy Chief will evaluate each performance review conductedAll investigations into use of force shall be reviewed by

3.2 Reportable Use of Force Response to Resistance Report Form (RRR) has been approved and signed off by the Commissioner.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 14

TrainingInitial training on policies completed with refresher training on-going during inservice training

RefresherConduct refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service training.

Completed use of force case files contained signed documentation from the Chief and/or Deputy Chief or

Head of Use of Force Working Group

October 31, 20132015

supervisors,the Officer’s Commander and/or Director, or by a Commander and/or Director in the designated investigative unit, who shall identify any deficiencies in those reviews, and shall require supervisors, or designated investigative officers or units, to correct any and all deficiencies. Supervisors, and designated investigative officers or units, will be held accountable for the quality of their reviews. Appropriate nondisciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary action will be taken when a supervisor, or designated investigative officer or unit, fails to conduct a timely and thorough review, or neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action, or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action. As provided by VIPD policy
VIPD Consent Decree
Timeline Table/ Action Plan
August 30, 2012October 1, 2013
Page 15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 15 of 109

modules. Additional training for supervisors has been completed.

By November 30, 2012, implementJanuary 31, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system)..
Yearly review of policies.
Conduct Use of Force Review on quarterly basis commencing November 30, 2012.
By June 30October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit toolsfinalize Audit Plan.
By December 31, 2013, and quarterly thereafter, conduct audits to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of use of force investigation files).) and conduct use of force review on a quarterly basis..
By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ develop and implement a process for identifyingBy December 31, 2013, conduct

designee indicating that he/she reviewed the completed investigation and the date of such review.
In completed use of force investigations in which the Chief and/or Deputy Chief or designee found deficiencies in the investigations, the deficiencies were documented and corrected; the corrections were documented; and supplemental investigative were reports prepared to document the additional investigative efforts, if required to correct the identified deficiencies.
In reportable use of force incidents, the Chief and/or Deputy Chief or designee provided a written, signed and dated finding on whether the

and approved by DOJ, designated command staff shall further review the Commander and/or Director’s reviews according to the level of force involved.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 16

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 16 of 109

audits to identify personnel who continually fail to report uses of force and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training.

use of force was justified under VIPD’s approved use of force policies and all other requirements of ¶¶ 31(a)-(g) of the Consent Decree.

In reportable use of force incidents, supervisors are held accountable for the quality of their reviews, and documented nondisciplinary and/or disciplinary action has been taken when a supervisor or manager: fails to conduct a timely and thorough review; neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action; or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action.

In use of force incidents where the Commander’s/Director ’s or his designee’s review and evaluation

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 17 of 109

Paragraph 38 – The VIPD will investigate or review as appropriate all critical firearm discharges. The VIPD will ensure that the investigation or review

3.2 Reportable Use of Force Response to Resistance Report Form (RRR) has been approved and signed off by the Commissioner.

TrainingInitial training on all policies completed with refresher training on-going during in-service

RefresherConduct refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service training.

concluded that improper tactics were used, there is evidence that the involved sworn personnel received and successfully completed remedial training, and, if appropriate, were disciplined.

In use of force incidents deemed unjustified by the Commander’s/Director ’s or designee’s review and evaluation, the involved sworn personnel were disciplined, up to and including termination from VIPD if appropriate, and, if termination was not appropriate, at the very least, received remedial training. Critical firearm discharges are investigated and documented.

Head of Use of Force Working Group

October 31, 20132015

Investigations or reviews of critical

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 17

accounts for all shots and the locations of all officers who discharged their firearms. The VIPD will conduct all ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 18

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 18 of 109

training modules.
Additional training for supervisors completed.

By November 30, 2012, implementBy January 31, 2014, improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system).
Yearly review of policies.
Conduct Use of Force Review on quarterly basis commencing November 30, 2012.
Execute any contract(s) necessary to train supervisors or others responsible for conducting ballistic or crime scene analyses by JanuaryBy October 31, 2013. Conduct the training by March 31, 2013.
By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ finalize Audit Plan.
VIPD shall maintain sufficient trained staff who conduct adequate ballistic/crime scene analysis.

firearm discharges accounted for all shots.
Investigations or reviews of critical firearm discharges accounted for the locations of all officers who discharged their firearms.
In investigations or reviews of critical firearm discharges, the VIPD conducted ballistic crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate.
Supervisors (or other personnel) have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training on ballistic and crime scene analyses and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or (b) if supervisors (or other

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 19 of 109

Paragraph 39 – VIPD shall complete development of a Use of Firearms policy that complies with applicable law and current professional standards.
VIPD Consent Decree
Timeline Table/ Action Plan
August 30, 2012October 1, 2013
Page 19

3.4 Firearms – Approved and signed by Commissioner.

TrainingInitial training on policy completed with refresher training on-going during inservice training modules.

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of use of force investigation files).) and conduct use of force review on a quarterly basis.
By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop and implement a process for identifying personnelBy December 31, 2013 conduct audits to identify personnel who continually fail to report uses of force and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training
Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic inservice training.
By November 30, 2012,

personnel) have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the supervisors (or other personnel) have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s); or
Where supervisors (or other personnel) have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel. Obtained DOJ approval for Use of Firearms policy.
Approved policy contains the elements required in Paragraph

Head of Training/ Head of Use of Force Working Group

October 31, 20132015

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 20 of 109

The policy shall prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition and shall inform officers that any such use may subject them to disciplinary action. The policy shall establish a single, uniform reporting system for all firearms discharges. The policy shall prohibit officers from obtaining service ammunition from any source except through official VIPD channels, and shall specify the number of rounds VIPD authorizes its officers to carry. The policy will continue to require that all discharges of firearms by officers on or off-duty, including unintentional discharges, be reported and investigated.

Paragraph 40 – The

3.8 Off-duty Official Action – Approved and signed TrainingInitial

VIPD shall revise its

by Commissioner.

training on policy

policies regarding off-duty

completed with

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 20

implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system).
Yearly review of policies.
Conduct Use of Force Review on quarterly basis commencing November 30, 2012.

39.
Approved policy is distributed to sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees.

By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of firearm discharge reporting).

By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop and implement a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to report uses of force and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training

Yearly review of policies.

Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented,

Head of Use October 31,

of Force

2013 2015

Working

officers taking police action to: a. provide that off-duty officers shall notify onduty VIPD or local law enforcement officers before taking police action, absent exigent circumstances, so that they may respond with appropriate personnel and resources to handle the problem; b. provide that, if it appears the officer has consumed alcohol or is otherwise impaired, the officer shall submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 21

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 21 of 109

refresher training on-going during inservice training modules.

periodic in-service training.

Group

Conduct Use of Force Review on quarterly basis commencing November 30, 2012.
By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system).
Yearly review of policies.
By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of use of force investigation files).
By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ develop and implement a process for identifying

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 22 of 109

Paragraph 41 – The VIPD shall continue to provide an intermediate force device, which is between chemical spray and firearms on the force continuum, that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The VIPD shall continue its

3.6 Electronic control Weapon – Approved and signed by Commissioner.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 22

personnel who continually fail to report uses of force and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training Obtained DOJ approval of use of force policy on offduty officers taking police action.
Policy contains all elements required by Paragraph 40.
Approved policies are distributed to sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees.

TrainingInitial training on policy completed with refresher training on-going during inservice training modules.

RefresherConduct refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service training.
By November 30, 2012, implementJanuary 31, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on

Patrol and other applicable officers carry an intermediate force device at all times while on-duty.
Sworn personnel have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training for each new

Head of Use of Force Working Group

October 31, 20132015

policy regarding the intermediate force device, incorporate the intermediate force device into the force continuum and train all officers in its use on an annual basis.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 23

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 23 of 109

policies (i.e., a tracking system) and periodically test proficiency with the.
Conduct refresher training on policies. through documented, periodic inservice training, to test proficiencies.
Yearly review of policies.
Conduct Inspections of personnel with report on quarterly basis commencing November 30, 2012.
By June 30October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.

or revised policy related to intermediate force devices and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of use of force investigation files).
By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop and implement a process for identifyingConduct

Where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 24 of 109

CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS Public Information Paragraph 42 - The VIPD will develop and implement a program to inform persons that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any officer. This program will include distribution of complaint forms, fact sheets, informational posters, and public service announcements that

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 24

inspections, with report on a quarterly basis, commencing on December 31, 2013, to ensure that officers carry intermediate force device(s) as appropriate and that their use of the device(s) comports with applicable law and VIPD policy.

Sworn personnel display knowledge and proficiency on using intermediate force devices, as evidenced by compliance with the policy requirements.

By December 31, 2013, and quarterly thereafter, conduct audits to identify personnel who continually fail to report uses of force and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training.

TrainingInitial Officer and supervisor training completed for supervisors on both districts. Officers will be completed by September 28 2012.

Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic inservice training.
By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system) and periodically test proficiency with the policies.

The VIPD has developed and implemented a program to inform persons that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any officer.
In VIPD facilities, vehicles, and governmental

Head of CitizensCiti zens’ complaint committee /Head of training division

October 31, 2013In Compliance; sustained compliance required

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 25 of 109

describe the citizen complaint process.

Yearly review of policies.
Biweekly inspections by Zone Commanders to ensure that all complaint process materials are available in their Zones. Zone Commanders will provide a written report of their inspections.

properties such as VIPD district stations, libraries, the internet and upon request, to community groups and community centers, complaint information brochures and forms are available.

Paragraph 43 – The VIPD will make complaint forms and informational materials available at government properties such as VIPD district stations, substations, and mobile substations, libraries, the Internet, and, upon request, to community groups and community centers. At each VIPD district station, substation, and mobile substation, the VIPD will permanently post a placard describing the complaint process and include the relevant phone numbers. These placards

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 25

TrainingInitial officer and supervisor training completed for supervisors on both districts. Officers will be completed by September 28, 2012.

RefresherConduct refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service training.
By November 30, 2012, implementJanuary 31, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system)..

VIPD facilities, vehicles, and government properties, complaint information brochures and forms are available.
Officers carry the informational brochures and complaint forms with them at all times while on-duty.

Head of CitizensCiti zens’ Complaint Committee /Head of training division

Yearly review of policies.
Biweekly inspections Monthly inspections by Zone Commanders to ensure that all complaint process materials are available in

In VIPD district stations, substation, and mobile stations, a placard is displayed describing the complaint process, including relevant

October 31, 2013 2015

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 26 of 109

shall be displayed in both English and Spanish, and where deemed necessary, in French or French Patois, to account for diversity in the VI population. The VIPD will require all officers to carry informational brochures and complaint forms, in English and Spanish, and where deemed necessary, in French or French Patois, in their vehicles at all times while on duty. If a citizen objects to an officer’s conduct, that officer will inform the citizen of his or her right to make a complaint. Officers will not discourage any person from making a complaint.

their Zones. Zone Commanders will provide a monthly written report of their inspections.
Monthly inspections to ensure that informational materials are available at all required locations.

phone numbers.
In incidents where a citizen complained about an officer’s conduct, the officer informed, and did not discourage, the citizen about his/her ability to make a complaint.

Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints Paragraph 44 Complaints may be filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile or electronic
VIPD Consent Decree
Timeline Table/ Action Plan
August 30, 2012October 1, 2013
Page 26

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

Training Initial officer and supervisor training completed for supervisors in both districts. Officers

RefresherConduct refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service training.

Obtained DOJ approval for a complaint intake policy.
Approved policy is distributed to sworn

Head of CitizensCiti zens’ Complaint Committee /Head of

October 31, 20132015

mail. The duty officer at the front desk of each district station will be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints, which persons may file at any district station. Complaint intake officers may describe facts that bear upon a complainant’s demeanor and physical condition but May not express opinions regarding his/her mental competency or veracity. Each complaint will be resolved in writing. Upon receipt, each complaint will be assigned a unique identifier, which will be provided to the complainant. Each complaint will be tracked according to the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, improper search, etc.).
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 27

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 27 of 109

training will be completed by September 28, 2012

By November 30, 2012, implementJanuary 31, 2014, improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system)..
Yearly review of policies.
MonthlyQuarterly review of IAU and zone files.
By June 30October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement finalize Audit Plan.
By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of citizen complaint investigation files). Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.
By June 30December 31, 2013, in consultation with

personnel and applicable civilian employees.
Sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training for each new or revised complaint related policy and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test, the sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency

training

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 28

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 28 of 109

DOJ, create a periodicquarterly report that analyzes patterns of violations of VIPD policy. Using the information gathered in the report, evaluate areas for policy modification or appropriate remedial action (e.g., training).

test(s); or
Where sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees.

Complaints are ocumented and resolved in writing.

Appropriate VIPD personnel properly respond to the inquiring/complaining person, as verified by the monitors and the VIPD audit unit.

For complaints lodged and recorded, a file documents the actions

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 29 of 109

Paragraph 45- Copies of all allegations of misconduct against the VIPD filed with the Zone Commands will be

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 29

taken by VIPD in response to the complaint.
Documented complaints are assigned a unique identifier and are retrievable by that identifier, the complainant’s name, if it was provided, or the name of the accused officer, if known.
Completed investigations into complaints comport with the provisions of the Consent Decree.
Documented complaints do not include opinions of the intake officer about the mental competency or veracity of the complainant.

Training Initial training completed for supervisors onand officers in both districts.

RefresherConduct refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service training.

Allegations filed at Zone or unit facilities are forwarded to IAU within five business days.

Head of CitizensCiti zens’ Complaint Committee

October 31, 20132015

referred to Internal Affairs Unit (“IAU”) within five business days.

Investigation

of

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 30

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 30 of 109

Officers training will be completed by September 28, 2012.

By November 30, 2012, implement systemReview monthly completed cases in IAPro to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system).

By Dec. 31, 2012, implement tracking system to documentcompliance with the 5- day of requirement as per policy.

Monthly review of IAU files

By June 30October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ finalize Audit Plan.

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of citizen complaint investigation files). Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

/Head of IAU

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 31 of 109

Complaints Paragraph 46 Complaints will be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, for which the Territory will develop and implement appropriate training.

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 31

TrainingInitial training completed for supervisors on both districts.

CompetencyContinue to incorporate competencybased training of officers and supervisors by November 30, 2012 .
By November 30, 2012, implementJanuary 31, 2014, improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system) and periodically test supervisors’ knowledge of the preponderance of the evidence standard. Refresher Conduct refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic inservice and roll call/commanders call training. Incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy by Jan. 31, 2013.
Yearly review of policies.
By June 30October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ finalize Audit Plan.

Sworn personnel have either: (a) attended and successfully completed training on the preponderance of the evidence standard and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or
Where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including

Head of CitizensCiti zens’ Complaint Committee

October 31, 2013 2015

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 32 of 109

Paragraph 47 - The VIPD Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/

will explicitly prohibit

Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 32

By December 31, 2013,

training, and

implement audit tools to

disciplinary action

ensure staff are complying against the sworn

with the policies (i.e., review personnel.

of sample investigatory files. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

All training on the preponderance of the evidence comports with the requirements of the Consent Decree, and is taught from

MonthlyQuarterly review of closed investigation files to ensure that the preponderance of evidence standard is being used.

curricula/lesson plans that: (a) identify training objectives; (b) incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques

By June 30December 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop a process for identifyingand quarterly

(e.g., class exercises); and (c) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal counsel.

thereafter, identify

Completed

Supervisors who are not

investigations into

correctly using the

complaints/allegations

preponderance of the

of misconduct include

evidence standard and

an assessment of the

provide and document

evidence, and a finding

discipline and/or remedial that is based upon the

training as appropriate.

preponderance of

evidence standard.

TrainingInitial

Refresher training on

training completed policies ongoing, through

VIPD policy prohibits Head of

October,

from investigating an CitizensCiti 31,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 33 of 109

from investigating an incident any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to the injury to a person, or who authorized the conduct that led to these reportable incidents.

Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

Paragraph 48 - The VIPD will investigate every citizen complaint. The VIPD will establish a

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 33

for supervisors onin both districts.

documented, periodic inservice and roll call/commanders call training. Incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy by Jan. 31, 2013.

Yearly review of policies.

incident any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to the injury to a person, or who authorized the conduct that led to these reportable incidents.

zens’ Complaint Committee

20132015

By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample investigatory files.

By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop a process for identifying supervisors who neglect their responsibilities to investigate as required by policy and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training.

Training Initial training completed for supervisors

Monthly review of IAU files to ensure compliance
RefresherConduct refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented,

Obtained DOJ approval of a policy and procedure for the

Head of CitizensCiti zens’

October 31, 2013 2015

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 34 of 109

clear policy and procedure regarding the intake of any complaint, including anonymous and confidential complaints, against a VIPD officer. This policy and these procedures will include instructions to an officer for taking a complaint and prompt delivery to a supervisor.
Paragraph 49 - The VIPD Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 34

onand Supervisors in both districts. Officers training to be completed by September 28, 2012.
SupervisorsInitial

periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training. Incorporate
Continue to incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy by Jan. 31, 2013.
Yearly review of policies.
By June 30October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.
By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample investigatory files. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.
MonthlyQuarterly review of closed files at zone level and IAU.

intake of complaints.
For complaints lodged and recorded, a file documents the actions taken by VIPD in response to the complaint.
Sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have been trained and demonstrated the required proficiency on the complaint intake policy and comports with the Consent Decree, including ¶¶ 44 and 48.
Documented complaints are promptly delivered to a supervisor.
Applicable VIPD personnel properly respond to the inquiring/complaining person, as verified by the monitors and VIPD.

Complaint Committee

RefresherConduct refresher Established a separate Head of

October 31,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 35 of 109

will institute a centralized numbering and tracking system for all complaints, and each complaint will receive a tracking number as quickly as possible. The IAU will be designated as the primary and centralized agency to determine whether the investigation will be assigned to zone (one of the seven zones located throughout the Virgin Islands), retained by the IAU, or referred for possible criminal investigation. If the IAU refers a complaint to a zone, copies of all documents, findings, and recommendations should be immediately forwarded to the IAU for tracking and monitoring. For complaints alleging the excessive use of force or violation of a person’s constitutional rights, the Police Commissioner should be notified no less than twenty-four hours after receipt of a

Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 35

training for supervisors completed on both districts. Centralized numbering arehas been provided by central dispatch.

training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training.
ByCommencing December 31, 2012, implement2013, and on a tracking system forquarterly basis thereafter, utilizing data from IAPro, produce a report that tracks citizens’ complaints referred to a zone and a tracking system for notifyingthe zones/bureaus, and identifies whether any of complaints involve excessive use of force. Also determine whether the Police Commissioner was notified of complaints alleging excessive use of force.
Yearly review of policies.
By June 30October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.
By December 31, 2013, and quarterly thereafter,

IAPro database for the STT/STJ and STX Districts such that: (1) each database will be accessible from each district; (2) IAU agents in each District will have access to their respective databases; (3) the Director of IAU, Assistant Director of IAU, and EIP Coordinator will have access to both databases; (4) each complaint will receive a unique tracking number, with an STT extension for the St. Thomas/St. John District and an STX extension for the St. Croix District, so that no two complaints will have the same number within or between databases; (5) information in each database will be organized by District, and can be sorted by officer; and (6) if an officer transfers from

CitizensCiti zens’ Complaint Committee

20132015

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 36 of 109

complaint.
Paragraph 50 - The VIPD Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 36

TrainingInitial

implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample citizen complaint investigation files..). Also ensure that lapseslapse in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.
Quarterly inspections by committee membersBy March 31, 2014, ensure that each IAPro database is accessible from all districts.

one District to another, his/her information will be transferred to the new District’s database.
Allegations brought to the attention of the VIPD are assigned a unique identifier.
In complaints that the IAU refers to a Zone, copies of the completed file are forwarded to the IAU within the time frame specified by VIPD policy.

Evidence exists that IAU adequately tracked and monitored the complaint.

Competency-based training

Complaints alleging excessive use of force or a civil rights violation are reported to the Police Commissioner within 24 hours of receiving the complaint.
Obtained DOJ approval Head of

October 31,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 37 of 109

will adopt a single policy concerning the investigation of misconduct complaints, regardless of whether the investigation is conducted by the IAU or a zone.

Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 37

training completed for supervisors on both districts.

of all investigators by November 30, 2012
Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic inservice and roll call/commanders call training. Incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy by Jan. 31, 2013.

of a policy concerning the investigation of misconduct complaints, consistent with the requirements of Paragraph 50.

CitizensCiti zens’ Complaint Committee

20132015

Yearly review of policies.

By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system).

Quarterly review of files in IAU and zone

By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample citizen complaint investigation files). Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 38 of 109

Paragraph 51 - The VIPD will establish policies and procedures and train all of its investigators on the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility; examination and interrogation of accused officers and other witnesses; identifying misconduct even if it is not specifically named in the complaint; and using the preponderance of the evidence standard as the appropriate burden of proof. VIPD investigators will ensure that all officers on the scene of an incident provide a statement regarding the incident. The policy will

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 38

addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, audit timeliness of completion of citizen complaint investigations.

TrainingInitial training completed for supervisors on both districts.

By November 30, 2012, implementJanuary 31, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system).
RefresherConduct refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training.
Yearly review of policies.
Quarterly review of IAU and zone files.
All statements will be recorded by JanuaryOctober

Policies are developed, implemented, and distributed to VIPD investigators.
Investigators/su pervisors have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training concerning the components identified in ¶ 51 of the Consent Decree and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if investigators/superviso rs have not successfully completed the required training

Head of CitizensCiti zens’ Complaint Committee

October 31, 20132015

require that all interviews be mechanically recorded using an audio or video tape.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 39

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 39 of 109

31, 2013. After January 31, 2013, bi-monthlyOn a quarterly basis conduct review to ensure statementthat statements are being recorded.
By June 30December 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample investigatory files.). Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

and passed proficiency test(s), investigators/superviso rs have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or
Where investigators/superviso rs have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the investigators/superviso rs.

Completed investigations into complaints of misconduct include a documented assessment of the evidence, and a finding

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 40 of 109

Paragraph 52 - The policy will require that the investigative findings include whether: 1) the police action was in compliance with policy, training and legal standards, regardless of whether the complainant suffered harm; 2) the incident involved misconduct by any officer; 3) the use of different tactics should or could

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 40

that is based upon the preponderance of evidence standard.
In incidents giving rise to allegations of misconduct or use of force, all officers on the scene provided a statement regarding the incident, in accordance with VIPD policy.
Interviews related to a complaint of misconduct will be mechanically recorded using an audio or video tape.

TrainingInitial training completed for supervisors in both districts on policy.

Competency-based training of all investigators by November 30, 2012
By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system).

The VIPD policy formalizes a process for review of all uses of force that ensures the consideration of and documentation of all of the findings identified in ¶ 52.

Head of CitizensCiti zens’ Complaint Committee

October 31, 20132015

Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic inservice and roll

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 41 of 109

have been employed; 4) the incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and 5) the incident suggests that the VIPD should revise its policies, training, or tactics.

Paragraph 53 - The policy will provide clear guidance to all investigators regarding the procedures for handling criminal misconduct allegations, referring them to the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office or other appropriate agency for possible criminal prosecution, and the entity

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 41

call/commanders call training

Yearly review of policies.

Monthly review of zone and IAU files

By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample investigatory files. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

TrainingInitial training completed for supervisors on both districts.

Competency-based training of all investigators by November 30, 2012
By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system).

Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-

VIPD has issued a policy that provides clear guidance on how to handle allegations of criminal misconduct by sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees and includes the elements of ¶ 53.

Head of CitizensCiti zens’ Complaint Committee

October 31, 20132015

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 42 of 109

or individual who should make the determination of whether the complaint should be investigated criminally. The policy will be revised to require the completion of an administrative investigation, irrespective of the initiation or outcome of criminal proceedings.

Paragraph 54 - In each investigation, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. There will be no automatic preference for an officer’s statement

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 42

service and roll call/commanders call training

Yearly review of policies.

Quarterly review commencing on November 30, 2012, of files in IAU and zones to ensure compliance.

TrainingInitial training completed for supervisors on each district.

By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample investigatory files. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training. CompetencyIncorporate competency-based training of all investigators by November 30, 2012.
By November 30, 2012, implementJanuary 31, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system)..

In completed investigations, all relevant and appropriate evidence identified in ¶ 54 of the Consent Decree has been considered and documented.
Completed investigations reflect

Head of CitizensCiti zens’ Complaint Committee

October 31, 20132015

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 43 of 109

over a non-officer’s statement, nor will the VIPD completely disregard a witness’ statement merely because the witness has some connection to the complainant. The VIPD will make efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.

Paragraph 55 - During an investigation, all relevant police activity,
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 43

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

TrainingInitial training completed for supervisors on

RefresherConduct refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, ongoing periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training
Yearly review of policies.
Monthly review files at zone and IAU to ensure compliance
By June 30October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implementfinalize Audit Plan.
By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample investigatory files.). Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training. CompetencyIncorporate competency-based training of all investigators by

that a supervisor did not give an automatic preference for an officer’s statement over a non-officer’s statement. Completed investigations reflect that a supervisor has not disregarded a witness’ statement because the witness has a connection to the complainant. VIPD investigators have made efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements and have been trained on ways to do this.
In investigations, there is documented evidence that all

Head of CitizensCiti zens’

October 31, 20132015

including each use of force (i.e., not just the type of force complained about) will be investigated. The investigation will also evaluate any searches or seizures that occurred during the incident. The VIPD will not close an investigation simply because the complaint is withdrawn or the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of injury or the complainant will not provide additional statements or written statements; rather, the investigating agency will continue its investigation as necessary to determine whether the original allegation(s) can be resolved based on the information, evidence, and investigatory procedures and techniques available. In each investigation, the fact that a complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense will
VIPD Consent Decree
Timeline Table/ Action Plan
August 30, 2012October 1, 2013
Page 44

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 44 of 109

both districts.

November 30, 2012
By November 30, 2012, implementJanuary 31, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system)..
RefresherConduct refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training
Yearly review of policies.
Monthly review of files along with IAU agents monthly to ensure compliance by commanders or heads
By June 30October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.
By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample investigatory

misconduct revealed by the investigation, whether part of the initial allegation or discovered during the investigation, has been reasonably investigated and addressed.
In completed investigations, the investigative reports include documentation that the supervisor has evaluated any searches or seizures that occurred during the incident.
In completed investigations, a supervisor has ensured the continuation of every investigation – even when the complaint is withdrawn, or the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of injury, or the

Complaint Committee

not be considered as evidence of whether a VIPD officer used or did not use a type of force, nor will it justify discontinuing the investigation.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 45

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 45 of 109

files.). Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

complainant will not provide additional statements or written statements – until the VIPD has determined whether the original allegation(s) can be resolved based on the information, evidence, and investigatory procedures and techniques available.

In completed investigations, a supervisor has not considered the fact that a complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense as evidence of whether a VIPD officer used or did not use a type of force, or as a justification for discontinuing the investigation.

In completed investigations, the elements identified in paragraph 55 of the Consent Decree have been considered,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 46 of 109

Paragraph 56 - The complainant will be periodically kept informed regarding the status of the investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, the complainant will be notified of its outcome, including an appropriate statement regarding whether any nondisciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action was taken.

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

TrainingInitial training completed for supervisors on both districts.

RefresherConduct refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, ongoing periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training.
By November 30, 2012, monthlyDecember 31, 2013, and quarterly thereafter, conduct review of files to determine whether complainants are beenbeing notified and implementation of timelines for notificationthe status and sample notification lettercompletion of the investigation, as required by Paragraph 56.
By December 31, 2013, conduct quarterly audits to assess timeliness of completion of citizen complaint investigations.

analyzed and documented. In investigations, the VIPD has kept complainants reasonably informed about the status of the investigation of their complaints.

Head of CitizensCiti zens’ Complaint Committee

In completed investigations, the VIPD notified complainants of the disposition of the investigation of their complaint, including by providing complainant with a statement about whether the VIPD took any non-disciplinary corrective or disciplinary action as an outcome of its investigation.

October 31, 20132015

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 46

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 47 of 109

Paragraph 57 - Each allegation in an investigation will be resolved by making one of the following dispositions: “Unfounded,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that no facts to support that the incident complained of actually occurred; “Sustained,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person’s allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the incident occurred and the actions of the officer were improper; “Not Sustained,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred; and “Exonerated,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 47

TrainingInitial training completed for supervisors on both districts.

CompetencyContinue competency-based training of all investigators by November 30, 2012.
By November 30, 2012, implementJanuary 31, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system).

Investigations have been resolved by making one of the dispositions identified in Paragraph 57 of the Consent Decree.

Head of CitizensCiti zens’ Complaint Committee

October 31, 20132015

RefresherContinue refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, ongoing periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training.

Yearly review of policies.

Quarterly inspections of IAU and zone files

By June 30October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample investigatory

evidence, that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate VIPD policies, procedures, or training.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 48 of 109
files.). Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

Paragraph 58 – Unit commanders will evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command to identify underlying problems and training needs. Any such problems or need will be relayed in the form of a recommendation to the appropriate VIPD entity.

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 48

Training Initial training completed training for supervisors on both districts.

CompetencyContinue to

The VIPD has

incorporate competency-

developed a policy that

based training of all

provides a process for

investigators by November the review of all

30, 2012.

completed allegations

of misconduct and

By November 30, 2012,

ensures the

implementJanuary 31, 2014 consideration of all of

improve tracking system to the elements identified

ensure all staff are trained on in ¶¶ 52 and 58 of the

policies (i.e., a tracking

Consent Decree.

system)..

In completed

RefresherConduct refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call

investigations into allegations of misconduct, there is documentation indicating that a supervisor has

Head of CitizensCiti zens’ Complaint Committee

October 31, 20132015

MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
A. Risk Manageme nt system
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 49

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 49 of 109

training Yearly review of policies.

evaluated underlying problems and training needs, if any.

MonthlyQuarterly review of files incompleted IAU and zone filesinvestigations.
By June 30December 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

Any identified problems and/or training needs have been relayed to the appropriate VIPD entity.
In cases where there is a determination that modification to or additional training is required, there is documented evidence that VIPD has implement additional training

In cases where the VIPD identified policy or equipment deficiencies, there is documented evidence that corrective measures were implemented.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 50 of 109

Paragraph 59 - The VIPD will develop and implement a risk management system to include a new computerized relational database or paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for supervision and management of the VIPD. Priority will be given to the VIPD obtaining any established program and system. The VIPD will regularly use this data to promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts.

Parties have exchanged several drafts of the Risk Management System Early Intervention Program (EIP) Policy since May 29, 2012, Data Input Plan, and Blue Team Protocol have been approved.

Training for Blue Team is ongoing and will be completed by January 31, 2013. Officers are currently using Blue Team.

Internal Affairs and MIS have chosen a computerized database, IAPRO, to assist in the supervision and management. Currently Supervisors and Commanders, etc. are in the process of completing all the Use of Force reports required for bringing the Department up to date for 2012. At least once per month, the Deputy Chief during Commander Call, will address Decree compliance issues, including timely completion of use of force reports commencing November 30, 2012 and on an ongoing basis.

IAPro, a computerized database, is currently being used to assist in supervision and management for VIPD’s risk management system.

See Paragraphs 60-68, below.
VIPD shall ensure that it regularly uses the data in the RMS system to promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units, and shifts.

Head of Managemen t and Supervision Committee

October 31, 20132015

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 50

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 51

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 51 of 109
Working group members will conduct regular reviews, but no less frequently than weekly, commencing November 30, 2012 to ensure that all Blue Team programs are installed on all Zone Command computers and are also fully functioning.
To ensure compliance with the Blue Team protocols, and the PDN process and to increase usage, working group members will be scheduling times to observe roll calls and to ensure that these matters are discussed via roll calls. Blue Team technical issues will be resolved,

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 52

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 52 of 109
training will be ongoing, and all districts will receive a round of training by January 31, 2013.
By November 30, 2012, VIPD will Provide DOJ with an action plan for achieving sufficient numbers of staff to input current and historic data or outlining how it intends to use existing staff to accomplish this task. The plan will include an implementation date subject to the agreement of the parties.
By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. This

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 53 of 109

Paragraph 60 – The new risk management system will collect and record the following information: a. all uses of force; b. canine bite ratios; c. the number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers; d. all injuries to prisoners; e. all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with “resisting arrest,” “assault on a

Parties have exchanged several drafts of the Risk Management System Early Intervention Program (EIP) Policy since May 29, 2012, Data Input Plan, and Blue Team Protocol have been approved.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 53

ensures periodic quality checks on data entered. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training. Initial EIP and Blue Team training has been completed. Refresher training will be completed annually. Training for Initial EIP and Blue Team is ongoing and training has been completed. Refresher training will be completed by January 31, 2013. Officers are currently using Blue Teamannually.

Internal Affairs and MIS have chosen a computerized database, IAPRO, to assist in the supervision and management. Currently Supervisors and Commanders, etc. are in the process of completing all the Use of Force reports required for bringing the Department up to date for 2012. Officers will continue to enter use of force reports via Blue Team.

RRR forms are completed for all uses of force as required by VIPD policy. RRR forms are entered into the RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
Canine deployments are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and

Head of Managemen t and Supervision Committee

October 31, 20132015

police officer,” “disorderly conduct,” or “obstruction of official business;” f. all critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty; g. all complaints (and their dispositions); h. all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the Territory and its officers, or agents, resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel; i. all vehicle pursuits; j. all incidents involving the pointing of a firearm (if any such reporting is required); and k. all disciplinary action taken against officers.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 54 of 109

Working Canine policy has been revised to capture canine deployments. By December 31, 2013, VIPD will begin to collect canine deployments and will enter this data into IAPro to be able to document bite ratios.
VIPD has requested from the VIAG civil and administrative claims (h) involving VIPD officers acting in their official capacities. VIPD will input data in the RMS received from VIDOJ by December 31, 2013.
All other categories of data listed in paragraph 60 are being collected and entered into the RMS. Input of historical data is ongoing. This requires allocation of sufficient staff to input this data.
By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.

completeness.
Canine deployments resulting in a bite are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
RMS provides statistical analyses of canine bite ratio or the data necessary to compute such ratio.
Canisters of chemical spray issued to officers will be entered into RMS, including the date of issuance and date of expirations of the chemical spray, with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
In consultation with the Use of Force Working Group, the VIPD has developed a process to track the amount of OC spray used by officers.
Injuries to prisoners

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 55

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 55 of 109

By December 31, 2013 and quarterly thereafter, working group members will conduct bi-monthly review commencing November 30, 2012 to to ensure compliance with A through K.
Blue Team technical issues will be resolved, training will be ongoing, and all districts will receive a round of training by January 31, 2013.
By November 30, 2012, VIPD will Provide DOJ with an action plan for achieving sufficient numbers of staff to input current and historic data or outlining how it intends to use existing staff to accomplish this task. The plan will include an implementation date subject to the agreement of the parties.
By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, and implement audit tools to ensure that staff are complying with the policies.

will be entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
Instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with “resisting arrest,” “assault on a police officer,” “disorderly conduct,” or “obstruction of official business,” are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
Firearm discharges, whether on or off-duty, are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
Complaints are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
Dispositions of such complaints are entered

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 56

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 56 of 109

This ensures periodic quality checks on data entered. AlsoThis also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by a system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
Criminal proceedings initiated, civil or administrative claims filed, and civil lawsuits served against the Territory, the VIPD, and its Officers resulting from VIPD operations will be entered in RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

Vehicle pursuits are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

Incidents involving the pointing of a firearm at a human being are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 57 of 109
In instances in which the VIPD has taken disciplinary action against officers, this information is entered in RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

Paragraph 61 – The new risk management system will include, for the incidents included in the database, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (e.g., name, badge number, shift and supervisor) and civilian (e.g., race, ethnicity or national origin, if available).

Parties have exchanged several drafts of the Risk Management System Early Intervention Program (EIP) Policy since May 29, 2012., Data Input Plan, and Blue Team Protocol have been approved.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 57

Training for Initial EIP and Blue Team, PDN Usage, IAPRO is ongoing and training has been completed. Refresher training will be completed by January 31, 2013. Officers are currently using Blue Team. annually.

All officers have been assigned a PDN.
Working group members will conduct bimonthlyquarterly review commencing November 30, 2012 and report the results of their review by December 31, 2013, and quarterly thereafter to ensure compliance with A through K. Working group members

VIPD has established a uniform method of identifying sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees to ensure accurate identification and tracking of all employee conduct.

Head of Managemen t and Supervision Committee

In incidents included in the database, the name and unique identifier for each involved officer has

October 31, 20132015

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 58

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 58 of 109

will be scheduling times to observe roll calls and to ensure that these mattersofficers are discussed via roll calls and commanders calls.
Blue Team technical issues will be resolved, training will be ongoing, and all districts will receive a round of training by January 31, 2013.
By November 30, 2012, VIPD will Provide DOJ with an action plan for achieving sufficientincluding appropriate identifying information in the risk management system, including utilizing PDN numbers of staff to input current and historic data or outlining how it intends to use existing staff to accomplish this task. The plan will include an implementation date subject to the agreement of the parties., as required by Paragraph 61.

been entered with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
In incidents included in the database, the appropriate identifying information (e.g., name, ethnicity or national original), if available, for each involved civilian has been entered with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
In incidents included in the database, the shift and assignment for each on-duty supervisor has been entered with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 59 of 109

By June 30October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.
By December 31, 2013, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies and appropriate identifying information for each officer and civilian are included in the database. This ensures periodic quality checks on data entered. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

Paragraph 62 – Within 120 days of the implementation of the new risk management system, or later with the agreement of DOJ, the VIPD will prepare, for the review and approval of DOJ, a plan for including appropriate fields and values of new and historical data into the

Parties have exchanged several drafts of the Risk Management System Early Intervention Program (EIP) Policy since May 29, 2012. , Data Input Plan, and Blue Team Protocol have been approved.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 59

Training for Initial EIP and Blue Team, PDN Usage, IAPRO is ongoing and training has been completed. Refresher training will be completed by January 31, 2013. Officers are currently using Blue Team.

Data Input Plan and RMS protocol/policy has been resubmitted and is awaiting approval from Department of Justice VIPD has received DOJ’s approval for its Data Input Plan.

Head of Managemen t and Supervision Committee

October 31, 20132015

The Data Input Plan

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 60 of 109

risk management system (the “Data Input Plan”). The Data Input Plan will identify the data to be included and the means for inputting such data (direct entry or otherwise), the specific fields of information to be included, the past time periods for which information is to be included, the deadlines for inputting the data, and the responsibility for the input of the data. The Data Input Plan will include historical data that is upto-date and complete in the risk management system. The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final review and approval within 30 days after it is presented for approval. Paragraph 63 – The VIPD will, within 120 days, prepare for the review and approval of DOJ, and thereafter

Parties have exchanged several drafts of the Risk Management System Early Intervention Program (EIP) Policy since May 29, 2012, Data Input Plan, and Blue Team Protocol have been approved.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 60

annually.

contains the elements required in Paragraph 62.

Training for Initial EIP and Blue Team, PDN Usage, IAPRO is ongoing and training has

Blue Team technical issues VIIPD has received

will be resolved, training will approval from DOJ,

be ongoing, and all districts and implemented a

will receive a round of

protocol for using the

training by JanuaryBy

Head of Manageme nt and Supervision Committee

October 31, 20132015

implement, a protocol for using the risk management system. The VIPD will submit for the review and approval of DOJ all proposed modifications to the protocol prior to implementing such modifications.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 61

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 61 of 109

been completed. Refresher training will be completed by January 31, 2013. Officers are currently using Blue Team. annually.

October 31, 2013.
By November 30, 2012, VIPD will Provide DOJ with an action plan for achieving sufficient numbers of staff to input current and historic data or outlining how it intends to use existing staff to accomplish this task. The plan will include an implementation date subject to the agreement of the parties.
By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.

RMS.
The VIPD has audited the RMS and confirmed that its use reflects the requirements of the protocol.
VIPD submits to DOJ for review and approval all proposed modifications to the protocol before implementation.

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. This ensures periodic quality checks on data entered. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

Data Input Plan and RMS protocol/policy has been

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 62 of 109

resubmitted and is awaiting approval from Department of Justice

Paragraph 64 – The protocol for using the risk management system will include the following provisions and elements: a. The protocol is comprised of the following components: data storage, data retrieval, reporting, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation and audit. b. The protocol will require the automated system to analyze the data according to the following criteria: i) number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; ii) average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and iii) identification of patterns

Parties have exchanged several drafts of the Risk Management System Early Intervention Program (EIP) Policy since May 29, 2012, Data Input Plan, and Blue Team Protocol have been approved.

Training for Blue Team, PDN Usage, IAPRO is ongoing and will be completed by January 31, 2013. Officers are currently using Blue Team.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 62

Data Input PlanInitial EIP and RMS protocol/policy has been resubmitted and is awaiting approval from Department of Justice
Working group members will conduct bi-monthly review commencing November 30, 2012 to ensure compliance with A through K.
Blue Team technical issues will be resolved, training will be ongoing, and all districts will receive a round ofhas been

The VIPD has received DOJ approval of a protocol with the components identified in ¶64 of the Consent Decree.

Head of Management and Supervision Committee

October 31, 20132015

of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit. c. The protocol will require the system to generate reports on a monthly basis describing the data and data analysis and identifying individual and unit patterns. d. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors will review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, system reports, and will evaluate individual officer, supervisor, and unit activity. e. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors initiate intervention for individual officers, supervisors and for units based on appropriate activity and pattern assessment of the information contained in
VIPD Consent Decree
Timeline Table/ Action Plan
August 30, 2012October 1, 2013
Page 63

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 63 of 109
completed. Refresher training by January 31, 2013.
By November 30, 2012, VIPD will Provide DOJ with an action plan for achieving sufficient numbers of staff to input current and historic data or outlining how it intends to use existing staff to accomplish this task. The plan will include an implementation date subject to the agreement of the parties.
By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. Also ensure that lapses in policy

the risk management system. f. The protocol will require that intervention options include discussion by deputy chiefs, managers, supervisors, and officers; counseling; training; and supervised, monitored, and documented action plans and strategies designed to modify activity. All interventions will be documented in writing and entered into the automated system (appropriate intervention options will be employed based on the evaluation described in subsection (e) above). g. The protocol will specify that actions taken as a result of information from the risk management system be based on all relevant and appropriate information, including the nature of the officer’s assignment, crime trends and crime problems, and not solely on the number
VIPD Consent Decree
Timeline Table/ Action Plan
August 30, 2012October 1, 2013
Page 64

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 64 of 109
implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training. will be completed annually.

or percentages of incidents in any category of information recorded in the risk management system. h. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors. will promptly review the risk management system records of all officers recently transferred to their sections and units. i. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors be evaluated on their ability to use the risk management system to enhance effectiveness and reduce risk. j. The protocol will require that the system be managed and administered by the Internal Affairs Unit of the VIPD. The IAU of the VIPD will conduct quarterly audits of the system to ensure action is taken
VIPD Consent Decree
Timeline Table/ Action Plan
August 30, 2012October 1, 2013
Page 65

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 65 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 66 of 109

according to the process described above. k. The protocol will require regular reviews, at no less than quarterly intervals, by appropriate managers of all relevant risk management system information to evaluate officer performance territorywide, and to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all VIPD units in order to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents.

Paragraph 65 – The VIPD will maintain all personally identifiable information about an officer included in the risk management system during the officer’s employment with the VIPD for at least five years. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis will be

Parties have exchanged several drafts of the Risk Management System Early Intervention Program (EIP) Policy since May 29, 2012, Data Input Plan, and Blue Team Protocol have been approved.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 66

Initial EIP and Blue Team Training for Blue Team, PDN Usage, IAPRO is ongoing and has been completed. Refresher training will be completed by January 31, 2013. Officers are currently using

Data Input Plan and RMS protocol/policy has been resubmitted and is awaiting approval from Department of Justice.
Quarterly review commencing November 30, 2012 will be conductedBy October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.

The information required by ¶ 65 is entered and appropriately maintained with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
Complete the test of a beta version of RMS as

Head of Management and Supervision Committee

October 31, 20132015

maintained indefinitely in the risk management system. On an ongoing basis, the VIPD will enter information into the risk management system in a timely, accurate, and complete manner, and maintain the data in a secure and confidential manner.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 67

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 67 of 109

Blue Team. annually.

Conduct weekly inspections to ensure compliance.
that all Blue Team technical issues will be resolved, training will be ongoing, and all districts will receive a round of training by January 31, 2013.programs are installed on all Zone Command computers and are also fully functioning.
By November 30, 2012, VIPD will Provide DOJ with an action plan for achieving sufficient numbers of staff to input current and historic data or outlining how it intends to use existing staff to accomplish this task. The plan will include an implementation date subject to the agreement of the parties.

described in ¶ 64(d).
Provide DOJ and the monitors with the opportunity to participate in the beta version testing.
Resolve all server issues that impeded RMS from being fully operational and implemented.
Install all hardware related to RMS and ensure that it is fully functional.
Ensure that Blue Team is operational at all required locations.
Supervisors and managers have received initial training on RMS.

By June 30December 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ implement audit toolsquarterly audits to ensure that information is timely and accurately entered

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 68 of 109

in the RMS and that staff are complying with the policies. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.
Working group members will be scheduling times to observe roll calls and to ensure that these matters are discussed via roll calls and commanders’ calls.
Input of historical data is ongoing and requires adequate numbers of staff for data entry.

Paragraph 66 - The new risk management system will be purchased off the shelf and customized by VIPD. Alternatively, the new risk management system may be developed and implemented according to the following schedule: a. Within 150 days of the

Parties have exchanged several drafts of the Risk Management System Early Intervention Program (EIP) Policy since May 29, 2012. , Data Input Plan, and Blue Team Protocol have been approved.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 68

TrainingInitial training for Blue Team, PDN Usage, IAPRO is ongoingusage, and RMS has been completed. Refresher training for Blue Team and RMS will be completed by

IAPRO database is being utilized and the Blue Team system is continuously progressing toward completion. The installation of the program was completed on 3/23/10 at the Internal Affairs Bureau on St. Thomas.

Complete the test of a beta version of RMS as described in ¶ 64(d).
Provide DOJ and the monitors with the opportunity to participate in the beta version testing.

Head of Management and Supervision Committee

October 31, 20132015

effective date of this Agreement, subject to the review and approval of DOJ, the VIPD will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP). b. Within 270 days of the issuance of the RFP, or later with the agreement of DOJ, the VIPD will select the contractor to create the risk management system. c. Within 150 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the VIPD will submit the protocol for using the risk management system to DOJ for review and approval. The VIPD will share drafts of this document with DOJ and the Monitor (a position described in Section VII) to allow DOJ and the Monitor to become familiar with the document as it develops and to provide informal comments on it. The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the
VIPD Consent Decree
Timeline Table/ Action Plan
August 30, 2012October 1, 2013
Page 69

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 69 of 109

January 31, 2013. Officers are currently using Blue Team.
Ensure allocation of sufficient staff to input historical and current data into IAProannually.

Working group members will conduct bi-monthlya-c has been completed.
d. By December 31, 2013 complete review commencing November 30, 2012 to ensuredetermine compliance with a through g. d and e.

Blue Team technical issues will be resolved, training will be ongoing, and all districts will receive a round of training by January 31, 2013.

By November 30, 2012, VIPD will Provide DOJ with an action plan for achieving sufficient numbers of staff to input current and historic data or outlining how it intends to use existing staff to accomplish this task. The plan will include an implementation date subject to the agreement of the parties.

By June 30, 2013, in

protocol receives final approval within 30 days after it is presented for review and approval. d. Within 14 months of selecting the contractor, the VIPD will have ready for testing a beta version of the risk management system consisting of: i) server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the VIPD’s existing automated systems; ii) necessary data base software installed and configured; iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and iv) the use of force information system completed, including historic data. DOJ and the Monitor will have the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version using use of force data and test data created specifically for purposes of checking the risk management system.
VIPD Consent Decree
Timeline Table/ Action Plan
August 30, 2012October 1, 2013
Page 70

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 70 of 109
consultation with DOJ implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training. Ensure sufficient staff to enter current and historical data into IAPro.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 71 of 109

e. The risk management

system computer program

and computer hardware

will be operational and

fully implemented within

20 months of the selection

of the risk management

system contractor.

Paragraph 67 – Prior to Parties have exchanged several drafts of the Risk Training for Initial Before implementation of N/A

implementation of the new Management System Early Intervention Program EIP and Blue

the new risk management

risk management system, (EIP) Policy since May 29, 2012. , Data Input Plan, Team, PDN Usage, system existing data bases

the VIPD will continue to and Blue Team Protocol.

IAPRO is ongoing and resources were used.

use existing databases and

and training has

resources to the fullest

been completed.

extent possible, to identify

Refresher training VIPD will maintain

patterns of conduct by

will be completed documentation of how it

VIPD officers or groups of

by January 31,

identified and addressed

officers.

2013. Officers are patterns of officer conduct

currently using

based on existing databases

Blue Team.

and resources and provide

annually.

this documentation on a

quarterly basis to the Monitor, starting in the 3rd

quarter of 2012.

Head of Management and Supervision Committee

Paragraph 68 – Following the initial implementation of the risk management system, and as experience and the availability of new technology may warrant,
VIPD Consent Decree
Timeline Table/ Action Plan
August 30, 2012October 1, 2013
Page 71

Parties have exchanged several drafts of the Risk Management System Early Intervention Program (EIP) Policy since May 29, 2012has been approved.

To be determined as the need arises.

N/A To be determined as the need arises.

VIPD receives approval from DOJ for all modifications to RMS prior to implementation.

Head of Management and Supervision Committee

October 31, 20132015
October 31, 20132015

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 72 of 109

the VIPD may propose to add, subtract, or modify data tables and fields, modify the list of documents scanned or electronically attached, and add, subtract, or modify standardized reports and queries. The VIPD will submit all such proposals for review and approval by DOJ before implementation.
Oversight Paragraph 69 – The VIPD will develop a protocol for conducting audits. The protocol will be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol will establish a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all VIPD zones.

Audit Policy will be completed by November 30, 2012has been approved. Awaiting signature of Commissioner, as of September 26, 2013.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 72

TrainingAll initial audit-related training will be completed by April 30October 31, 2013.

Finalize Audit Protocol and submit to DOJ by November 30, 2013.
Auditors to attend training re: conducting audits by April 30, 2013.
Train staff regarding By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan
By October 31, 2013, complete all audit-related training. Thereafter, conduct refresher training as necessary.

The VIPD has developed an audit protocol that includes a regular and fixed schedule for conducting audits to ensure that they occur sufficiently, frequently and cover all VIPD zones.
The VIPD creates an audit capacity and identifies staff to carry out the protocol.
Officers or supervisors charged with conducting audits have either: (a) attended and

Head of Management and Supervision Committee

October 31, 20132015

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 73 of 109

7 An audit report is a comprehensive report of the results of VIPD’s audit.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 73

Audit Protocol by June 30report7 due December 31, 2013 and quarterly thereafter.
Audit will commence June 30, 2013
By June 30, 2013, VIPD will implement systems to By December 31, 2013 VIPD will implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with all policies and conduct use of force review on a quarterly basis. This includes periodic quality checks on data entered.
By December 31, 2013, ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.
By December 31, 2013, conduct audits to ensure compliance with the requirements for paragraph

successfully completed the initial in-service training on the audit protocol and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if the officers or supervisors charged with conducting audits have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the officers or supervisors have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or
Where officers or supervisors have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 74

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 74 of 109

64, regarding the RMS protocol.
By December 31, 2013, VIPD will begin to conduct quarterly reviews to ensure that historical data required by the Data Input Plan is being entered into the RMS.
Quarterly review of closed IAU files to ensure compliance with investigation requirements.

training, and disciplinary action against the officers or supervisors.
In instances when an audit is conducted, each officer or supervisor charged with conducting the audit uses the protocol with a reasonable level of accuracy, completeness and timeliness.

After conducting an audit, VIPD analyzes the results, identifies corrective or other action necessary as a result of the findings of the audit, and implements such action.

The historical data required by the Data Input Plan is up-todate with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 75 of 109

Discipline Paragraph 70 - The VIPD will develop a disciplinary matrix to take into account an officer’s

Disciplinary Policy and Matrix previouslyhas been approved. However, further revision needed. Revisions will be forwarded to USDOJ by November 1, 2012.

Any additional training will be completed by February 15, 2013.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 75

IAU conducts audits of the RMS Protocol on a quarterly basis with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
The Police Commissioner’s Office, with IAU assistance, has convened, at least quarterly, a meeting of senior managers, and all other personnel the Commissioner deems necessary, to review all RMS data to evaluate officer performance territory-wide and make appropriate comparisons regarding performance of all VIPD Units to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents.

Revisions to Disciplinary will be forwarded to USDOJ by November 1, 2012.

Head of Management and Supervision

October 31, 20132015

violations of different rules, rather than just repeated violations of the same rule. The VIPD will further revise this matrix to increase the penalties for uses of excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, or dishonesty, to reflect the seriousness of those infractions. The revised disciplinary matrix will provide the VIPD with the discretion to impose any appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes the officer’s misconduct exhibits a lack of fitness for duty. This revised matrix will be subject to the review and approval of DOJ.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 76

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 76 of 109

Competency-based training of all staff by Feb. 15, 2013 and ongoing documented refresher training through in-services and roll call/commanders call.

Committee

By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or retraining. Obtained DOJ approval of a disciplinary matrix that: (a) accounts for an officer’s violations of different rules, rather than just repeated violations of the same rule; (b) is revised to increase the penalties for uses of

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 77 of 109

excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, or dishonesty, to reflect the seriousness of those infractions; and, (c) provides the VIPD with the discretion to impose any appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes the officer’s misconduct exhibits a lack of fitness for duty.
Adopted a disciplinary policy that guides the use of the disciplinary matrix.

Paragraph 71 - The VIPD will extend its statute of limitations for instituting disciplinary action from 50 days to 90 days. Paragraph 71 - VIPD policy will identify clear time periods by which the various steps of a complaint adjudication process should be

Disciplinary Policy and Matrix previouslyhas been approved. However, further revision needed. Revisions will be forwarded to USDOJ by November 1, 2012. Awaiting signature of Commissioner, as of September 26, 2013.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 77

Any additionalInitial training on Disciplinary policy and matrix will be completed by February 15December 31, 2013.

Disciplinary Matrix previously approved. However, further revision needed. Revisions will be forwarded to USDOJ by November 1, 2012.
Competency-based training of all staff by February 15December 31, 2013 and ongoing documented

VIPD has developed a policy that establishes clear time periods by which the various steps of a complaint adjudication process should be completed, from complaint receipt to the imposition of discipline, if any.

Head of Management and Supervision Committee

These established time

October 31, 20132015

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 78 of 109

completed, from complaint receipt to the imposition of discipline, if any. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions will not be granted without the Police Commissioner’s written approval and notice to the complainant. In the limited circumstances when an extension is necessary, appropriate tolling provisions will be outlined in the policy.

Paragraph 72 - Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD will not take only nondisciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix indicates the imposition of discipline. The VIPD will not fail to consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action is required in a case because

Disciplinary Policy and Matrix previouslyhas been approved. However, further revision needed. Revisions will be forwarded to USDOJ by November 1, 2012 Awaiting signature of Commissioner, as of September 26, 2013.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 78

refresher training through inservices and roll call/commanders call.
By June 30December 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit toolsquarterly audits to ensure staff are complying with the policies, including (but not limited to) review for inclusion of written Police Commissioner extension approval in investigatory files. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

periods are not violated except for in exigent circumstances and with the Police Commissioner’s written approval for tolling and notice to the complainant.

Any additionalInitial training on Disciplinary policy and matrix will be completed by February 15December 31, 2013.

Disciplinary Matrix previously approved. However, further revision needed. Revisions will be forwarded to USDOJ by November 1, 2012
Competency-based training of all staff by February 15December 31, 2013 and ongoing documented refresher training through inservices and roll

In cases where the matrix calls for discipline, discipline is imposed.
In cases where discipline is imposed, there is evidence that the VIPD has also considered nondisciplinary corrective action.

Head of Management and Supervision Committee

October 31, 20132015

discipline has been imposed on the officer.
TRAINING Manageme
nt Oversight Paragraph 73 – The VIPD will continue to coordinate and review all use of force policy and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy. The VIPD will conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 79

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 79 of 109
call/commanders call.
By June 30December 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

VIPD has hired a training

Training Director

Training

October

consultant to coordinate and VIPD has coordinated

Director

31,

N/A

N/A

review all use of force

and reviewed all use of

2013201

policies and All lesson plans. force policies at least

5

All Lesson Plans for the In- annually and the

Service Training hasin-

Training Division has

service training have been reviewed, at least

completed and were

semi-annually, all

forwarded to the VIAG and training to ensure

approved by the Director of quality, consistency,

Training.

and compliance with

applicable law and

On an ongoing basis,

VIPD policy.

continue to consult with counsel to ensure compliance with Territorial law.

The Director of Training provides written approval for all

FinalizeTraining on Audit

changes to previously

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 80

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 80 of 109

Policy completed by October 31, 2013.
Training on Disciplinary Matrix and Protocol and submit to DOJ and the Monitors’ subject matter experts by November 30, 2012.

approved use of force training and provides a semi-annual report regarding any such changes and required legal approvals.

Auditors to attend outside training re: conducting auditscompleted by April 30, 2013.

Train staff regarding Audit Protocol by June 30December 31, 2013.

By June 30, 2013, VIPD will implement systems to ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training. Conduct yearly in-service training.
After each training, identify individuals who did not attend training and forward information to Chief’s

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 81 of 109

Paragraph 74 – The Director of Training, either directly or through his/her designee(s), consistent with applicable law and VIPD policy will: a. ensure the quality of all use of force training; b. develop and implement use of force training curricula; c. select and train VIPD officer trainers; d. develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service training; e. in conjunction with the Chiefs, develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures; f. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures;

See paragraph 31 above.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 81

Office. Chief’s Office will investigate reason for no show and, where necessary impose disciplinary action and/or re-schedule training.

Investigating use of force training for all supervisors in both districts was held during the month of July 2012.

Instructor Development Course/Train the Trainer is scheduled for October 15-19, 2012 (STX), October 8-12, 2012 (STT) and will be completed by October 19, 2012.

Training Director or Designee

Training Director

40hrs in-service training was done in 2011 and now ongoing in 2012.
All Use of Force Trainings isare evaluated at the end of each training session by the officers filling out an evaluation sheet. Those sheets are then to be reviewed by the Director and/or Designee.
All evaluation

40hrs VIPD in consultation

with VIAG shall ensure

through review of lesson

plans and instructional

material that proper police

practices are taught.

The Director of

In-Service Training was

Training and/or his/her

completed in 20112013. In staff reviews and

service training will be

approves all use of

completed by December 31, force training

2014.

The Director of

The Training Bureau will continue its 40hrs In-Service Training in both districts for supervisor and officers which will start on June 25, 2012

Training and/or his/her staff obtains legal review of all use of force training curricula.

and end September 21, 2012. The Director of

October 31, 20132015

and g. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 82

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 82 of 109

sheets are filed away in a binder after the Trainingtraining Director and\or Designee review the sheet.
In-Service Training still continues and is ongoing. InService Training Schedule 2012 is completed.
All class evaluations are presently being reviewed by the Training Director or his Designee and placed in a binder at the Training Bureau in both districts. A copy of the binder was made for training records and all forms will be forwarded to the Braining Bureau

The Director of Training will develop and implement a tracking system to track training attendance, by November 30, 2012 andInservice training will be conducted annually. VIPD shall periodically test for proficiency on the policies.
By June 30, 2013, VIPD will implement systems to ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.
Competency
By January 31, 2014, improve the tracking system to track training attendance.
After each training, identify individuals who did not attend training and forward information Chief’s Office. Chief’s Office will investigate reason for no show and, where necessary, impose disciplinary action and/or re-schedule training.

Training and/or his/her staff have developed and implemented use of force training curricula (including lesson plans).
The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed a process to continually select and evaluate VIPD officer trainers.
The training staff has received appropriate training and certification in the subject matter(s) that they are assigned to teach.
The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have reviewed and provided written approval of all curricula, course schedules and lesson plans.
The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have created and

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 83

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 83 of 109

once it is completed.
Instructors were selected and VIPD has been trainingtrained supervisors and officers in the areas of: - The Use of
Force Policy - Response to
Resistance Report - The CitizensCitize ns’ Complaint Process - OC spray - impactImpact weapon.
Individuals are presently being selected and a criteria for selection of trainers has been completed.

Training will continue to incorporate competencybased training of officers and supervisors on remaining policies by Jan 31, 2013 .
By November 30, 2012, implementJanuary 31, 2014, improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system).
RefresherContinue refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call training. Incorporate
Continue to incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy by Jan. 31, 2013..
Yearly review of policies. to determine training needs.
By June 30October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.

A new Roll Call By December 31, 2013, Policy was issued. implement audit tools to

maintained a training record system that captures attendance records, instructor and student evaluations, and test results.
The Training Director and/or his/her staff, in conjunction with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs, have created a process for the development, implementation and approval of all Roll Call training curricula.
The Training Director and/or his/her staff, in conjunction with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs, have developed, implemented and approved all Roll Call training curricula.
The Training Director and/or his/her staff have maintained written documentation of this process.
For the conducted

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 84

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 84 of 109

- Arrest policy - Firearms
policy - Off duty
policy - EIP - Vehicle
Pursuit Policy - Spike Strip
Policy - Tactical
Operations Policy - Sniper Operation Policy - Reporting, Investigating and Review of Use of Force
The Chief’s Office haswill continue to maintain a Roll Call Binder in the St. Croix District and the same in the St. Thomas District. A copy of all roll call trainings that are

ensurereview and analyze use of force incident reports to identify trends, training deficiencies, staff are complyingcompliance/lack of compliance with the policies. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training., and additional needs.

Consent Decree related training sessions, evaluation review forms were collected from class participants. The Director of Training and his/her staff will review these evaluation forms.
The Director of Training and/or his/her staff semi-annually will review use of force incidents to identify patterns and trends that will influence training needs. The chiefs or deputy chiefs and the Director of IAU must take part in the review.
The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed, reviewed and implemented all use of force training curricula (including lesson plans).

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 85

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 85 of 109
being conducted in the zones and bureaus will beare kept in that binder in the Chief’s Office.
An evaluation form was done titled “TRAINING DIVISION COURSE EVALUATION” for the purpose of evaluating all trainings conducted.
At the end of each class participants are required to complete evaluation form.
The Training Bureau shall createwill continue to use a comprehensive bank of questions, to create different post-training evaluations for

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 86 of 109
each training class. At the end of each training, an evaluation will be done to evaluate participants.the effectiveness of training.

Paragraph 75 – The

N/A

VIPD has hired a On an ongoing basis,

Training

VIPD will continue to

training consultant continue to consult with

raining Director The

Director October

provide training

to in consultation counsel and/or VIAG to

VIPD has delivered

31,

consistent with VIPD

with VIAG shall ensure compliance with

training that is

20132015

policy, law, and proper

ensure through

Territorial law.

consistent with the

police practices, and will

lesson plans and

content of approved

ensure that only mandated

instructional

Finalize Audit Protocol and lesson plans.

objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by instructors. The VIPD will make best efforts to train each work shift as a team in their use of force training.

material. that proper police practices are taught. Consultant also reviews all use
All Lesson Plans for the in-service training have been completed and

submit to DOJ and the Monitors’ subject mater experts by November 30, 2012. By November 30, 2012, implementJanuary 31, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system).

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff has developed a plan to provide, to the extent possible, training for each work shift as a team on use of force and implements that plan.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 86

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 87

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 87 of 109

were forwarded to the VIAG and approved by the Director of force lesson plans. VIPD shall work to develop internal capacity to ensure that proper police practices are taughtTraining.
Roll Call Trainingcall training is currently being done and documented in all zones and are documented.
Initial training on Disciplinary policy and matrix will be completed by December 31, 2013.

Auditors to attend. Conduct annual competency-based training re: conducting audits by April 30, 2013.
Train staff regarding Audit Protocol by June 30, 2013.
Refresher trainingof officers and supervisors on policies ongoing. Continue to incorporate competencybased training on policies into Police Academy.
Competency-based training of all staff by December 31, 2013. Also continue competency-based training of all investigators.
Conduct refresher training on policies, through documented, periodic inservice and roll call training. Incorporate
Continue to incorporate competency-based training on policies into the Police Academy by Jan. 31, 2013.

Sworn personnel have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training each policy/protocol and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or
Where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 88 of 109

Paragraph 76 – The VIPD shall continue to keep adequate records of lesson plans and other
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 88

N/A

Yearly review of policies to determine training needs.

disciplinary action against the sworn personnel.

By June 30, 2013, VIPD will implement systems to ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

Sworn personnel displayed knowledge and proficiency in the requirements each policy, as evidenced by compliance with the policy/protocol requirements.

By December 31, 2013, where warranted, provide and document remedial training for personnel who have been identified as personnel who continually fail to report uses of force.

All training must comport with the requirements of the Consent Decree and be taught from curricula/lesson plans that identify training objectives; (b) incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises); and (d) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal counsel, as appropriate.

All files are labeled in both districts and placed in

By November 30, 2012, implementJanuary 31, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on

The VIPD has established a central, commonly accessible

Training Director

October 31, 20132015

training materials, such that the most current training documents are maintained in a central, commonly accessible file, and are clearly dated.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 89 of 109

alphabetical order.
Files can also be accessed by dates in the data base.
Currently all foldersTraining files are being updated in both districtson a continuous basis.

policies (i.e., a tracking system)..
By November 30, 2012 and on ongoing basis, provide Provide Monitors’ subject matter experts with training curricula and schedules at least 15 days in advance of training, but preferably 30 days in advance.

repository for lesson plans and training materials.
Training Director/Headmaterial s are clearly dated.
Training records are maintained in a central, commonly accessible repository.
Lesson plans contain
all of Administrative Officers

Paragraph 77 – The N/A VIPD shall continue to maintain training records regarding every VIPD officer that reliably indicate the training each officer has received. T he training records shall, at a minimum, include the course description and duration, curriculum, and
VIPD Consent Decree
Timeline Table/ Action Plan
August 30, 2012October 1, 2013
Page 89

he required signatures of review and approval.

Currently allAll trainings that are being conducted by VIPD are being documented by a sign in sheet. If the course that the officer is being trained and maintained in is a certification course

By November 30, 2012, implementJanuary 31, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e.,. Training files are updated on a tracking system).

TrainingThe Director/Head of AdministrativeTrainin g and/or his/her staff has maintained current and substantially complete training records for VIPD Officers .

Training Director

October 31, 20132015

instructor for each officer.
Paragraph 78 – The Training Director, in consultation with the Attorney General’s Office, will review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure compliance with applicable laws and VIPD policy.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 90

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 90 of 109

a copydata base. Copy of the certificate issued is placed in thateach officer’s file.

continuous basis as offices are trained.

The training academy has a copy of all lesson plans and certification in each instructor’s folder.

Files can also be accessed by dates in the Data Base.

All use of force policies and lesson plans have been reviewed approved by DOJVIAG and have also been reviewedapproved by the training consultant and the training directorTraining Director.

On an ongoing basis, VIPD .

will continue to consult with y November 30, 2012,

VI AG to ensure that all use The Training Director

of force training and use of and on an ongoing

force policies are in

basis, VIPD shall

compliance with applicable consult/or his/her staff,

laws and VIPD policy.

in consultation with VI

AG to ensure thatthe

Attorney General’s

Office, has reviewed

all use of force

training and use of

force-related policies

are in and training

curricula/lessons plans

Training Director

October 31, 20132015

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 91

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 91 of 109
regularly (i.e., at least semi-annually) to ensure compliance with applicable laws and VIPD policy and there is documentation of this review.
Force-related training curricula/lesson plans adequately incorporate critical thinking, decision-making instruction, applicable law(s) and VIPD policy.
The VIPD follows a process by which the Attorney General’s Office reviews any additions, changes, and/or modifications regarding use of force training or policies to ensure compliance with any applicable laws.
Force-related policies and training curricula/lesson plans have received at least

Paragraph 79 – The VIPD will continue to provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on use of force. Such training will include and address the following topics: a. the VIPD’s use of force model, as described in this Agreement; b. proper use of force decision-making; c. the VIPD’s use of force reporting requirements; d. the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements; e. examples of scenarios faced by VIPD officers that illustrate proper use of force decision-making; f. interactive exercises that emphasize proper use of force decision-making; g. de-escalation
VIPD Consent Decree
Timeline Table/ Action Plan
August 30, 2012October 1, 2013
Page 92

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 92 of 109

Numerous use of force training has been done since 2011 to present.
The Training Bureau has purchased a new state of the art Training Labtraining simulator from Ti Training Corp. This training tool will assist the officers in critical decision making scenarios. VIPD will begin using the training lab by November 30, 2012.
The training simulator will be used for training.

annual review by the Attorney General’s Office and those reviews are documented in writing.
Training Director/ Training Coordinator

Training Director

October 31, 20132015

techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without using force, and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation even when the use of force would be legally justified; h. threat assessment; i. appropriate training on conflict management.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 93

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 93 of 109

Training will alsocontinue to teach officer survival scenarios in the areas of Defensive Spray, Expandable Baton and Defensive Tactics. These types of training will check the judgments and performances of each officer.
In-Service Training that covers the 4th Amendments applications and other Constitutional Rights have been conducted.
Scenarios are being used as a training tool.
Instructors have been trained in the utilization of the Training Labtraining

At least annually, the Training Director and/or his/her staff develop a training schedule and curricula for all use of force related policies that incorporates and addresses all of the components identified in ¶ 79(a)-(i).
At least annually, the Training Director and/or his/her staff implement that training schedule and curricula for all use of force related policies based on ¶ 79(a)-(i).
Sworn personnel have (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training for each new or revised use of force policy that includes and addresses the issues in paragraph 79(a)-(i) and demonstrated proficiency through a

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 94

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 94 of 109

simulator.
De-escalation techniques are being used as training tools.
Training in all areas current and ongoing.
VIPD will conduct in-service training annually

proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel in each of the categories of recruits, officers, supervisors and managers have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel. Where train-the-trainer or specific force tool

Paragraph 80 – The VIPD will continue to provide training to all its officers on the VIPD citizen complaint process. The VIPD will develop a protocol for all its officers on appropriate conduct and responses in handling citizens’ complaints and will train officers in the protocol.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 95

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 95 of 109

Numerous trainingtrainings dealing with the citizen complaint process hashave been done since 2011 to presentconducted.

certifications are required, recruits, officers, supervisors and managers have those certifications.

CompetencyVIPD will continue to utilize competency-based training of officers and supervisors on remaining policies by Jan.
By January 31, 2013
By November 30, 2012, implement2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system)..
RefresherConduct refresher training on policies ongoing, through ongoing documented, periodic inservice and roll call training. Incorporate competencybased training on policies into Police Academy by Jan. 31, 2013.
Yearly review of policies. to determine training needs

The VIPD has developed policies or protocols related to the citizen complaint process, which address appropriate conduct and response in handling citizen complaints.
Sworn personnel have (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training for each new or revised complaint process related policy and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency

Training Director

October 31, 20132015

Paragraph 81 – The VIPD will provide training on appropriate burdens of proof to all supervisors, as well as the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility (to ensure that their recommendations
VIPD Consent Decree
Timeline Table/ Action Plan
August 30, 2012October 1, 2013
Page 96

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 96 of 109

Supervisors have been trained on the preponderance of evidence standard.
By December 31, 2013, conduct annual refresher training on preponderance of

By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel.

Preponderance of evidenceCompetency-based training doneof supervisors on 1/13/11, 10/27/11, 2/10/11, 3/3/11. Training ongoingpolicy will continue.
Preponderance of Evidence

Competency-based training of supervisors on remaining policies (i.e., Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy) by Jan 31, 2013

Training Director /Training Coordinator

October 31, 2013201 5

regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform, and legally appropriate). The VIPD will also continue to provide training to supervisors on leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training will be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities, and will be made part of annual inservice training.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 97

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 97 of 109

the evidence standard.

and Witness CredibilityBy By November 30,

January 31, 2014 improve 2012, implement

tracking system to ensure all system to ensure all

staff are trained on policies. staff are trained on

policies (i.e., a

Conduct refresher training tracking system).

was conductedon policies

through documented,

Refresher training on

periodic in both districts in policies ongoing,

2011.

through documented,

periodic in-service and

The new prom otees were roll call training.

trained in this a rea in both

districts.

Yearly review of

policies.

New promotees completed

their leadership-service and y June 30, 2013, in

roll call training as part of consultation with DOJ,

their contract and pursuant to implement audit tools

Consent Decree..

to ensure staff are

complying with the

Yearly review of policies to policies. Also ensure

determine training needs.

that lapses in policy

implementation are

addressed by system

of documented

discipline and/or re-

training.

Supervisors have (a)

attended and

successfully

completed the initial

in-service annual

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 98

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 98 of 109
training incorporating the requirements of ¶¶ 78-81 and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if VIPD supervisors have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn supervisor has entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or
Where supervisors have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the supervisors.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 99

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 99 of 109
Newly promoted supervisors have attended and successfully completed the initial training within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibility incorporating the requirements of ¶¶ 7881 and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if newly promoted supervisors have not successfully completed the required training within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibility and passed the proficiency test(s), the newly promoted supervisor has entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency

Paragraph 100 - The Territory of the Virgin Islands and the VIPD shall implement each and every provision of this Agreement as that term is defined in Paragraph 30 of this Agreement.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 100

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 100 of 109

test(s); or

Where newly promoted supervisors have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the newly promoted supervisor.

1. Use of Force policies (paragraph 31):
For subsection a: Definitions of all force terms are consistent with the Consent Decree, applicable law, and generally accepted police practices.

See above for person/group/ unit responsible for each substantive paragraph

For subsection b: Definition of “force” comports with ¶ 21 of the Consent Decree.

For subsection c: In

Octob er 31, 2015

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 101

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 101 of 109
use of force incidents, there is documented evidence that, as appropriate, Officers disengaged, contained the area, conducted surveillance, waited out the subject, and/or called in specialized units.
For subsection d: In use of force incidents, there is documented evidence that, when feasible, an individual was advised that he/she is allowed to submit to arrest before force is used.
For subsection e: See ¶ 31.
For subsection f: In use of force incidents, the use of force review concludes that sufficient less lethal alternatives were used where appropriate based on the totality of circumstances.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 102

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 102 of 109
Patrol and other applicable officers carry less lethal alternatives at all times while on duty.
For subsection g: In use of force incidents, choke holds and similar carotid holds were not used, except where deadly force was authorized. In use of force incidents where the use of force review concluded that use of choke holds or similar carotid holds were not authorized, VIPD took corrective and/or disciplinary action against the officer who used the choke hold or other carotid hold.
VIPD immediately implements any policy revisions, once approved.
2. Firearms policy (paragraph 39):

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 103

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 103 of 109
Sworn personnel do not possess or use unauthorized firearms or ammunition.
In cases where an officer is found to be in possession of unauthorized firearms or ammunition, there is evidence that an investigation was conducted and appropriate corrective action was taken which includes bringing the officer’s conduct into compliance with the VIPD firearms policy.
Firearm discharges are documented on an RRR.
Service ammunition obtained and used by officers is obtained through official VIPD channels.
3. Off-duty policy (Paragraph 40): In reported incidents involving off-duty

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 104

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 104 of 109
officers taking police action, the off-duty officer’s conduct comports with policies regarding offduty officers taking police action and ¶¶ 31(a)-(g) of the Consent Decree.
Off-duty officers notified on-duty sworn personnel or local enforcement officers before taking police actions, except in exigent circumstances.
In incidents where an off-duty officer taking police action appeared to have consumed alcohol, the off-duty officer submitted to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.
Completed investigations into complaints of misconduct are in compliance with the provisions of the

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 105

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 105 of 109
Consent Decree.
4. Investigations (Paragraph 47): In reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he /she was not involved in the use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize conduct leading to the use of force incident).
5. Investigative findings (Paragraph 52): Use of force investigations include documented findings of all of the considerations required by ¶ 52.
6. Allegations of criminal misconduct (Paragraph 53): In investigations involving criminal

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 106

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 106 of 109
investigations that are referred to the Attorney General’s Office or other appropriate agency, the VIPD has documentation that it has completed, to the extent possible, its own administrative investigation.
7. Elements of RMS Protocol (Paragraph 64): The VIPD has implemented a protocol for using the RMS that includes the components identified in ¶ 64(a) of the Consent Decree.
The VIPD has implemented a protocol that includes an automated system to analyze the data according to the criteria identified in ¶ 64(b) of the Consent Decree.
Reports are generated and distributed to

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 107

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 107 of 109
appropriate sworn personnel (e.g., Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, and supervisors) on a monthly basis.
Reviews conducted by the Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors comport with the RMS protocol.
Deputy Chiefs, managers and supervisors have initiated intervention in instances based on activity and pattern assessment contained in the RMS. The chief or designee will also have overall responsibility for ensuring that interventions are initiated as appropriate.
Interventions, as exemplified in paragraph 64 of the Consent Decree, comport with the RMS

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 108

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 108 of 109
protocol
Interventions are based on all relevant and appropriate information, including the nature of the officer’s assignment, crime trends and crime problems, and not solely on the number or percentages of incidents in any category of information recorded in the risk management system.
In instances when officers are transferred to a new section or unit, Deputy Chiefs, managers and supervisors for the relevant section or unit have promptly reviewed the RMS records of such officers.
The VIPD has established a protocol for evaluating whether deputy chiefs, managers and

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 109 of 109
supervisors are able to use the RMS system to enhance effectiveness and risk. This evaluation protocol is followed with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness. The RMS is managed and administered by IAU. 8. Disciplinary matrix (paragraph 70): Disciplinary penalty decisions are consistent with the penalties set forth in the matrix.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan August 30, 2012October 1, 2013 Page 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 1 of 73

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

POLICY

VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT CONSENT DECREE ACTION PLAN OCTOBER 1, 2013

TRAINING

ACTION/ REVIEW/AUDIT

USE OF FORCE POLICIES Paragraph 31- The VIPD will review and revise its use of force policies as necessary to: a. define terms clearly; b. define force as that term is defined in this Agreement; c. incorporate a use of force model that teaches disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements or calling in specialized units as appropriate responses to a situation; d. advise that, whenever possible, individuals should be allowed to submit to arrest before force is used; e. reinforce that the use of

Use of Force Policies approved and signed off by Commissioner includes: 3.1 Use of Force 3.2 Reporting, Investigating and Review of Force 3.4 Firearms Policy 3.5 Impact Weapons 3.6 Electronic Control Weapon 3.7 OC Spray 3.8 Off-Duty Policy 3.9 Vehicle Pursuit Policy 3.10 Spike Strip 3.11 Canine Operations 3.12 Tactical Operations 3.13 Sniper Operations Training has been

Initial training has been completed on the use of force policies as provided in this paragraph.

Yearly review of policies.

Refresher training is also on-going during in-service training modules.

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

PERSON/ GROUP/ UNIT RESPONSIBLE

SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE DEALINE

Obtained DOJ approval for all use of force policies that require DOJ approval.
Approved policies are distributed to sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees.1

Head of Use of October 31, Force Working 2015 Group

1 For paragraphs 31, 39, 40, 47, 50, 52, 53, 62, 64, and 70, training requirements will be measured under paragraph 75; and audit and implementation requirements will be measured under paragraph 100.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 2 of 73

excessive force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and/or civil liability; f. ensure that sufficient less lethal alternatives are available to all patrol officers; and g. explicitly prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized. Once the DOJ has reviewed and approved these policies, the VIPD shall immediately implement any revisions.
EVALUATION, DOCUMENTATION, AND REVIEW OF USE OF FORCE Paragraph 32 – The VIPD will require all uses of force to be documented in writing. The use of force report form will indicate each and every type of force that was used, and require the evaluation of each type of force. Use of force reports will include a narrative description

completed on the foregoing policies.
3.2 Reportable Use of Force Response to Resistance Report Form (RRR) has been approved and signed off by the Commissioner.

Initial officer and supervisor training on policies completed with refresher training ongoing during in-service training modules.

Yearly review of policies.
By January 31, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies.
Ensure that the Virgin Islands’ Attorney General’s Office, VIPD’s counsel,2 the Training Working

Use of force incidents have been documented in an RRR and investigated by a supervisor.
RRRs will include each of the requirements identified in ¶ 32 of the Consent Decree.

Head of Use of October 31, Force Working 2015 Group

2This requirement applies only insofar as the position of VIPD counsel is filled.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 3 of 73

of the events preceding the use of force, written by a supervisor or by the designated investigative unit. Use of force reports also will include the officer(s)’ narrative description of events and the officer(s)’ statement. Except in cases of use of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, the officer’s statement shall be audio- or videotaped.

Group, and the Use of Force Working Group review all use of force policies.
Conduct refresher training on policies through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training.
Continue to incorporate competency-based3 training on policies into Police Academy.

In use of force incidents, there is evidence that corrective action was taken against the sworn personnel whose use of force documentation failed to meet the requirements of the Consent Decree.
Uses of force comply with applicable law.

By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.4

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of 1As and arrest reports to ensure RRRs are completed) and conduct use of force review on a quarterly basis.

By December 31, 2013 ensure that audits audit the timeliness of completion of use of force investigations.

3 “Competency-based training” means the provision of knowledge and skills sufficient to enable the trained person to demonstrate compliance with specified performance standards. 4 The Audit Plan is a document describing at a high level how VIPD will conduct audits for the general areas of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 4 of 73

Paragraph 33 - Officers shall notify their supervisors following any use of force or upon the receipt of an allegation of excessive force. Except in uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, supervisors will respond to the scene, examine the subject for injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain, and ensure that the subject received needed medical attention.

3.2 Reportable Use of Force Response to Resistance Report Form (RRR) has been approved and signed off by the Commissioner.

Initial training on policies completed with refresher training ongoing during in-service training modules. Additional training for supervisors has been completed.

By December 31, 2013, and

quarterly thereafter, conduct audits

to identify personnel who

continually fail to report uses of

force or otherwise fail to follow the

policy and provide and document

discipline and/or remedial training.

Conduct refresher training on

The officer using force

policies through documented,

notified his/her supervisor

periodic in-service and roll

as required by VIPD policy.

call/commanders call training.

Where a supervisor was

Continue to incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy.

notified of the use of force by an officer, he/she responded to the scene in a reasonable amount of time,

Yearly review of policies.

as required by VIPD policy.

In incidents where the

By January 31, 2014, improve

supervisor responded to the

tracking system to ensure all staff scene, he/she conducted a

are trained on policies.

complete investigation,

including examining the

By June 30, 2014, VIPD will

subject for injury,

provide USDOJ with a

interviewing the subject for

comprehensive report regarding: complaints of pain, and

(1) the actions it has taken to obtain ensuring that the subject

appropriate number of supervisory received any needed

personnel to carry out the mandates medical attention.

of the Consent Decree, and (2) any

additional steps necessary to ensure All training must comport

a sufficient number of supervisors. with the requirements of the

Head of Use of Force Working Group

October 31, 2015

5 This requirement applies to Consent-Decree related training.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 5 of 73

Paragraph 34 – Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, will review, evaluate, and document each use of force, and will complete the narrative description section of the use of force report. The narrative description will include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer’s conduct. As part of this review, the supervisor or

3.2 Reportable Use of Force Response to Resistance Report Form (RRR) has been approved and signed off by the Commissioner.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 5

Initial training on policies completed with refresher training ongoing during in-service training modules. Additional training for supervisors has been completed.

By February 1, 2014, VIPD will provide USDOJ with an interim report addressing the above issues.
By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.
By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of 1As, arrest reports and RRRs) and conduct use of force review on a quarterly basis. By December 31, 2013, and quarterly thereafter, conduct audits to identify personnel who continually fail to report uses of force and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training. By January 31, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies.
Conduct refresher training on policies, through documented, ongoing periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training.
Continue to incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy.

Consent Decree, and be taught from curricula/lesson plans that: (a) identify training objectives; (b) incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises); and (c) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal counsel, as appropriate.5
In reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he/she was not involved in the use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize or participate in conduct leading to the use of force incident).

Head of Use of Force Working Group

October 31, 2015

designated investigating officer/unit will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officer’s actions were within VIPD policy. An officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized conduct leading to the use of force or allegation of excessive force, or who was present during the incident, will not be eligible to review or investigate the incident.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 6 of 73

Yearly review of policies.
By June 31, 2014, VIPD will provide USDOJ with a comprehensive report regarding: (1) the actions it has taken to obtain appropriate number of supervisory personnel to carry out the mandates of the Consent Decree and (2) any additional steps necessary to ensure a sufficient number of supervisors.
By February 1, 2014, VIPD will provide USDOJ with an interim report addressing the above issues.
By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.

In reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completed his/her review and evaluation according to VIPD’s use of force policies and all other requirements of ¶ 31 of the Consent Decree.
In reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completes the supervisor’s narrative description of the RRR in a manner that comports with the requirements of ¶ 34 of the Consent Decree.

By December 1, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of 1As, arrest reports and RRRs) and conduct use of force reviews on a quarterly basis.

By December 31, 2013, and quarterly thereafter, conduct audits to identify supervisors who neglect their responsibilities to investigate as required by policy and provide

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 7 of 73

Paragraph 35 – The parties agree that it is improper interview procedure during use of force investigations to ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer’s conduct when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. In each review/investigation, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. The VIPD will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. The VIPD will train all of its supervisors and officers assigned to conduct use of force investigations in conducting use of force investigations, including in the factors to consider when evaluating credibility.

3.2 Reportable Use of Force Response to Resistance Report Form (RRR) has been approved and signed off by the Commissioner.

Initial training on policies completed with refresher training ongoing during in-service training modules. Additional training for supervisors has been completed.

and document discipline and/or

remedial training.

Conduct refresher training on

In interviews conducted

policies through documented,

during use of force reviews,

periodic in-service training.

leading questions were

avoided.

By January 31, 2014, improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies.

In investigations where material inconsistencies are present between witness

Yearly review of policies.

statements, reasonable efforts are made to resolve

By October 31, 2013, in

the inconsistencies.

consultation with DOJ, finalize 3. In the use of force reviews,

Audit Plan.

all relevant evidence,

including circumstantial,

By December 31, 2013, implement direct and physical evidence

audit tools to ensure staff are

is documented and

complying with the policies (i.e., appropriately considered,

review of sample of use of force and credibility

investigation files) and conduct use determinations made, if

of force review on a quarterly basis. feasible.

By December 31, 2013, and quarterly thereafter, conduct audits to identify personnel who continually fail to report uses of force and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training

When evaluating witness credibility, appropriate factors are considered and documented.
Supervisors are trained on how to conduct, review, and evaluate use of force incidents, including but not limited to, what factors to consider when evaluating

Head of Use of Force Working Group

October 31, 2015

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 8 of 73

Paragraph 36 – Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall conduct an investigation of all uses of force or injury resulting from a use of force by any officer under their command. This requirement does not apply to uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ. In an investigation, supervisors or designated investigating officers or units, shall interview all witnesses to a use of force or an injury resulting from a use of force. Consistent with the requirements of the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable law, VIPD supervisors or designated investigating officers or units shall ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all use of force reports for all levels of force identify all officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred.

3.2 Reportable Use of Force Response to Resistance Report Form (RRR) has been approved and signed off by the Commissioner.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 8

Initial training on policies completed with refresher training ongoing during in-service training modules. Additional training for supervisors has been completed.

Conduct refresher training on policies through documented, periodic in-service training.
By January 31, 2014, improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system).
Yearly review of policies.
By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ finalize Audit Plan.
By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of use of force investigation files) and conduct use of force review on a quarterly basis.
By December 31, 2013, and quarterly thereafter, conduct audits to identify personnel who continually fail to report uses of force and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training

witness credibility. In reportable use of force incidents, all involved officers are identified in the investigating supervisor’s reports.
In reportable use of force incidents, all witnesses, to the extent practicable, are identified in the investigating supervisor’s reports.
In reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor ensured that efforts were made to identify and interview witnesses, and documented these efforts.
In reportable use of force incidents that resulted in injuries, the investigating supervisor documented the extent of the injuries and any medical treatment rendered in a manner that comports with ¶ 36 of the Consent Decree.

In reportable use of force incidents that resulted in injuries, photographic

Head of Use of October 31, Force Working 2015 Group

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 9 of 73

Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports for all levels of force indicate whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided, and whether the subject refused medical treatment. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports include contemporaneous photographs or videotapes taken of all injuries at the earliest practicable opportunity, both before and after any treatment, including cleansing of wounds. Paragraph 37 – All investigations into use of force shall be reviewed by the Officer’s Commander and/or Director, or by a Commander and/or Director in the designated investigative unit, who shall identify any deficiencies in those reviews, and shall require supervisors, or designated investigative officers or units, to correct any and all deficiencies. Supervisors, and designated investigative officers or units, will be held

3.2 Reportable Use of Force Response to Resistance Report Form (RRR) has been approved and signed off by the Commissioner.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 9

Initial training on policies completed with refresher training ongoing during in-service training modules. Additional training for supervisors has been completed.

Conduct refresher training on policies through documented, periodic in-service training.
By January 31, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies.
Yearly review of policies.

By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.

By December 31, 2013, and

evidence was collected and maintained in a manner that comports with ¶ 36 of the Consent Decree.
In reportable use of force reviews, the investigating supervisor provided a finding on whether the use of force was justified under VIPD’s use of force policies.

Completed use of force case files contained signed documentation from the Chief and/or Deputy Chief or designee indicating that he/she reviewed the completed investigation and the date of such review.

Head of Use of Force Working Group

October 31, 2015

In completed use of force investigations in which the Chief and/or Deputy Chief or designee found deficiencies in the investigations, the

accountable for the quality of their reviews. Appropriate nondisciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary action will be taken when a supervisor, or designated investigative officer or unit, fails to conduct a timely and thorough review, or neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action, or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action. As provided by VIPD policy and approved by DOJ, designated command staff shall further review the Commander and/or Director’s reviews according to the level of force involved.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 10 of 73

quarterly thereafter, conduct audits to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of use of force investigation files) and conduct use of force review on a quarterly basis..
By December 31, 2013, conduct audits to identify personnel who continually fail to report uses of force and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training.

deficiencies were documented and corrected; the corrections were documented; and supplemental investigative were reports prepared to document the additional investigative efforts, if required to correct the identified deficiencies.
In reportable use of force incidents, the Chief and/or Deputy Chief or designee provided a written, signed and dated finding on whether the use of force was justified under VIPD’s approved use of force policies and all other requirements of ¶¶ 31(a)-(g) of the Consent Decree.
In reportable use of force incidents, supervisors are held accountable for the quality of their reviews, and documented nondisciplinary and/or disciplinary action has been taken when a supervisor or manager: fails to conduct a timely and thorough review; neglects to recommend

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 11 of 73

Paragraph 38 – The VIPD will 3.2 Reportable Use of investigate all critical firearm Force Response to
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 11

Initial training on all Conduct refresher training on policies completed with policies through documented,

appropriate corrective action; or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action.
In use of force incidents where the Commander’s/Director’s or his designee’s review and evaluation concluded that improper tactics were used, there is evidence that the involved sworn personnel received and successfully completed remedial training, and, if appropriate, were disciplined.
In use of force incidents deemed unjustified by the Commander’s/Director’s or designee’s review and evaluation, the involved sworn personnel were disciplined, up to and including termination from VIPD if appropriate, and, if termination was not appropriate, at the very least, received remedial training. Critical firearm discharges are investigated and

Head of Use of Force Working

October 31, 2015

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 12 of 73

discharges. The VIPD will ensure that the investigation accounts for all shots and locations of all officers who discharged their firearms. The VIPD will conduct all ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 12

Resistance Report Form (RRR) has been approved and signed off by the Commissioner.

refresher training ongoing during in-service training modules.
Additional training for supervisors completed.

periodic in-service training.

documented.

By January 31, 2014, improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system).
Yearly review of policies.
By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ finalize Audit Plan.
VIPD shall maintain sufficient trained staff who conduct adequate ballistic/crime scene analysis.
By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of use of force investigation files) and conduct use of force review on a quarterly basis.
By December 31, 2013 conduct audits to identify personnel who continually fail to report uses of force and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training

Investigations or reviews of critical firearm discharges accounted for all shots.
Investigations or reviews of critical firearm discharges accounted for the locations of all officers who discharged their firearms.
In investigations or reviews of critical firearm discharges, the VIPD conducted ballistic crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate.
Supervisors (or other personnel) have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial inservice training on ballistic and crime scene analyses and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or (b) if supervisors (or other personnel) have not successfully completed the required training and

Group

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 13 of 73

Paragraph 39 – VIPD shall complete development of a Use of Firearms policy that complies with applicable law and current professional standards. The policy shall prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition and shall inform officers that any such use may subject them to disciplinary action. The policy shall establish a single, uniform reporting system for all firearms

3.4 Firearms – Approved and signed by Commissioner.

Initial training on policy completed with refresher training ongoing during in-service training modules.

Yearly review of policies.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 13

passed the proficiency test(s), the supervisors (or other personnel) have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s); or

Where supervisors (or other personnel) have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel. Obtained DOJ approval for Use of Firearms policy.
Approved policy contains the elements required in Paragraph 39.
Approved policy is distributed to sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees.

Head of Use of Force Working Group

October 31, 2015

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 14 of 73

discharges. The policy shall prohibit officers from obtaining service ammunition from any source except through official VIPD channels, and shall specify the number of rounds VIPD authorizes its officers to carry. The policy will continue to require that all discharges of firearms by officers on or offduty, including unintentional discharges, be reported and investigated.

Paragraph 40 – The VIPD shall revise its policies regarding offduty officers taking police action to: a. provide that off-duty officers shall notify on-duty VIPD or local law enforcement officers before taking police action, absent exigent circumstances, so that they may respond with appropriate personnel and resources to handle the problem; b. provide that, if it appears the officer has consumed alcohol or is otherwise impaired, the officer shall submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or

3.8 Off-duty Official Action – Approved and signed by Commissioner.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 14

Initial training on policy completed with refresher training ongoing during in-service training modules.

Yearly review of policies.

Obtained DOJ approval of use of force policy on offduty officers taking police action.

Head of Use of October 31, Force Working 2015 Group

Policy contains all elements required by Paragraph 40.
Approved policies are distributed to sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 15 of 73

blood tests. Paragraph 41 – The VIPD shall continue to provide an intermediate force device, which is between chemical spray and firearms on the force continuum, that can be carried by officers at all times while onduty. The VIPD shall continue its policy regarding the intermediate force device, incorporate the intermediate force device into the force continuum and train all officers in its use on an annual basis.

3.6 Electronic control Weapon – Approved and signed by Commissioner.

Initial training on policy completed with refresher training ongoing during in-service training modules.

Conduct refresher training on policies through documented, periodic in-service training.
By January 31, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies.
Conduct refresher training on policies through documented, periodic in-service training, to test proficiencies.
Yearly review of policies.
By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.
By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of use of force investigation files).
Conduct inspections, with report on a quarterly basis, commencing on December 31, 2013, to ensure that officers carry intermediate force device(s) as appropriate and that their use of the device(s) comports with applicable law and VIPD

Patrol and other applicable officers carry an intermediate force device at all times while on-duty.
Sworn personnel have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training for each new or revised policy related to intermediate force devices and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or
Where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training,

Head of Use of Force Working Group

October 31, 2015

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 16 of 73

CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS Public Information Paragraph 42 - The VIPD will develop and implement a program to inform persons that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any officer. This program will include distribution of complaint forms, fact sheets, informational posters, and public service announcements that describe the citizen complaint process.

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

Initial Officer and supervisor training completed on both districts.

Paragraph 43 – The VIPD will make complaint forms and informational materials available at government

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 16

Initial officer and supervisor training completed on both districts.

policy.
By December 31, 2013, and quarterly thereafter, conduct audits to identify personnel who continually fail to report uses of force and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training.

and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel.
Sworn personnel display knowledge and proficiency on using intermediate force devices, as evidenced by compliance with the policy requirements.

Yearly review of policies.
Conduct refresher training on policies, through documented, periodic in-service training.

The VIPD has developed and implemented a program to inform persons that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any officer.

Head of Citizens’ complaint committee

In VIPD facilities, vehicles, and governmental properties such as VIPD district stations, libraries, the internet and upon request, to community groups and community centers, complaint information brochures and forms are available. VIPD facilities, vehicles, and government properties, complaint information brochures and forms are

Head of Citizens’ Complaint Committee

In Compliance; sustained compliance required
October 31,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 17 of 73

properties such as VIPD district stations, substations, mobile substations, libraries, the Internet, and, upon request, to community groups and community centers. At each VIPD district station, substation, and mobile substation, the VIPD will permanently post a placard describing the complaint process and include the relevant phone numbers. These placards shall be displayed in both English and Spanish, and where deemed necessary, in French or French Patois, to account for diversity in the VI population. The VIPD will require all officers to carry informational brochures and complaint forms, in English and Spanish, and where deemed necessary, in French or French Patois, in their vehicles at all times while on duty. If a citizen objects to an officer’s conduct, that officer will inform the citizen of his or her right to make a complaint. Officers will not discourage any person from making a complaint.
Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints

Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 17

By January 31, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies.
Yearly review of policies.
Monthly inspections by Zone Commanders to ensure that all complaint process materials are available in their Zones. Zone Commanders will provide a monthly written report of their inspections.
Monthly inspections to ensure that informational materials are available at all required locations.

available.
Officers carry the informational brochures and complaint forms with them at all times while on-duty.
In VIPD district stations, substation, and mobile stations, a placard is displayed describing the complaint process, including relevant phone numbers.
In incidents where a citizen complained about an officer’s conduct, the officer informed, and did not discourage, the citizen about his/her ability to make a complaint.

2015

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 18 of 73

Paragraph 44 - Complaints may be filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile or electronic mail. The duty officer at the front desk of each district station will be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints, which persons may file at any district station. Complaint intake officers may describe facts that bear upon a complainant’s demeanor and physical condition but May not express opinions regarding his/her mental competency or veracity. Each complaint will be resolved in writing. Upon receipt, each complaint will be assigned a unique identifier, which will be provided to the complainant. Each complaint will be tracked according to the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, improper search, etc.).

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

Initial officer and supervisor training completed in both districts.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 18

Conduct refresher training on O Obtained DOJ approval for a

policies, through documented,

complaint intake policy.

periodic in-service training.

Approved policy is

By January 31, 2014, improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies.

distributed to sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees.

Sworn personnel and

Yearly review of policies.

applicable civilian

employees have either: (a)

Quarterly review of IAU and zone attended and successfully

files.

completed the initial in-

service training for each

By October 31, 2013, in

new or revised complaint

consultation with DOJ finalize

related policy and

Audit Plan.

demonstrated proficiency

through a proficiency

By December 31, 2013, implement test(s); or (b) if sworn

audit tools to ensure staff are

personnel and applicable

complying with the policies (i.e., civilian employees have not

review of sample of citizen

successfully completed the

complaint investigation files).

required training and passed

Also ensure that lapses in policy the proficiency test, the

implementation are addressed by sworn personnel and

system of documented discipline applicable civilian

and/or re-training.

employees have entered and

successfully completed a

By December 31, 2013, create a

remedial program designed

quarterly report that analyzes

to ensure passage of the

patterns of violations of VIPD

proficiency test(s) and

policy. Using the information

passed the proficiency

gathered in the report, evaluate

test(s); or

areas for policy modification or

Where sworn personnel and

Head of Citizens’ Complaint Committee

October 31, 2015

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 19 of 73

appropriate remedial action (e.g., training).

applicable civilian employees have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees.
Complaints are documented and resolved in writing.
Appropriate VIPD personnel properly respond to the inquiring/complaining person, as verified by the monitors and the VIPD audit unit.

For complaints lodged and recorded, a file documents the actions taken by VIPD in response to the complaint.
1 Documented complaints are assigned a unique identifier and are retrievable by that identifier, the complainant’s name, if it was provided, or the name

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 20 of 73

of the accused officer, if known.
Completed investigations into complaints comport with the provisions of the Consent Decree.
Documented complaints do not include opinions of the intake officer about the mental competency or veracity of the complainant.

Paragraph 45- Copies of all allegations of misconduct against the VIPD filed with the Zone Commands will be referred to Internal Affairs Unit (“IAU”) within five business days.

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

Initial training completed for supervisors and officers in both districts.

Conduct refresher training on policies through documented, periodic in-service training.
Review monthly completed cases in IAPro to ensure compliance with the 5 day of requirement as per policy.

Allegations filed at Zone or unit facilities are forwarded to IAU within five business days.

Head of Citizens’ Complaint Committee

By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ finalize Audit Plan.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 20

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of citizen complaint investigation files). Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by

October 31, 2015

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 21 of 73

Investigation of Complaints Paragraph 46 - Complaints will be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, for which the Territory will develop and implement appropriate training.

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

Initial training completed for supervisors on both districts.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 21

system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

Continue to incorporate competency-based training of officers and supervisors.
By January 31, 2014, improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies and periodically test supervisors’ knowledge of the preponderance of the evidence standard.
Conduct refresher training on policies through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training.
Yearly review of policies.
By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ finalize Audit Plan.
By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample investigatory files. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

Sworn personnel have either: (a) attended and successfully completed training on the preponderance of the evidence standard and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or
Where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel.

Head of Citizens’ Complaint Committee

October 31, 2015

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 22 of 73

Paragraph 47 - The VIPD will explicitly prohibit from investigating an incident any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to the injury to a person, or who authorized the conduct that led to these reportable incidents. Paragraph 48 - The VIPD will investigate every citizen complaint. The VIPD will establish a clear policy and

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.
Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating

Initial training completed for supervisors in both districts.
Initial training completed for supervisors and

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 22

All training on the

Quarterly review of closed

preponderance of the

investigation files to ensure that the evidence comports with the

preponderance of evidence standard requirements of the Consent

is being used.

Decree, and is taught from

curricula/lesson plans that:

By December 31, 2013, and

(a) identify training

quarterly thereafter, identify

objectives; (b) incorporate,

Supervisors who are not correctly to the extent possible, adult

using the preponderance of the

learning techniques (e.g.,

evidence provide and document

class exercises); and (c)

discipline and/or remedial training indicate that it has been

as appropriate.

reviewed by legal counsel.

Yearly review of policies.
Conduct refresher training on policies through documented, periodic in-service and roll

Completed investigations into complaints/allegations of misconduct include an assessment of the evidence, and a finding that is based upon the preponderance of evidence standard. VIPD policy prohibits from investigating an incident any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to the injury to a person, or who authorized the conduct that led to these reportable incidents. Obtained DOJ approval of a policy and procedure for the intake of complaints.
For complaints lodged and

Head of Citizens’ Complaint Committee
Head of Citizens’ Complaint

October, 31, 2015
October 31, 2015

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 23 of 73

procedure regarding the intake of any complaint, including anonymous and confidential complaints, against a VIPD officer. This policy and these procedures will include instructions to an officer for taking a complaint and prompt delivery to a supervisor.

Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

Paragraph 49 - The VIPD will institute a centralized numbering and tracking system for all complaints, and each complaint will receive a tracking number as quickly as possible. The IAU will be designated as the primary and centralized agency to determine whether the investigation will be
VIPD Consent Decree
Timeline Table/ Action Plan
October 1, 2013
Page 23

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

Supervisors in both districts.
Initial training for supervisors completed on both districts. Centralized numbering has been provided by central dispatch.

call/commanders call training.
Continue to incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy.
Yearly review of policies.
By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.
By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample investigatory files. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.
Quarterly review of closed files at IAU.

recorded, a file documents the actions taken by VIPD in response to the complaint.
Sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have been trained and demonstrated the required proficiency on the complaint intake policy and comports with the Consent Decree, including ¶¶ 44 and 48.
Documented complaints are promptly delivered to a supervisor.
Applicable VIPD personnel properly respond to the inquiring/complaining person, as verified by the monitors and VIPD.

Committee

Conduct refresher training on E Established a separate IAPro

policies through documented,

database for the STT/STJ

periodic in-service and roll

and STX Districts such that:

call/commanders call training.

(1) each database will be

accessible from each

Commencing December 31, 2013, district; (2) IAU agents in

and on a quarterly basis thereafter, each District will have

utilizing data from IAPro, produce access to their respective

a report that tracks citizens’

databases; (3) the Director

complaints referred to the

of IAU, Assistant Director

Head of Citizens’ Complaint Committee

October 31, 2015

assigned to zone (one of the seven zones located throughout the Virgin Islands), retained by the IAU, or referred for possible criminal investigation. If the IAU refers a complaint to a zone, copies of all documents, findings, and recommendations should be immediately forwarded to the IAU for tracking and monitoring. For complaints alleging the excessive use of force or violation of a person’s constitutional rights, the Police Commissioner should be notified no less than twenty-four hours after receipt of a complaint.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 24 of 73

zones/bureaus, and identifies whether any of complaints involve excessive use of force. Also determine whether the Police Commissioner was notified of complaints alleging excessive use of force.
Yearly review of policies.
By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.
By December 31, 2013, and quarterly thereafter, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample citizen complaint investigation files.). Also ensure that lapse in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or retraining.
By March 31, 2014, ensure that each IAPro database is accessible from all districts.

of IAU, and EIP Coordinator will have access to both databases; (4) each complaint will receive a unique tracking number, with an STT extension for the St. Thomas/St. John District and an STX extension for the St. Croix District, so that no two complaints will have the same number within or between databases; (5) information in each database will be organized by District, and can be sorted by officer; and (6) if an officer transfers from one District to another, his/her information will be transferred to the new District’s database.
Allegations brought to the attention of the VIPD are assigned a unique identifier.
In complaints that the IAU refers to a Zone, copies of the completed file are forwarded to the IAU within the time frame specified by VIPD policy.
Evidence exists that IAU

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 25 of 73

Paragraph 50 - The VIPD will adopt a single policy concerning the investigation of misconduct complaints, regardless of whether the investigation is conducted by the IAU or a zone. Paragraph 51 - The VIPD will establish policies and procedures and train all of its investigators on the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility; examination and interrogation of accused officers and other witnesses; identifying misconduct even if it is not specifically named in the complaint; and using the preponderance of the evidence standard as the appropriate burden of proof. VIPD

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.
Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

Initial training completed for supervisors on both districts.
Initial training completed for supervisors on both districts.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 25

adequately tracked and monitored the complaint.

Yearly review of policies.

Complaints alleging excessive use of force or a civil rights violation are reported to the Police Commissioner within 24 hours of receiving the complaint.
Obtained DOJ approval of a policy concerning the investigation of misconduct complaints, consistent with the requirements of Paragraph 50.

Head of Citizens’ Complaint Committee

By January 31, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies
Conduct refresher training on policies through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training.
Yearly review of policies.
All statements will be recorded by October 31, 2013. On a quarterly basis conduct review to ensure that statements are being recorded.

Policies are developed, implemented, and distributed to VIPD investigators.
Investigators/supervisors have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training concerning the components identified in ¶ 51 of the Consent Decree and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if investigators/supervisors

Head of Citizens’ Complaint Committee

October 31, 2015
October 31, 2015

investigators will ensure that all officers on the scene of an incident provide a statement regarding the incident. The policy will require that all interviews be mechanically recorded using an audio or video tape.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 26

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 26 of 73

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample investigatory files). Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

have not successfully completed the required training and passed proficiency test(s), investigators/supervisors have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or

Where investigators/supervisors have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the investigators/supervisors.

Completed investigations into complaints of misconduct include a documented assessment of the evidence, and a finding that is based upon the preponderance of evidence standard.

In incidents giving rise to

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 27 of 73

Paragraph 52 - The policy will require that the investigative findings include whether: 1) the police action was in compliance with policy, training and legal standards, regardless of whether the complainant suffered harm; 2) the incident involved misconduct by any officer; 3) the use of different tactics should or could have been employed; 4) the incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and 5) the incident suggests that the VIPD should revise its policies, training, or tactics. Paragraph 53 - The policy will

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.
Acceptance of Citizen

Initial training completed for supervisors in both districts on policy.
Initial training

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 27

Yearly review of policies. Yearly review of policies.

allegations of misconduct or use of force, all officers on the scene provided a statement regarding the incident, in accordance with VIPD policy.
Interviews related to a complaint of misconduct will be mechanically recorded using an audio or video tape.

The VIPD policy formalizes a process for review of all uses of force that ensures the consideration of and documentation of all of the findings identified in ¶ 52.

Head of Citizens’ Complaint Committee

October 31, 2015

VIPD has issued a policy Head of

October 31,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 28 of 73

provide clear guidance to all investigators regarding the procedures for handling criminal misconduct allegations, referring them to the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office or other appropriate agency for possible criminal prosecution, and the entity or individual who should make the determination of whether the complaint should be investigated criminally. The policy will be revised to require the completion of an administrative investigation, irrespective of the initiation or outcome of criminal proceedings. Paragraph 54 - In each investigation, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. There will be no automatic preference for an officer’s statement over a nonofficer’s statement, nor will the VIPD completely disregard a witness’ statement merely because the witness has some

Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.
Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 28

completed for supervisors on both districts.
Initial training completed for supervisors on each district.

that provides clear guidance on how to handle allegations of criminal misconduct by sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees and includes the elements of ¶ 53.

Citizens’ Complaint Committee

Incorporate competency-based training of all investigators.
By January 31, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies.

In completed investigations, all relevant and appropriate evidence identified in ¶ 54 of the Consent Decree has been considered and documented.

Head of Citizens’ Complaint Committee

Conduct refresher training on policies, through documented, ongoing periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training
Yearly review of policies.

Completed investigations reflect that a supervisor did not give an automatic preference for an officer’s statement over a nonofficer’s statement.
Completed investigations

2015
October 31, 2015

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 29 of 73

connection to the complainant. The VIPD will make efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.

Paragraph 55 - During an investigation, all relevant police activity, including each use of force (i.e., not just the type of force complained about) will be investigated. The investigation will also evaluate any searches or seizures that occurred during the incident. The VIPD will not close an investigation simply because the complaint is withdrawn or the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of injury or the complainant will not provide additional statements or written statements; rather, the investigating agency will continue its investigation as

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 29

Initial training completed for supervisors on both districts.

By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.
By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample investigatory files). Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

reflect that a supervisor has not disregarded a witness’ statement because the witness has a connection to the complainant.
VIPD investigators have made efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements and have been trained on ways to do this.

Incorporate competency-based training of all investigators by November 30, 2012
By January 31, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies.
Conduct refresher training on policies through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training
Yearly review of policies.
By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.
By December 31, 2013, implement

In investigations, there is documented evidence that all misconduct revealed by the investigation, whether part of the initial allegation or discovered during the investigation, has been reasonably investigated and addressed.

Head of Citizens’ Complaint Committee

In completed investigations, the investigative reports include documentation that the supervisor has evaluated any searches or seizures that occurred during the incident.

In completed investigations, a supervisor has ensured the

October 31, 2015

necessary to determine whether the original allegation(s) can be resolved based on the information, evidence, and investigatory procedures and techniques available. In each investigation, the fact that a complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense will not be considered as evidence of whether a VIPD officer used or did not use a type of force, nor will it justify discontinuing the investigation.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 30

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 30 of 73

audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample investigatory files). Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

continuation of every investigation – even when the complaint is withdrawn, or the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of injury, or the complainant will not provide additional statements or written statements – until the VIPD has determined whether the original allegation(s) can be resolved based on the information, evidence, and investigatory procedures and techniques available.

In completed investigations, a supervisor has not considered the fact that a complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense as evidence of whether a VIPD officer used or did not use a type of force, or as a justification for discontinuing the investigation.

In completed investigations, the elements identified in paragraph 55 of the Consent Decree have been

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 31 of 73

Paragraph 56 - The complainant will be periodically kept informed regarding the status of the investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, the complainant will be notified of its outcome, including an appropriate statement regarding whether any non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action was taken.

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

Initial training completed for supervisors on both districts.

Conduct refresher training on policies, through documented, ongoing periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training.
By December 31, 2013, and quarterly thereafter, conduct review of files to determine whether complainants are being notified of the status and completion of the investigation, as required by Paragraph 56.
By December 31, 2013, conduct quarterly audits to assess timeliness of completion of citizen complaint investigations.

considered, analyzed and documented. In investigations, the VIPD has kept complainants reasonably informed about the status of the investigation of their complaints.
In completed investigations, the VIPD notified complainants of the disposition of the investigation of their complaint, including by providing complainant with a statement about whether the VIPD took any nondisciplinary corrective or disciplinary action as an outcome of its investigation.

Citizens’ Complaint Committee

October 31, 2015

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 31

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 32 of 73

Paragraph 57 - Each allegation in an investigation will be resolved by making one of the following dispositions: “Unfounded,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that no facts to support that the incident complained of actually occurred; “Sustained,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person’s allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the incident occurred and the actions of the officer were improper; “Not Sustained,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred; and “Exonerated,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate VIPD policies, procedures, or training. Paragraph 58 – Unit commanders will evaluate each

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.
Acceptance of Citizen Complaints/

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 32

Initial training completed for supervisors on both districts.
Initial training completed training for

Continue competency-based training of all investigators.
By January 31, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies

Investigations have been resolved by making one of the dispositions identified in Paragraph 57 of the Consent Decree.

Citizens’ Complaint Committee

Continue refresher training on policies, through documented, ongoing periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training.

Yearly review of policies.

By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample investigatory files). Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

Continue to incorporate

T The VIPD has developed a Head of

competency-based training of all policy that provides a

Citizens’

October 31, 2015
October 31, 2015

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 33 of 73

investigation of an incident under their command to identify underlying problems and training needs. Any such problems or need will be relayed in the form of a recommendation to the appropriate VIPD entity.

Investigating Misconduct & Citizen Complaints Policy approved and signed by Commissioner.

supervisors on both districts.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 33

investigators.
By January 31, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies.
Conduct refresher training on policies through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training
Yearly review of policies.
Quarterly review of completed IAU investigations.
By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

process for the review of all completed allegations of misconduct and ensures the consideration of all of the elements identified in ¶¶ 52 and 58 of the Consent Decree.

Complaint Committee

In completed investigations into allegations of misconduct, there is documentation indicating that a supervisor has evaluated underlying problems and training needs, if any.

Any identified problems and/or training needs have been relayed to the appropriate VIPD entity.

In cases where there is a determination that modification to or additional training is required, there is documented evidence that VIPD has implement additional training

In cases where the VIPD identified policy or equipment deficiencies, there is documented evidence that corrective

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 34 of 73

MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
A. Risk Management system
Paragraph 59 - The VIPD will develop and implement a risk management system to include a new computerized relational database or paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for supervision and management of the VIPD. Priority will be given to the VIPD obtaining any established program and system. The VIPD will regularly use this data to promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts. Paragraph 60 – The new risk management system will collect and record the following information: a. all uses of force; b. canine bite ratios; c. the number of canisters of

Risk Management System Early Intervention Program (EIP) Policy, Data Input Plan, and Blue Team Protocol have been approved.
Risk Management System Early Intervention Program (EIP) Policy, Data Input Plan, and Blue Team Protocol have been approved.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 34

Initial EIP and Blue Team training has been completed. Refresher training will be completed annually.
Initial EIP and Blue Team training has been completed. Refresher training will be completed annually.

IAPro, a computerized database, is currently being used to assist in supervision and management for VIPD’s risk management system.
Internal Affairs and MIS have chosen a computerized database, IAPRO, to assist in the supervision and management. Canine policy has been revised to capture canine deployments. By

measures were implemented.

See Paragraphs 60-68, below.
VIPD shall ensure that it regularly uses the data in the RMS system to promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units, and shifts.

Head of Management and Supervision Committee

RRR forms are completed for all uses of force as required by VIPD policy. RRR forms are entered into the RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

Head of Management and Supervision Committee

October 31, 2015
October 31, 2015

chemical spray used by officers; d. all injuries to prisoners; e. all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with “resisting arrest,” “assault on a police officer,” “disorderly conduct,” or “obstruction of official business;” f. all critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty; g. all complaints (and their dispositions); h. all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the Territory and its officers, or agents, resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel; i. all vehicle pursuits; j. all incidents involving the pointing of a firearm (if any such reporting is required); and k. all disciplinary action taken against officers.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 35

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 35 of 73

December 31, 2013, VIPD will begin to collect canine deployments and will enter this data into IAPro to be able to document bite ratios.
VIPD has requested from the VIAG civil and administrative claims (h) involving VIPD officers acting in their official capacities. VIPD will input data in the RMS received from VIDOJ by December 31, 2013.
All other categories of data listed in paragraph 60 are being collected and entered into the RMS. Input of historical data is ongoing. This requires allocation of sufficient staff to input this data.
By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.
By December 31, 2013 and quarterly thereafter, working group members will conduct review to ensure compliance with A through K and implement audit tools to ensure that staff are complying with the policies. This ensures periodic quality checks on data entered. This also ensure that lapses in

Canine deployments are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
Canine deployments resulting in a bite are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
RMS provides statistical analyses of canine bite ratio or the data necessary to compute such ratio.
Canisters of chemical spray issued to officers will be entered into RMS, including the date of issuance and date of expirations of the chemical spray, with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
In consultation with the Use of Force Working Group, the VIPD has developed a process to track the amount of OC spray used by officers.
Injuries to prisoners will be entered into RMS with a

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 36

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 36 of 73

policy implementation are addressed by a system of documented discipline and/or retraining.

reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
Instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with “resisting arrest,” “assault on a police officer,” “disorderly conduct,” or “obstruction of official business,” are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
Firearm discharges, whether on or off-duty, are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
Complaints are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
Dispositions of such complaints are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
Criminal proceedings initiated, civil or administrative claims filed,

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 37

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 37 of 73
and civil lawsuits served against the Territory, the VIPD, and its Officers resulting from VIPD operations will be entered in RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
Vehicle pursuits are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
Incidents involving the pointing of a firearm at a human being are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness
In instances in which the VIPD has taken disciplinary action against officers, this information is entered in RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 38 of 73

Paragraph 61 – The new risk management system will include, for the incidents included in the database, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (e.g., name, badge number, shift and supervisor) and civilian (e.g., race, ethnicity or national origin, if available).

Risk Management System Early Intervention Program (EIP) Policy, Data Input Plan, and Blue Team Protocol have been approved.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 38

Initial EIP and Blue Team training has been completed. Refresher training will be completed annually.

All officers have been assigned a PDN. Working group members will conduct quarterly review and report the results of their review by December 31, 2013, and quarterly thereafter to ensure officers are including appropriate identifying information in the risk management system, including utilizing PDN numbers, as required by Paragraph 61.
By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.
By December 31, 2013, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies and appropriate identifying information for each officer and civilian are included in the database. This ensures periodic quality checks on data entered. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

VIPD has established a uniform method of identifying sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees to ensure accurate identification and tracking of all employee conduct.
In incidents included in the database, the name and unique identifier for each involved officer has been entered with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
In incidents included in the database, the appropriate identifying information (e.g., name, ethnicity or national original), if available, for each involved civilian has been entered with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
In incidents included in the database, the shift and assignment for each on-duty supervisor has been entered

Head of Management and Supervision Committee

October 31, 2015

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 39 of 73

Paragraph 62 – Within 120 days of the implementation of the new risk management system, or later with the agreement of DOJ, the VIPD will prepare, for the review and approval of DOJ, a plan for including appropriate fields and values of new and historical data into the risk management system (the “Data Input Plan”). The Data Input Plan will identify the data to be included and the means for inputting such data (direct entry or otherwise), the specific fields of information to be included, the past time periods for which information is to be included, the deadlines for inputting the data, and the responsibility for the input of the data. The Data Input Plan will include historical data that is up-to-date and complete in the risk management system. The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final review and approval within 30 days after it is presented for

Risk Management System Early Intervention Program (EIP) Policy, Data Input Plan, and Blue Team Protocol have been approved.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 39

Initial EIP and Blue Team training has been completed. Refresher training will be completed annually.

with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness. VIPD has received DOJ’s approval for its Data Input Plan.
The Data Input Plan contains the elements required in Paragraph 62.

Head of Management and Supervision Committee

October 31, 2015

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 40 of 73

approval. Paragraph 63 – The VIPD will, within 120 days, prepare for the review and approval of DOJ, and thereafter implement, a protocol for using the risk management system. The VIPD will submit for the review and approval of DOJ all proposed modifications to the protocol prior to implementing such modifications.

Risk Management System Early Intervention Program (EIP) Policy, Data Input Plan, and Blue Team Protocol have been approved.

Paragraph 64 – The protocol for using the risk management system will include the following provisions and elements: a. The protocol is comprised of the following components: data storage, data retrieval, reporting, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation and audit. b. The protocol will require the automated system to analyze the data according to the following criteria: i) number of incidents

Risk Management System Early Intervention Program (EIP) Policy, Data Input Plan, and Blue Team Protocol have been approved.

Initial EIP and Blue Team training has been completed. Refresher training will be completed annually.
Initial EIP and Blue Team training has been completed. Refresher training will be completed annually.

By October 31, 2013, in

VIIPD has received approval Head of

October 31,

consultation with DOJ, finalize

from DOJ, and implemented Management 2015

Audit Plan.

a protocol for using the

and

RMS.

Supervision

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. This ensures periodic quality checks on data entered. Also ensure that

The VIPD has audited the Committee RMS and confirmed that its use reflects the requirements of the protocol.

lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

VIPD submits to DOJ for review and approval all proposed modifications to

the protocol before

implementation.

The VIPD has received

October 31,

DOJ approval of a protocol

2015

with the components

identified in ¶64 of the

Head of

Consent Decree.

Management and

Supervision

Committee

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 40

for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; ii) average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and iii) identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit. c. The protocol will require the system to generate reports on a monthly basis describing the data and data analysis and identifying individual and unit patterns. d. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors will review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, system reports, and will evaluate individual officer, supervisor, and unit activity. e. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors initiate intervention for individual officers, supervisors and for units based on appropriate activity and pattern assessment of the information contained in the risk management system.
VIPD Consent Decree
Timeline Table/ Action Plan
October 1, 2013
Page 41

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 41 of 73

f. The protocol will require that intervention options include discussion by deputy chiefs, managers, supervisors, and officers; counseling; training; and supervised, monitored, and documented action plans and strategies designed to modify activity. All interventions will be documented in writing and entered into the automated system (appropriate intervention options will be employed based on the evaluation described in subsection (e) above). g. The protocol will specify that actions taken as a result of information from the risk management system be based on all relevant and appropriate information, including the nature of the officer’s assignment, crime trends and crime problems, and not solely on the number or percentages of incidents in any category of information recorded in the risk management system. h. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors. will promptly review the risk management
VIPD Consent Decree
Timeline Table/ Action Plan
October 1, 2013
Page 42

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 42 of 73

system records of all officers recently transferred to their sections and units. i. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors be evaluated on their ability to use the risk management system to enhance effectiveness and reduce risk. j. The protocol will require that the system be managed and administered by the Internal Affairs Unit of the VIPD. The IAU of the VIPD will conduct quarterly audits of the system to ensure action is taken according to the process described above. k. The protocol will require regular reviews, at no less than quarterly intervals, by appropriate managers of all relevant risk management system information to evaluate officer performance territory-wide, and to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all VIPD units in order to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents.
VIPD Consent Decree
Timeline Table/ Action Plan
October 1, 2013
Page 43

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 43 of 73

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 44 of 73

Paragraph 65 – The VIPD will maintain all personally identifiable information about an officer included in the risk management system during the officer’s employment with the VIPD for at least five years. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis will be maintained indefinitely in the risk management system. On an ongoing basis, the VIPD will enter information into the risk management system in a timely, accurate, and complete manner, and maintain the data in a secure and confidential manner.

Risk Management System Early Intervention Program (EIP) Policy, Data Input Plan, and Blue Team Protocol have been approved.

Initial EIP and Blue Team Training has been completed. Refresher training will be completed annually.

By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.
Conduct weekly inspections to ensure that all Blue Team programs are installed on all Zone Command computers and are also fully functioning.

The information required by ¶ 65 is entered and appropriately maintained with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

Head of Management and Supervision Committee

Complete the test of a beta version of RMS as described in ¶ 64(d).

By December 31, 2013, implement quarterly audits to ensure that information is timely and accurately entered in the RMS and that staff are complying with the policies. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.
Working group members will be scheduling times to observe roll calls and to ensure that these matters are discussed via roll calls and commanders’ calls.

Provide DOJ and the monitors with the opportunity to participate in the beta version testing.
Resolve all server issues that impeded RMS from being fully operational and implemented.
Install all hardware related to RMS and ensure that it is fully functional.
Ensure that Blue Team is operational at all required locations.

Input of historical data is ongoing and requires adequate numbers of staff for data entry.

Supervisors and managers have received initial training on RMS.

October 31, 2015

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 44

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 45 of 73

Paragraph 66 - The new risk management system will be purchased off the shelf and customized by VIPD. Alternatively, the new risk management system may be developed and implemented according to the following schedule: a. Within 150 days of the effective date of this Agreement, subject to the review and approval of DOJ, the VIPD will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP). b. Within 270 days of the issuance of the RFP, or later with the agreement of DOJ, the VIPD will select the contractor to create the risk management system. c. Within 150 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the VIPD will submit the protocol for using the risk management system to DOJ for review and approval. The VIPD will share drafts of this document with DOJ and the Monitor (a position described in Section VII) to allow DOJ and the Monitor to become familiar with the document as it develops

Risk Management System Early Intervention Program (EIP) Policy, Data Input Plan, and Blue Team Protocol have been approved.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 45

Initial training for Blue Team, PDN usage, and RMS has been completed. Refresher training for Blue Team and RMS will be completed annually.

a-c has been completed.
d. By December 31, 2013 complete review to determine compliance with d and e.
Ensure sufficient staff to enter current and historical data into IAPro.

Complete the test of a beta version of RMS as described in ¶ 64(d).
Provide DOJ and the monitors with the opportunity to participate in the beta version testing.

Head of Management and Supervision Committee

October 31, 2015

and to provide informal comments on it. The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final approval within 30 days after it is presented for review and approval. d. Within 14 months of selecting the contractor, the VIPD will have ready for testing a beta version of the risk management system consisting of: i) server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the VIPD’s existing automated systems; ii) necessary data base software installed and configured; iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and iv) the use of force information system completed, including historic data. DOJ and the Monitor will have the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version using use of force data and test data created specifically for purposes of checking the risk management system. e. The risk management system computer program and computer hardware will be
VIPD Consent Decree
Timeline Table/ Action Plan
October 1, 2013
Page 46

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 46 of 73

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 47 of 73

operational and fully implemented within 20 months of the selection of the risk management system contractor. Paragraph 67 – Prior to implementation of the new risk management system, the VIPD will continue to use existing databases and resources to the fullest extent possible, to identify patterns of conduct by VIPD officers or groups of officers. Paragraph 68 – Following the initial implementation of the risk management system, and as experience and the availability of new technology may warrant, the VIPD may propose to add, subtract, or modify data tables and fields, modify the list of documents scanned or electronically attached, and add, subtract, or modify standardized reports and queries. The VIPD will submit all such proposals for review and approval by DOJ before implementation.
Oversight

Risk Management System Early Intervention Program (EIP) Policy, Data Input Plan, and Blue Team Protocol.
Risk Management System Early Intervention Program has been approved.

Initial EIP and Blue Team training has been completed. Refresher training will be completed annually.
To be determined as the need arises.

N/A
To be determined as the need arises.

N/A

Head of

October 31,

Management and 2015

Supervision

Committee

VIPD receives approval from DOJ for all modifications to RMS prior to implementation.

Head of Management and Supervision Committee

October 31, 2015

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 47

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 48 of 73

Paragraph 69 – The VIPD will develop a protocol for conducting audits. The protocol will be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol will establish a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all VIPD zones.

Audit Policy has been approved. Awaiting signature of Commissioner, as of September 26, 2013.

All initial audit-related training will be completed by October 31, 2013.

By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan
By October 31, 2013, complete all audit-related training. Thereafter, conduct refresher training as necessary.
Audit report6 due December 31, 2013 and quarterly thereafter.
By December 31, 2013 VIPD will implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with all policies and conduct use of force review on a quarterly basis. This includes periodic quality checks on data entered.
By December 31, 2013, ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.
By December 31, 2013, conduct audits to ensure compliance with the requirements for paragraph 64, regarding the RMS protocol.
By December 31, 2013, VIPD will

The VIPD has developed an audit protocol that includes a regular and fixed schedule for conducting audits to ensure that they occur sufficiently, frequently and cover all VIPD zones.
The VIPD creates an audit capacity and identifies staff to carry out the protocol.
Officers or supervisors charged with conducting audits have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial inservice training on the audit protocol and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if the officers or supervisors charged with conducting audits have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the officers or supervisors have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency

Head of Management and Supervision Committee

October 31, 2015

6 An audit report is a comprehensive report of the results of VIPD’s audit.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 48

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 49

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 49 of 73

begin to conduct quarterly reviews to ensure that historical data required by the Data Input Plan is being entered into the RMS.
Quarterly review of closed IAU files to ensure compliance with investigation requirements.

test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or
Where officers or supervisors have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the officers or supervisors.

In instances when an audit is conducted, each officer or supervisor charged with conducting the audit uses the protocol with a reasonable level of accuracy, completeness and timeliness.
After conducting an audit, VIPD analyzes the results, identifies corrective or other action necessary as a result of the findings of the audit, and implements such action.
The historical data required by the Data Input Plan is up-to-date with a reasonable

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 50 of 73

Discipline Paragraph 70 - The VIPD will develop a disciplinary matrix to take into account an officer’s violations of different rules, rather than just repeated violations of the same rule. The

Disciplinary Policy and Matrix has been approved.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 50

level of accuracy and completeness.
IAU conducts audits of the RMS Protocol on a quarterly basis with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
The Police Commissioner’s Office, with IAU assistance, has convened, at least quarterly, a meeting of senior managers, and all other personnel the Commissioner deems necessary, to review all RMS data to evaluate officer performance territory-wide and make appropriate comparisons regarding performance of all VIPD Units to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents.

Obtained DOJ approval of a disciplinary matrix that: (a) accounts for an officer’s violations of different rules, rather than just repeated violations of the same rule;

Head of Management and Supervision Committee

October 31, 2015

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 51 of 73

VIPD will further revise this matrix to increase the penalties for uses of excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, or dishonesty, to reflect the seriousness of those infractions. The revised disciplinary matrix will provide the VIPD with the discretion to impose any appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes the officer’s misconduct exhibits a lack of fitness for duty. This revised matrix will be subject to the review and approval of DOJ.

(b) is revised to increase the penalties for uses of excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, or dishonesty, to reflect the seriousness of those infractions; and, (c) provides the VIPD with the discretion to impose any appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes the officer’s misconduct exhibits a lack of fitness for duty.
Adopted a disciplinary policy that guides the use of the disciplinary matrix.

Paragraph 71 - VIPD policy will identify clear time periods by which the various steps of a complaint adjudication process should be completed, from complaint receipt to the imposition of discipline, if any. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions will not be granted without the Police Commissioner’s written approval and notice to the complainant. In the limited
VIPD Consent Decree
Timeline Table/ Action Plan
October 1, 2013
Page 51

Disciplinary Policy and Matrix has been approved. Awaiting signature of Commissioner, as of September 26, 2013.

Initial training on Disciplinary policy and matrix will be completed by December 31, 2013.

Competency-based training of all T VIPD has developed a

staff by December 31, 2013 and

policy that establishes clear

ongoing documented refresher

time periods by which the

training through in-services and roll various steps of a complaint

call/commanders call.

adjudication process should

be completed, from

By December 31, 2013, implement complaint receipt to the

quarterly audits to ensure staff are imposition of discipline, if

complying with the policies,

any.

including (but not limited to) review for inclusion of written Police Commissioner extension approval in investigatory files. Also ensure

These established time periods are not violated except for in exigent circumstances and with the

Head of Management and Supervision Committee

October 31, 2015

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 52 of 73

circumstances when an extension is necessary, appropriate tolling provisions will be outlined in the policy.

that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or retraining.

Police Commissioner’s written approval for tolling and notice to the complainant.

Paragraph 72 - Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD will not take only nondisciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix indicates the imposition of discipline. The VIPD will not fail to consider whether nondisciplinary corrective action is required in a case because discipline has been imposed on the officer.

Disciplinary Policy and Matrix has been approved. Awaiting signature of Commissioner, as of September 26, 2013.

Initial training on Disciplinary policy and matrix will be completed by December 31, 2013.

Competency-based training of all staff by December 31, 2013 and ongoing documented refresher training through in-services and roll call/commanders call.

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

In cases where the matrix calls for discipline, discipline is imposed.
In cases where discipline is imposed, there is evidence that the VIPD has also considered non-disciplinary corrective action.

Head of Management and Supervision Committee

October 31, 2015

TRAINING

Management

Oversight

Paragraph 73 – The VIPD will

continue to coordinate and

review all use of force policy

N/A

and training to ensure quality,

consistency, and compliance

with applicable law and VIPD

policy. The VIPD will conduct

regular subsequent reviews, at

least semi-annually.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 52

All lesson plans for the in-service VIPD has coordinated and Training Director October

training have been completed and reviewed all use of force

31, 2015

N/A

were forwarded to the VIAG and policies at least annually

approved by the Director of

and the Training Division

Training.

has reviewed, at least semi-

annually, all training to

On an ongoing basis, continue to ensure quality, consistency,

consult with counsel to ensure

and compliance with

compliance with Territorial law.

applicable law and VIPD

policy.

Training on Audit Policy completed

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 53 of 73

Paragraph 74 – The Director of Training, either directly or through his/her designee(s), consistent with applicable law and VIPD policy will: a. ensure the quality of all use of force training; b. develop and implement use of force training curricula; c. select and train VIPD officer trainers; d. develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service training; e. in conjunction with the Chiefs, develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol

See paragraph 31 above.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 53

All Use of Force Trainings are evaluated at the end of each training session by the officers filling out an evaluation sheet. Those sheets are then to be reviewed by the Director and/or Designee.
All evaluation sheets are filed away in a binder after the training Director and\or Designee review the sheet.

by October 31, 2013.
Training on Disciplinary Matrix and Protocol completed by December 31, 2013.
Conduct yearly in-service training.
After each training, identify individuals who did not attend training and forward information to Chief’s Office. Chief’s Office will investigate reason for no show and, where necessary impose disciplinary action and/or reschedule training. VIPD in consultation with VIAG shall ensure through review of lesson plans and instructional material that proper police practices are taught.
In-Service Training was completed in 2013. In service training will be completed by December 31, 2014.
In-service training will be conducted annually. VIPD shall periodically test for proficiency on the policies.
By January 31, 2014, improve the tracking system to track training

The Director of Training provides written approval for all changes to previously approved use of force training and provides a semi-annual report regarding any such changes and required legal approvals.
The Director of Training and/or his/her staff reviews and approves all use of force training The Director of Training and/or his/her staff obtains legal review of all use of force training curricula. The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed and implemented use of force training curricula (including lesson plans). The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have

Training Director

October 31, 2015

division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures; f. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and g. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 54 of 73

All class evaluations are presently being reviewed by the Training Director or his Designee and placed in a binder at the Training Bureau in both districts
Instructors were selected and VIPD has trained supervisors and officers in the areas of: - The Use of Force
Policy - Response to
Resistance Report - The Citizens’
Complaint Process - OC spray - Impact weapon - Arrest policy - Firearms policy - Off duty policy - EIP - Vehicle Pursuit
Policy - Spike Strip Policy - Tactical
Operations Policy - Sniper Operation
Policy - Reporting,

attendance.
After each training, identify individuals who did not attend training and forward information Chief’s Office. Chief’s Office will investigate reason for no show and, where necessary, impose disciplinary action and/or reschedule training.
Training will continue to incorporate competency-based training of officers and supervisors on remaining policies.
By January 31, 2014, improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies
Continue refresher training on policies through documented, periodic in-service and roll call training.
Continue to incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy.
Yearly review of policies to determine training needs.
By October 31, 2013, in

developed a process to continually select and evaluate VIPD officer trainers.
The training staff has received appropriate training and certification in the subject matter(s) that they are assigned to teach.
The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have reviewed and provided written approval of all curricula, course schedules and lesson plans.
The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have created and maintained a training record system that captures attendance records, instructor and student evaluations, and test results.
The Training Director and/or his/her staff, in conjunction with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs, have created a process for the development, implementation and approval of all Roll Call

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 55

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 55 of 73

Investigating and Review of Use of Force
The Chief’s Office will continue to maintain a Roll Call Binder in the St. Croix District and the same in the St. Thomas District. A copy of all roll call trainings in the zones and bureaus are kept in that binder in the Chief’s Office.

consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.
By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to review and analyze use of force incident reports to identify trends, training deficiencies, staff compliance/lack of compliance with policies, and additional needs.

At the end of each class participants are required to complete evaluation form.

The Training Bureau will continue to use a comprehensive bank of questions to evaluate the effectiveness of training.

training curricula.
The Training Director and/or his/her staff, in conjunction with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs, have developed, implemented and approved all Roll Call training curricula.
The Training Director and/or his/her staff have maintained written documentation of this process.
For the conducted Consent Decree related training sessions, evaluation review forms were collected from class participants. The Director of Training and his/her staff will review these evaluation forms.
The Director of Training and/or his/her staff semiannually will review use of force incidents to identify patterns and trends that will influence training needs. The chiefs or deputy chiefs and the Director of IAU must take part in the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 56 of 73
review.
The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed, reviewed and implemented all use of force training curricula (including lesson plans).

Paragraph 75 – The VIPD will continue to provide training consistent with VIPD policy, law, and proper police practices, and will ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by instructors. The VIPD will make best efforts to train each work shift as a team in their use of force training.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 56

N/A

VIPD in consultation On an ongoing basis, continue to The VIPD has delivered

Training Director October 31,

with VIAG shall ensure consult with counsel and/or VIAG training that is consistent

2015

through lesson plans to ensure compliance with

with the content of

and instructional

Territorial law.

approved lesson plans.

material. that proper police practices are taught.
All Lesson Plans for the in-service training have been completed and were forwarded to the VIAG and

By January 31, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies. Conduct annual competency-based training of officers and supervisors on policies. Continue to incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy.

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff has developed a plan to provide, to the extent possible, training for each work shift as a team on use of force and implements that plan.

approved by the

Sworn personnel have

Director of Training. Competency-based training of all either: (a) attended and

staff by December 31, 2013. Also successfully completed the

Roll call training is

continue competency-based training initial in-service training

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 57

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 57 of 73

currently being done and documented in all zones.
Initial training on Disciplinary policy and matrix will be completed by December 31, 2013.

of all investigators.
Conduct refresher training on policies, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call training.
Continue to incorporate competency-based training on policies into the Police Academy.
Yearly review of policies to determine training needs.
By December 31, 2013, where warranted, provide and document remedial training for personnel who have been identified as personnel who continually fail to report uses of force.

each policy/protocol and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or
Where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel.
Sworn personnel displayed knowledge and proficiency in the requirements each policy, as evidenced by compliance with the policy/protocol requirements.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 58 of 73

Paragraph 76 – The VIPD shall

N/A

continue to keep adequate

records of lesson plans and

other training materials, such

that the most current training

documents are maintained in a

central, commonly accessible

file, and are clearly dated.

Paragraph 77 – The VIPD shall N/A continue to maintain training records regarding every VIPD officer that reliably indicate the training each officer has
VIPD Consent Decree
Timeline Table/ Action Plan
October 1, 2013
Page 58

All files are labeled in both districts and placed in alphabetical order.
Files can also be accessed by dates in the data base.
Training files are updated on a continuous basis.

By January 31, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies.
Provide Monitors’ subject matter experts with training curricula and schedules at least 15 days in advance of training, but preferably 30 days in advance.

All trainings that are being conducted by VIPD are being documented by a sign in sheet and maintained

By January 31, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies. Training files are updated on a continuous basis as offices are

All training must comport with the requirements of the Consent Decree and be taught from curricula/lesson plans that identify training objectives; (b) incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises); and (d) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal counsel, as appropriate.

The VIPD has established a central, commonly accessible repository for lesson plans and training materials.

Training Director

Training materials are clearly dated.

Training records are maintained in a central, commonly accessible repository.

Lesson plans contain all of the required signatures of review and approval.

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff has maintained current and substantially complete training records for VIPD

Training Director

October 31, 2015
October 31, 2015

received. The training records shall, at a minimum, include the course description and duration, curriculum, and instructor for each officer.
Paragraph 78 – The Training Director, in consultation with the Attorney General’s Office, will review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure compliance with applicable laws and VIPD policy.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 59

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 59 of 73

in data base. Copy of certificate issued is placed in each officer’s file.

trained.

Officers.

The training academy has a copy of all lesson plans and certification in each instructor’s folder.

Files can also be accessed by dates in the Data Base.

All use of force policies and lesson plans have been reviewed approved by VIAG and approved by the Training Director.

On an ongoing basis, VIPD will continue to consult with VI AG to ensure that all use of force training and use of force policies are in compliance with applicable laws and VIPD policy.

The Training Director and/or his/her staff, in consultation with the Attorney General’s Office, has reviewed all forcerelated policies and training curricula/lessons plans regularly (i.e., at least semiannually) to ensure compliance with applicable laws and VIPD policy and there is documentation of this review.
Force-related training curricula/lesson plans adequately incorporate critical thinking, decision-

Training Director

October 31, 2015

Paragraph 79 – The VIPD will continue to provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on use of force. Such training will include and address the following topics: a. the VIPD’s use of force model, as described in this Agreement; b. proper use of force decisionmaking;
VIPD Consent Decree
Timeline Table/ Action Plan
October 1, 2013
Page 60

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 60 of 73

The Training Bureau has purchased a new state of the art training simulator from Ti Training Corp. This training tool will assist the officers in critical decision making scenarios.
The training simulator will be used for

making instruction, applicable law(s) and VIPD policy.
The VIPD follows a process by which the Attorney General’s Office reviews any additions, changes, and/or modifications regarding use of force training or policies to ensure compliance with any applicable laws.

Force-related policies and training curricula/lesson plans have received at least annual review by the Attorney General’s Office and those reviews are documented in writing. At least annually, the Training Director and/or his/her staff develop a training schedule and curricula for all use of force related policies that incorporates and addresses all of the components identified in ¶ 79(a)-(i).
At least annually, the Training Director and/or his/her staff implement that

Training Director

October 31, 2015

c. the VIPD’s use of force reporting requirements; d. the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements; e. examples of scenarios faced by VIPD officers that illustrate proper use of force decisionmaking; f. interactive exercises that emphasize proper use of force decision-making; g. de-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without using force, and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation even when the use of force would be legally justified; h. threat assessment; i. appropriate training on conflict management.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 61

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 61 of 73

training.
Training will continue to teach officer survival scenarios in the areas of Defensive Spray, Expandable Baton and Defensive Tactics. These types of training will check the judgments and performances of each officer.
In-Service Training that covers the 4th Amendments applications and other Constitutional Rights have been conducted.
Scenarios are being used as a training tool.
Instructors have been trained in the utilization of the training simulator.
De-escalation techniques are being used as training tools.

training schedule and curricula for all use of force related policies based on ¶ 79(a)-(i).
Sworn personnel have (a) attended and successfully completed the initial inservice training for each new or revised use of force policy that includes and addresses the issues in paragraph 79(a)-(i) and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel in each of the categories of recruits, officers, supervisors and managers have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and

Paragraph 80 – The VIPD will continue to provide training to all its officers on the VIPD citizen complaint process. The VIPD will develop a protocol for all its officers on appropriate conduct and responses in handling citizens’ complaints and will train officers in the protocol.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 62

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 62 of 73

Training in all areas current and ongoing. VIPD will conduct inservice training annually
Numerous trainings dealing with the citizen complaint process have been conducted.

passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel. Where train-thetrainer or specific force tool certifications are required, recruits, officers, supervisors and managers have those certifications.

VIPD will continue to utilize competency-based training of officers and supervisors.
By January 31, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies.

The VIPD has developed policies or protocols related to the citizen complaint process, which address appropriate conduct and response in handling citizen complaints.

Training Director

Conduct refresher training on policies, through ongoing documented, periodic in-service and roll call training.
Yearly review of policies to determine training needs

Sworn personnel have (a) attended and successfully completed the initial inservice training for each new or revised complaint process related policy and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency

October 31, 2015

Paragraph 81 – The VIPD will provide training on appropriate burdens of proof to all supervisors, as well as the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility (to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform, and legally appropriate). The VIPD will also continue to provide training to supervisors on leadership and command accountability, including
VIPD Consent Decree
Timeline Table/ Action Plan
October 1, 2013
Page 63

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 63 of 73

Supervisors have been trained on the preponderance of evidence standard.
By December 31, 2013, conduct annual refresher training on preponderance of the evidence standard.

Competency-based training of supervisors on policy will continue. By January 31, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies.
Conduct refresher training on policies through documented, periodic in-service and roll call training.

Yearly review of policies to determine training needs.

test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel.
Supervisors have (a) attended and successfully completed the initial inservice annual training incorporating the requirements of ¶¶ 78-81 and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if VIPD supervisors have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn supervisor has entered and successfully

Training Director

October 31, 2015

techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training will be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities, and will be made part of annual inservice training.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 64

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 64 of 73
completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or
Where supervisors have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the supervisors.
Newly promoted supervisors have attended and successfully completed the initial training within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibility incorporating the requirements of ¶¶ 78-81 and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if newly promoted supervisors have not successfully completed the required training within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibility and passed the proficiency test(s), the

Paragraph 100 - The Territory of the Virgin Islands and the VIPD shall implement each and every provision of this Agreement as that term is defined in Paragraph 30 of this Agreement.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 65

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 65 of 73

newly promoted supervisor has entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or
Where newly promoted supervisors have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the newly promoted supervisor.
1. Use of Force policies (paragraph 31):
For subsection a: Definitions of all force terms are consistent with the Consent Decree, applicable law, and generally accepted police practices.

See above for person/group/unit responsible for each substantive paragraph

For subsection b: Definition of “force” comports with ¶ 21 of the

October 31, 2015

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 66

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 66 of 73
Consent Decree.
For subsection c: In use of force incidents, there is documented evidence that, as appropriate, Officers disengaged, contained the area, conducted surveillance, waited out the subject, and/or called in specialized units.
For subsection d: In use of force incidents, there is documented evidence that, when feasible, an individual was advised that he/she is allowed to submit to arrest before force is used.
For subsection e: See ¶ 31.
For subsection f: In use of force incidents, the use of force review concludes that sufficient less lethal alternatives were used where appropriate based on the totality of circumstances. Patrol and other applicable officers carry less lethal alternatives at all times

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 67

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 67 of 73
while on duty.
For subsection g: In use of force incidents, choke holds and similar carotid holds were not used, except where deadly force was authorized. In use of force incidents where the use of force review concluded that use of choke holds or similar carotid holds were not authorized, VIPD took corrective and/or disciplinary action against the officer who used the choke hold or other carotid hold.
VIPD immediately implements any policy revisions, once approved.
1, 2. Firearms policy (paragraph 39): Sworn personnel do not possess or use unauthorized firearms or ammunition.
In cases where an officer is found to be in possession of unauthorized firearms or

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 68

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 68 of 73
ammunition, there is evidence that an investigation was conducted and appropriate corrective action was taken which includes bringing the officer’s conduct into compliance with the VIPD firearms policy.
Firearm discharges are documented on an RRR.
Service ammunition obtained and used by officers is obtained through official VIPD channels.
3. Off-duty policy (Paragraph 40): In reported incidents involving off-duty officers taking police action, the off-duty officer’s conduct comports with policies regarding off-duty officers taking police action and ¶¶ 31(a)-(g) of the Consent Decree.
Off-duty officers notified on-duty sworn personnel or local enforcement officers before taking police actions, except in exigent circumstances.

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 69

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 69 of 73
In incidents where an offduty officer taking police action appeared to have consumed alcohol, the offduty officer submitted to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.
Completed investigations into complaints of misconduct are in compliance with the provisions of the Consent Decree.
4. Investigations (Paragraph 47): In reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he /she was not involved in the use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize conduct leading to the use of force incident).
. 5. Investigative findings (Paragraph 52): Use of force investigations include documented findings of all

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 70

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 70 of 73
of the considerations required by ¶ 52.
6. Allegations of criminal misconduct (Paragraph 53): In investigations involving criminal investigations that are referred to the Attorney General’s Office or other appropriate agency, the VIPD has documentation that it has completed, to the extent possible, its own administrative investigation.
7. Elements of RMS Protocol (Paragraph 64): The VIPD has implemented a protocol for using the RMS that includes the components identified in ¶ 64(a) of the Consent Decree.
The VIPD has implemented a protocol that includes an automated system to analyze the data according to the criteria identified in ¶ 64(b) of the Consent Decree.
Reports are generated and

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 71

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 71 of 73
distributed to appropriate sworn personnel (e.g., Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, and supervisors) on a monthly basis.
Reviews conducted by the Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors comport with the RMS protocol.
Deputy Chiefs, managers and supervisors have initiated intervention in instances based on activity and pattern assessment contained in the RMS. The chief or designee will also have overall responsibility for ensuring that interventions are initiated as appropriate.
Interventions, as exemplified in paragraph 64 of the Consent Decree, comport with the RMS protocol
Interventions are based on all relevant and appropriate information, including the nature of the officer’s assignment, crime trends and crime problems, and

VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 72

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 72 of 73
not solely on the number or percentages of incidents in any category of information recorded in the risk management system.
In instances when officers are transferred to a new section or unit, Deputy Chiefs, managers and supervisors for the relevant section or unit have promptly reviewed the RMS records of such officers.
The VIPD has established a protocol for evaluating whether deputy chiefs, managers and supervisors are able to use the RMS system to enhance effectiveness and risk.
This evaluation protocol is followed with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
The RMS is managed and administered by IAU.
8. Disciplinary matrix (paragraph 70): Disciplinary penalty

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-2 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 73 of 73 decisions are consistent with the penalties set forth in the matrix.
VIPD Consent Decree Timeline Table/ Action Plan October 1, 2013 Page 73

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 75-3 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
1. THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS; and
2. THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.

)

)

C.A. No. 3:08-CV-158

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Amend the Consent Decree

Action Plan entered in this matter. The Court, having considered the arguments and

representations set forth in the parties’ Motion, hereby:

ORDERS that the revised Action Plan appended hereto and incorporated herein

by reference is ADOPTED, and that the parties shall comply with its terms; and further

ORDERS that the Action Plan, appended hereto and incorporated by reference

herein, shall be made part of the Consent Decree.

_________________________________ CURTIS V. GÓMEZ District Judge

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 76 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
1. THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS; and
2. THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.

)

)

C.A. No. 3:08-CV-158

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

PARTIES’ JOINT MOTION, AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION, TO TERMINATE OCTOBER 9, 2013 EVIDENTIARY HEARING Plaintiff, the United States of America, and Defendants, the Territory of the Virgin
Islands and the Virgin Islands Police Department (“VIPD”) (collectively, “the parties”) jointly move the Court to terminate the currently scheduled October 9, 2013 evidentiary hearing, in light of the parties’ successful renegotiation and filing of a revised Consent Decree Action Plan (“Action Plan”) for the Court’s consideration and approval. If approved, the revised Action Plan will render the subject of the October 9, 2013 hearing moot. In support of this motion, the parties represent as follows:

1. On June 28, 2013, Defendants filed a motion for an extension of time to comply with their obligations to develop and implement certain processes and procedures regarding audits, as required by the Court-ordered Action Plan in the above-captioned matter (Dkt. # 69). Specifically, Defendants requested that the Court extend their time for compliance with these requirements from June 30, 2013 to October 31, 2013. Id.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 76 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 2 of 5
2. On July 2, 2013, the United States responded to Defendants’ motion, indicating that it did not necessarily oppose the extension (Dkt. # 70). The United States requested, however, that prior to ruling on the motion, the Court require Defendants to provide a detailed explanation of the following: (1) How Defendants plan to comply with the relevant requirements for which they are seeking an extension, including, but not limited to explaining when and how they plan to engage the United States for the required consultation on the relevant provisions; (2) Why Defendants believe October 31, 2013 is an appropriate deadline for each of the eight provisions for which they seek an extension; and (3) How the proposed extension will affect Defendants’ ability to comply with the Consent Decree’s final substantial compliance deadline of October 31, 2013. Id.
3. On September 7, 2013, the Court ordered an evidentiary hearing on VIPD’s June 28, 2013 motion, to be held at 9:30am on September 18, 2013 (Dkt. # 72).
4. In the meantime, in August 2013, Defendants approached the United States, indicating that they would be unable to meet the Consent Decree’s final substantial compliance deadline of October 31, 2013, and requesting an extension. Since then, the parties have spent countless hours working together collaboratively and successfully, with significant input from the independent monitors, to negotiate modifications to the Action Plan. Today, in addition to this motion, the parties are filing with the Court a motion to approve and adopt the revised Action Plan and make it part of the Consent Decree.
5. As detailed in the parties’ motion for approval of the revised Action Plan, among other things, that document extends deadlines for currently unmet Action Plan requirements, including the audit-related requirements that are the subject of Defendants’ June 28, 2013
2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 76 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 3 of 5
motion and the scheduled October 9, 2013 hearing. 6. The parties’ agreed-upon changes to the Action Plan address the concerns set forth in the
United States’ response to the Defendants’ June 28, 2013 motion. In particular, the changes provide extensions as appropriate and articulate a common understanding of how Defendants will meet the audit-related requirements of the Consent Decree. Thus, subject to the Court’s approval of the revised Action Plan, the revisions to the plan render the subject of the October 9, 2013 hearing moot. 7. Accordingly, in the interests of judicial economy and efficiency, and to conserve the time and resources of the Court, parties, and monitors, the parties respectfully request that the Court terminate the October 9, 2013 hearing on Defendants’ June 28, 2013 motion for extension of time to comply with the audit requirements of the November 2, 2012 Consent Decree Action Plan.1 Wherefore the parties respectively request that the Court sign the attached Order.

1

Because of the parties’ high level of cooperation and agreement on the revised Action Plan, the parties

hope that the Court is able to approve that document based on the parties’ joint motion for approval. Should the

Court wish to hear from the parties and monitors regarding the revisions to the Action Plan and/or the status of

Defendants’ compliance with the Consent Decree, the parties and monitors would be glad to appear for a future

status hearing at the Court’s convenience.

3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 76 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 4 of 5

Dated: October 1, 2013

Respectfully submitted,
FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
VINCENT F. FRAZER Attorney General
____/s/ Carol Thomas-Jacobs_______ CAROL THOMAS JACOBS Assistant Attorney General V.I. Department of Justice 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade G.E.R.S. Complex, 2nd Floor St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802
FOR THE UNITED STATES:
JONATHAN M. SMITH Chief Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division
LAURA L. COON Special Counsel
__/s/ Marina Mazor_____________ MARINA MAZOR Senior Trial Attorney Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-6255 (telephone) (202) 514-0212 (facsimile)

4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 76 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 5 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the Parties’ Joint Motion to Terminate October 9, 2013 Evidentiary Hearing in United States v. Territory of the Virgin Islands, 3:08-CV-158, was filed electronically on October 1, 2013, using the CM/ECF system, which will send electronic notification to the following:
Marina Mazor Senior Trial Attorney Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 marina.mazor@usdoj.gov
____/s/ Carol Thomas-Jacobs_______ CAROL THOMAS JACOBS Assistant Attorney General V.I. Department of Justice
5

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 76-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
1. THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS; and
2. THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.

)

)

C.A. No. 3:08-CV-158

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time to Comply

With Audit Requirements in the Action Plan, along with the United States’ response. An

evidentiary hearing regarding Defendants’ motion currently is scheduled for October 9,

2013 at 9:30am. The parties have jointly requested that the Court terminate the hearing

in light of their successful renegotiation of the Consent Decree Action Plan.

In conjunction with their motion to terminate the October 9, 2013 hearing, the

parties filed an amended version of the Action Plan. Among other things, that document

extends Defendants’ time to comply with the audit-related requirements that are the

subject of the October 9, 2013 hearing, and addresses the issues the United States raised

in response to Defendants’ motion. Accordingly, the amended Action Plan renders the

October 9, 2013 hearing moot.

In the interest of judicial economy and efficiency and to conserve the time and

resources, of the Court, parties, and monitors, the parties’ motion is GRANTED; and it is

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 76-1 Filed: 10/01/13 Page 2 of 2 further ORDERED that the evidentiary hearing scheduled for October 9, 2013 is hereby TERMINATED. DATED this ________ day of _______________, 2013
______________________________ HONORABLE CURTIS V. GOMEZ District Judge
2

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 97 Filed: 05/22/14 Page 1 of 6

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN

)

ISLANDS, and VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE )

DEPARTMENT,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Civil No. 2008-158

ATTORNEYS:

Marina Mazor, Esq. United States Department of Justice Washington, D.C.
For the plaintiff,

Vincent F. Frazer, Attorney General Carol Thomas-Jacobs, AAG Virgin Islands Department of Justice St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
For the defendants.
AMENDED ORDER1

GÓMEZ, J.

Before the Court is the joint motion of the United States

and the Territory of the Virgin Islands and Virgin Islands

Police Department (collectively the “Virgin Islands”) to amend

the consent decree in this matter.

The Consent Decree sets forth various reforms designed to

remedy the systemic excessive use of force by the Virgin Islands

1 This order amends the order entered by the Court on April 30, 2014. This order makes minor adjustments to the reporting and evidentiary paragraphs outlined in the April 30, 2014, order. The substance has not been changed.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 97 Filed: 05/22/14 Page 2 of 6
United States v. Territory of the Virgin Islands, et al. Civil No. 2008-158 Order Page 2
Police Department. Specifically, the Virgin Islands was required to implement certain reforms regarding citizen complaints, training, use of force, and auditing within a certain time frame. The Consent Decree in this matter was first entered into on March 24, 2009. It has since been amended five times, by the Court’s count. Each amendment was in response to a motion by one or both parties as a result of the Virgin Islands being unable to comply with the deadlines for substantial compliance with some or all sections of the Consent Decree that called for improvement. Each time, the Virgin Islands and the United States indicated to the Court that changes in leadership in the Virgin Islands Police Department had resulted in renewed commitment to the consent decree.
In a part of the Consent Decree labeled the “Action Plan,” the Consent Decree set October 31, 2013, as the deadline by which the Virgin Islands was to achieve substantial compliance with all sections of the Consent Decree. That date has long since passed. The Virgin Islands is not in substantial compliance with several sections of the Consent Decree. The Virgin Islands moved to amend the consent decree on October 1, 2013. In a hearing on November 18, 2013, both parties informed the Court that the proposed deadlines were reasonable. Remarkably, before the Court could rule on the motion, the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 97 Filed: 05/22/14 Page 3 of 6
United States v. Territory of the Virgin Islands, et al. Civil No. 2008-158 Order Page 3
Virgin Islands failed to meet the deadlines that it had proposed in the October 1, 2013, motion. Thereafter, the parties supplemented their October 1, 2013, motion to amend. The supplemental motion shifted the dates in the Action Plan to even further in the future.
The Court held another hearing on this matter on February 25, 2014. At that hearing, the parties presented evidence regarding efforts to comply with the Consent Decree. The parties also suggested amendment of the Consent Decree. Both the Virgin Islands and the United States argued that the newly proposed deadlines were achievable; that the Virgin Islands was closer to compliance than it had been previously; and that changes in leadership within the Virgin Islands Police Department had resulted in a renewed commitment to compliance.
However, as the Court explained at the February 25, 2014, hearing, words and promises are not enough. Indeed, each time a new Commissioner of the Police Department came on board, the Court was reassured that the individual was strongly committed to the implementation of the Consent Decree and that this renewed commitment would push the Virgin Islands into compliance. However, if history is any indication, the leadership’s expressed desire to achieve compliance – not only for compliance’s sake, but in order to improve the Virgin

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 97 Filed: 05/22/14 Page 4 of 6
United States v. Territory of the Virgin Islands, et al. Civil No. 2008-158 Order Page 4
Islands Police Department so that it could effectively serve the community it is supposed to protect – will simply not, after six years and five amendments, be enough.
As such, the Court suggested that the parties target meaningful and achievable quarterly goals. In light of the Court’s suggestion, the parties agreed to submit quarterly proposed goals. Such proposed goals would be subject to approval by the Court. The parties consented to a hearing each quarter on the status of compliance with each respective quarter’s goals.
On March 7, 2014, the Virgin Islands filed a notice of their quarterly goals for the quarter ending on May 27, 2014. The Virgin Islands indicated that it would achieve substantial compliance in the areas of citizen complaint processes (paragraphs 42-58 of the Consent Decree) and training (paragraphs 73-81 of the Consent Decree).
The premises considered, it is hereby ORDERED that the Action Plan is stricken from the Consent Decree; it is further ORDERED that the parties’ February 25, 2014, agreement to submit to the Court proposed quarterly goals and to accomplish any goals accepted by the Court by each respective quarter’s end is ADOPTED; it is further

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 97 Filed: 05/22/14 Page 5 of 6
United States v. Territory of the Virgin Islands, et al. Civil No. 2008-158 Order Page 5
ORDERED that the Consent Decree is hereby AMENDED to
include the following provision:
On a quarterly basis, the Virgin Islands Police Department shall select at least two (2) subject areas (e.g. training and citizen complaint process) of the Consent Decree in which the Virgin Islands Police Department believes it can achieve substantial compliance. The subject areas chosen shall be designated as the Virgin Islands Police Department’s “quarterly goals.” Such goals must be reviewed and accepted by the Court. Upon the Court’s acceptance, the Virgin Islands shall be obligated to complete the quarterly goals by the end of the quarter.
The quarters shall end on the third Friday of May, August, November, and February of each calendar year. The proposed quarterly goals shall be submitted to the Court no later than ten (10) weeks before the end of the quarter in which those goals are to be accomplished.
No later than the fourth Monday of May, August, November, and February, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, each party shall file a report regarding progress made towards the achievement of the quarterly goals for the quarter that has ended.
An evidentiary hearing shall be held on the fourth Thursday of May, August, November, and February, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. At the hearing, the parties shall be prepared to present such testimony and evidence as are necessary to apprise the Court fully of the status of the Consent Decree.
The failure of the Virgin Islands to achieve quarterly goals accepted by the Court may result in a finding of contempt.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 97 Filed: 05/22/14 Page 6 of 6
United States v. Territory of the Virgin Islands, et al. Civil No. 2008-158 Order Page 6
It is further
ORDERED that the quarterly goals submitted by the Virgin
Islands to be completed by May 27, 2014, are accepted; it is
further
ORDERED that an evidentiary hearing in this matter is
SCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:00 a.m. on June 9, 2014.
S\ CURTIS V. GÓMEZ District Judge

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 165 Filed: 08/21/15 Page 1 of 4

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN

)

ISLANDS, and VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE )

DEPARTMENT,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Civil No. 2008-158

ATTORNEYS:

Je Yon Jung, Esq. Marina Mazor, Esq. Thomas Jackson Morse, Esq. Ronald Sharpe, United States Attorney Joycelyn Hewlett, AUSA United States Department of Justice Washington, D.C.
For the plaintiff,

Carol Thomas-Jacobs, AAG Virgin Islands Department of Justice St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
For the defendants.

ORDER

GÓMEZ, J.

Before the Court is the Consent Decree in this matter. The

Consent Decree currently in place requires submission of

quarterly monitor’s reports. The timing of those reports

currently makes it difficult for the Independent Monitoring Team

(the “monitor”) to include progress made at the end of each

quarter. The Court realizes that this may present some

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 165 Filed: 08/21/15 Page 2 of 4
United States v. Territory of the Virgin Islands, et al. Civil No. 2008-158 Order Page 2
difficulty for the parties at the hearings held to determine the
amount of progress made each quarter. The parties, in
consultation with the monitor, have moved this Court to amend
the Consent Decree in order to facilitate the preparation of a
more accurate and complete report at the end of each quarter.
The premises considered, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Consent Decree, as amended by this Court’s
May 22, 2014, order is hereby further AMENDED to include a new
Paragraph, to be numbered Paragraph 105, which shall read as
follows:
On a quarterly basis, the Virgin Islands Police Department shall select at least two (2) subject areas (e.g. training and citizen complaint process) of the Consent Decree in which the Virgin Islands Police Department believes it can achieve substantial compliance. The subject areas chosen shall be designated as the Virgin Islands Police Department’s “quarterly goals.” Such goals must be reviewed and accepted by the Court. Upon the Court’s acceptance, the Virgin Islands shall be obligated to complete the quarterly goals by the end of the quarter.
The quarters shall end on the first Friday of May, August, November, and February of each calendar year. The proposed quarterly goals shall be submitted to the Court no later than ten (10) weeks before the end of the quarter in which those goals are to be accomplished.
The Monitor’s quarterly report, as required by Paragraph 96, shall address progress made towards achievement of the quarterly goals for the quarter that has ended. Each party shall also file a report regarding the progress made towards the achievement of quarterly goals for

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 165 Filed: 08/21/15 Page 3 of 4
United States v. Territory of the Virgin Islands, et al. Civil No. 2008-158 Order Page 2
the quarter that has ended by the third Friday of May, August, November, and February.
An evidentiary hearing shall be held on the fourth Thursday of May, August, November, and February unless otherwise ordered by the Court. At the hearing, the parties shall be prepared to present such testimony and evidence as are necessary to apprise the Court fully of the status of the Consent Decree.
The failure of the Virgin Islands to achieve quarterly goals accepted by the Court may result in a finding of contempt.
It is further ORDERED that Paragraph 96 of the Consent Decree
shall be AMENDED to read as follows:
The Monitor shall issue quarterly written, public reports detailing the Territory of the Virgin Islands’ compliance with and implementation of each substantive provision of this Agreement. These reports shall be written with due regard for the privacy interests of individual officers and the interest of the Territory and the VIPD in protecting against disclosure of nonpublic information. On the first Friday of May, August, November, and February, the Monitor shall provide a copy of the draft Monitor’s quarterly report for the quarter that has just ended to the parties for input as to whether any factual errors were made or whether any sensitive data or non-public information is disclosed. The parties must provide such input within one calendar week. The Monitor shall consider the parties’ responses and make appropriate changes, if any, before issuing the report. The final quarterly report shall be filed by no later than the third Friday of May, August, November, or February. The Monitor may testify in this case regarding any matter relating to the implementation, enforcement or dissolution of this Agreement.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 165 Filed: 08/21/15 Page 4 of 4
United States v. Territory of the Virgin Islands, et al. Civil No. 2008-158 Order Page 2
It is further ORDERED that Paragraph 98 of the Consent Decree
shall be AMENDED to read as follows:
Beginning April 7, 2010, and no later than every quarter thereafter until this Agreement is terminated, the VIPD shall file with the Monitor and Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office, with a copy to the DOJ, a status report delineating the steps taken by the VIPD during the reporting period to comply with each provision of this agreement. The VIPD’s quarterly status report shall be filed on the first Friday of May, August, November, and February. The VIPD shall also file such a report documenting the steps taken to comply with each provision of this Agreement during the term of this Agreement 120 days before the end of the Agreement’s term.
S\ CURTIS V. GÓMEZ District Judge

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 1 of 71
Second Quarterly Report of 2012 of the
Independent Monitor for the
Virgin Islands Police Department
William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel Independent Monitors
Office of the Independent Monitor Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
One New York Plaza New York, NY 10004
212.859.8000 http://www.policemonitor.org
October 10, 2012

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 2 of 71

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 3 of 71
Independent Monitoring Team
Independent Monitors William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
Fried Frank Monitoring Team Elizabeth P. Kozlowski Joshua D. Roth
Police Practices Coordinator Chief Charles A. Gruber Elgin (Illinois) Police Department (retired)
Police Practices Experts Superintendent Ann Marie Doherty Boston (Massachusetts) Police Department (retired) Chief Dennis E. Nowicki Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Police Department (retired) Chief Robert L. Stewart Ormond Beach (Florida) Police Department (retired)

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 4 of 71

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 5 of 71 Office of the Independent Monitor |
Table of Contents Page
Executive Summary ............................................................................... 1 Deadlines for Substantial Compliance Under the Consent
Decree .......................................................................................... 1 Introduction......................................................................................... 10 Compliance Assessment ....................................................................... 14 I. Use of Force Policies (CD ¶ 31) & Specific Use of Force
Policies (CD ¶¶ 39-41)................................................................. 14 A. Status and Assessment ..................................................... 14 B. Recommendations ............................................................. 17 II. Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force (CD ¶¶ 32-38).................................................................... 18 A. Status and Assessment ..................................................... 18
1. Policies and Directives ............................................. 18 2. OIM Survey of Uses of Force..................................... 20 B. Recommendations ............................................................. 24 III. Citizen Complaint Process (CD ¶¶ 42-58) .................................... 26 A. Public Information (CD ¶¶ 42-43) & Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints (CD ¶¶ 44-45) .................. 26 1. Status and Assessment ............................................ 26 2. Recommendations.................................................... 28 B. Investigation of Complaints (CD ¶¶ 46-58) ......................... 28 1. Status and Assessment ............................................ 28 2. Recommendations.................................................... 31

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 6 of 71 | William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
IV. Management and Supervision (CD ¶¶ 59-72) .............................. 32 A. Risk Management System (CD ¶¶ 59-68)........................... 32 1. Status and Assessment ........................................... 32 2. Recommendations ................................................... 35 B. Oversight (CD ¶ 69)........................................................... 36 1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations ................................................... 36 C. Discipline (CD ¶¶ 70-72) ................................................... 36 1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations ................................................... 36
V. Training (CD ¶¶ 73-81) ............................................................... 37 A. Management Oversight (CD ¶¶ 73-77) and Curriculum (CD ¶¶ 78-81) ................................................ 37 1. Status and Assessment ........................................... 37 2. Recommendations ................................................... 41
VI. Monitoring, Reporting, and Implementation (CD ¶¶ 82-102)........................................................................... 42 1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations ................................................... 42 2. Status of Substantial Compliance ............................ 42
Conclusion .......................................................................................... 44 Appendix A Summary of Consent Decree Requirements .......................... i

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 7 of 71

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 8 of 71
Office of the Independent Monitor | 1
Executive Summary
This is the Second Quarterly Report of 2012 from the Office of the Independent Monitor (the ―OIM‖ or the ―Monitor‖) for the United States Virgin Islands Police Department (the ―VIPD‖ or the ―Department‖), covering the quarter ending on June 30, 2012.1
As an initial matter, the OIM extends its thoughts and prayers to the family of Officer Colvin Georges who passed away on September 29, 2012 after sustaining gunshot wounds in the line of duty in May. Our thoughts and prayers are also with Chief Christopher Howell and Officers Aaron Hodge and Elsworth Jones who were also injured in the line of duty in May and August.
During the quarter, the OIM‘s Police Practices Experts conducted four week-long monitoring trips to the United States Virgin Islands (the ―Territory‖). During these trips, the Police Practices Experts spent time meeting with and providing technical assistance to VIPD personnel, observing Consent Decree related training, and reviewing closed investigation files and other police records. The Police Practices Experts reviewed 17 completed use of force investigations and 4 completed citizen complaint investigations involving the use of force.2 The assessments contained in this Report are primarily based on the Police Practices Experts‘ observations and the Department‘s quarterly Status Report, dated July 6, 2012 (―Status Report‖).
The Police Practices Experts also reviewed a sample of Arrest Reports and Form 1As to determine whether VIPD personnel are consistently reporting force as required by the Use of Force Policy and the Reportable Use of Force Policy. Based on that review, it appears that VIPD personnel continue to underreport uses for force. For example, the Police Practices Experts identified 13 Arrest Reports (from both Districts)
1 This Report references a limited number of events that occurred after June 30, 2012 to provide context for significant developments or efforts that the VIPD made outside of the quarter to satisfy its Consent Decree obligations.
2 When reviewing completed investigation files for uses of force and citizen complaints involving the use of force, the OIM‘s Police Practices Experts review the corresponding Form 1As, Arrest Reports, completed RRRs, video or audio statements from witnesses, photos of injuries and weapons, the Supervisor‘s investigative report with analysis of the facts, evidence identified, and findings, evidence that the Department‘s chain of command reviewed and approved the completed investigation file, and disposition letter.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 9 of 71
2| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
where it appeared likely that force was used. Of those 13 arrests, 31% (4 out of 13) did not have corresponding Response to Resistance Reporting Forms (“RRR‖) (formerly known as Use of Force Reports) (which should be completed whenever force is used). The VIPD also continues to allow the timeframe for completing use of force investigations to expire long before the Department conducts the required investigations.3 For the first six months of 2012, only 28% (11 out of 39) of use of force investigations on St. Thomas, and 22% (8 out of 37) of use of force investigations on St. Croix were completed on time.4 The Police Practices Experts also discovered one instance on St. Croix where the VIPD not only allowed the time period for conducting the investigation to lapse, but also failed to conduct any investigation at all.
IAB continued to return incomplete/inadequate use of force investigations to the Zones on both Districts (4 in St. Croix and 3 in St. Thomas) for additional follow up during the Second Quarter. Based on the Police Practices Experts‘ review of the Department‘s files for these cases and discussions with IAB personnel, there was no evidence in certain instances that the Deputy Chiefs ever directed the investigating Supervisors to correct the deficient investigation files, or that corrected investigation files were then returned to IAB in corrected form. This lack of follow through is emblematic of broader issues within the Department that must be addressed.5
The Department also failed to complete many force related citizen complaint investigations within the timeframe prescribed in the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. In addition, one of the Police Practices Experts learned during a monitoring trip that Supervisors had accepted citizen complaints and unilaterally closed (i.e., ―resolving‖) the
3 The Reportable Use of Force Policy requires that use of force investigations be completed within thirty calendar days. The Reportable Use of Force Policy also provides that the investigating Supervisor must submit a completed investigation file to the Commander within ten calendar days, the Commander must submit findings and conclusions to the Deputy Chief/Chief within five working days after receiving the investigation file, and the Deputy Chief/Chief then has five working days to forward a copy of the investigation file and his/her findings to IAB.
4 The total number of use of force investigations represents those investigations that were reported to the Internal Affairs Bureau (―IAB‖) on St. Thomas and St. Croix.
5 For example, as discussed below, the VIPD: adopted several policies without providing the requested training; failed to provide the OIM with documentation relating to many of its alleged Consent Decree compliance efforts; and failed to impose disciplinary sanctions (or provide additional training) for Officers who violated Department policies.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 10 of 71
Office of the Independent Monitor | 3
cases without referring the complaints to IAB as Department policies require.
Training continues to be a hurdle for the Department to achieve substantial compliance with the Consent Decree. During the Second Quarter the VIPD began in-service training for all Officers and Supervisors.6 The Police Practices Experts observed several in-service training sessions during the Second Quarter and noted that some VIPD personnel arrived late, left early, or missed significant portions of the training. While the Director of Training announced during the Second Quarter that VIPD personnel who miss more than ninety minutes of training must repeat the class, the Department‘s attendance records do not allow the OIM to confirm that Officers fully attended each training.
By reviewing completed use of force investigations on St. Thomas and St. Croix, the Police Practices Experts noted how the Department‘s failure to train on the Off Duty Official Action Policy may have had consequences in the field. The Police Practices Experts reviewed two cases where Officers appeared to violate the Off Duty Official Action Policy during the Second Quarter. In one instance, the Firearms Policy was also violated because an off-duty Officer carried and fired a firearm after consuming alcohol. Despite these violations, the investigation file indicated that no discipline was imposed.
The VIPD‘s Status Report only claims to have satisfied one substantive paragraph (out of 50) in the Consent Decree. With respect to that one paragraph (¶ 42), the VIPD is required to ―develop and implement a program to inform persons that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any officer.‖ (emphasis added). Although the VIPD has made significant progress promoting its citizen complaint process through posters, informational brochures, and public service announcements, VIPD personnel are not yet fully proficient with the citizen complaint policies.
While on St. Croix during the Second Quarter, a Police Practices Expert questioned Officers about their knowledge of the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and found that only 50% (3 out of 6) Officers
6 This report makes the distinction between ―in-service‖ training and ―Roll Call‖ or ―Commanders Call‖ training. In-service training is typically more extensive and requires VIPD personnel to attend training in lieu of their usual duties. Roll Call or Commanders Call training generally focus on providing refresher training on topics already covered during in-service training and are held during regular shifts.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 11 of 71
4| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
responded correctly when asked to explain the process for filing a citizen complaint. The remaining responses omitted key aspects of the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy, including: (1) how a citizen can file a complaint; (2) the Officer‘s obligations when a citizen wants to file a complaint; and (3) how citizens will be informed about the outcome of the complaint. Similarly, when the same Police Practices Expert asked Supervisors about their understanding of the preponderance of the evidence standard (which is used to investigate citizen complaints and uses of force), he discovered that only 50% (3 out of 6) of the Supervisors correctly explained that evidentiary standard or how it differs from the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. The VIPD has recognized the need for additional training on the citizen complaint process. Because of these deficiencies, the Department is not yet in compliance with ¶ 42.
We are also troubled by the fact that the Use of Force working group, which is responsible for ensuring the Department‘s compliance with the Consent Decree‘s force reporting and evaluating requirements, apparently failed to provide the Compliance Coordinator with a written report on progress made towards achieving substantial compliance with those requirements. Similarly, the Training working group failed to provide the OIM with lesson plans for training held during the Second Quarter despite our repeated requests.
Although certain working groups (particularly the Complaint Process working group) are conducting audits relating to their areas of responsibility, the VIPD‘s Audit Team (which is responsible for auditing the Department‘s Consent Decree compliance efforts as a whole) is not yet functional. The VIPD also has not finalized its Risk Management System (―RMS‖) Protocol (which will dictate how the Department‘s RMS will function), nor has it completed training on all force related policies. Indeed, the VIPD is only beginning to assess whether VIPD personnel are proficient with the information provided during training on the Department‘s use of force and citizen complaint process policies.
Nevertheless, the OIM is hopeful that the proposed joint action plan that the Court ordered the VIPD and the Department of Justice (the ―DOJ‖) (collectively, ―the Parties‖) to submit will refocus the VIPD‘s Consent Decree compliance efforts. Under the Parties‘ proposed joint action plan (which is subject to the Court‘s review), the VIPD must

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 12 of 71 Office of the Independent Monitor | 5
comply with each substantive provision in the Consent Decree by October 31, 2013 and then remain in compliance for two years. We believe that the VIPD can meet those mandates if it commits substantially more effort to complying with the Consent Decree. However, if the VIPD maintains the status quo, it will not achieve substantial compliance.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 13 of 71 6| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

Deadlines for Substantial Compliance Under the Consent Decree
The substantial compliance deadlines refer to the dates established by the Consent Decree Timetable that the Virgin Islands, VIPD, and the Department of
Justice (the “DOJ”) jointly submitted to the Court on November 24, 2010.
In order to be released from the Consent Decree, the VIPD must substantially comply with each of the Consent Decree’s provisions, and remain in compliance
for two years before the Consent Decree expires on March 23, 2014.7

CD

Description

Deadlines for Substantial Compliance Under the Consent Decree

Status of Compliance as of March 31, 2012
Noncompliance/ Substantial Compliance

31

Use of Force Policies:

Within 30 days of

Use of Force; Reportable DOJ final written

Use of Force; Vehicle

approval

Pursuit; O.C. Spray;

Impact Weapons; ECW;

Firearms; Spike Strip;

Canine; SRT/HNT; Sniper;

FTO; Reporting,

Investigation and Review

of Use of Force; Use of

Force Review Board; Post

Shooting Incident

Procedures; Officer

Involved Shooting

Investigation Procedures.

Noncompliance – The VIPD has issued many of the required force related policies, including the Use of Force Policy, Reportable Use of Force Policy, Firearms Policy, Vehicle Pursuit Policy, O.C. Spray Policy, Impact Weapons Policy, SRT/HNT Policy, Sniper Policy, and Spike Strip Policy, and the FTO Policy. The VIPD, however, has not implemented many policies because it has not trained on the Vehicle Pursuit Policy, Spike Strip Policy, SRT/HNT Policy, and Sniper Policy.8 In addition, the VIPD has not issued the Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy, Use of Force Review Board Policy, Post Shooting Incident Procedures, and Officer

7 As discussed in the Executive summary and below, the March 23, 2014 termination date (along with certain interim dates) for the Consent Decree may change based on the Court‘s decision on the Parties‘ proposed joint action plan and the DOJ‘s motion to eliminate the Consent Decree‘s ―bright line‖ termination date.
8 As defined in the Consent Decree, ―implement‖ refers to the ―development or putting into place of a policy or procedure, including the appropriate training of personnel.‖ CD ¶ 30.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 14 of 71 Office of the Independent Monitor | 7

CD

Description

32-38

Evaluation, Documentation, & Review of Use of Force

Reportable Use of Force Policy

39

Evaluation,

Documentation, &

Review of Use of Force

Firearms Policy

40

Evaluation,

Documentation, &

Review of Use of Force

Off-Duty Official Action

41

Evaluation,

Documentation, &

Review of Use of Force

Intermediate Force Device(s)

42-45

Citizen Complaint Process
Public Information & Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints

Deadlines for Substantial Compliance Under the Consent Decree
May 31, 2011

Status of Compliance as of March 31, 2012
Noncompliance/ Substantial Compliance
Involved Shooting Investigation Procedures policies.
Noncompliance – While the VIPD issued the Reportable Use of Force Policy on March 30, 2011, it has not implemented the policy. In addition, the VIPD has not satisfied the Consent Decree requirement that it evaluate, document, and review all uses of force.

May 31, 2011

Noncompliance – While the VIPD issued the Firearms Policy on May 3, 2011, it has not implemented the policy.

May 31, 2011 May 31, 2011

Noncompliance – While the VIPD issued the Off-Duty Official Action Policy on March 30, 2011, it has not implemented the policy.
Noncompliance – While the VIPD issued the ECW Policy on March 30, 2011, it has not implemented the policy.

May 31, 2011

Noncompliance – While the VIPD issued the Acceptance of Citizens Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011 and has made complaint forms and informational materials available at appropriate government properties, it has not demonstrated that VIPD personnel are proficient in the policy, assessed if Officers are informing citizens of their right to make complaints, and resolved

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 15 of 71 8| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

CD

Description

46-58

Citizen Complaint Process
Investigation of Complaints

Deadlines for Substantial Compliance Under the Consent Decree
May 31, 2011, except September 15, 2011 for ¶ 49.

Status of Compliance as of March 31, 2012
Noncompliance/ Substantial Compliance
each complaint in writing.
Noncompliance – While the VIPD issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy, it has not implemented the policy.

59-68

Management and Supervision
Risk Management System
Blue Team Protocol
Behavioral Health Services Policy; Psychological Fitness for Duty Evaluation Policy; Officer Peer Support Policy

September 15, 2011, except June 30, 2011 for ¶¶ 60-61 & May 31, 2011 for ¶ 62; also ¶¶ 67-68 have no date.

Noncompliance – The VIPD continues to make revisions to the RMS Protocol. During the Second Quarter, the VIPD submitted its ninth revised draft of the RMS Protocol to the DOJ for its review and approval. The Department‘s RMS has also been hampered by ongoing technical problems.

69

Management and

Supervision

Oversight

September 15, 2011

Noncompliance – The Department‘s Audit Team is not yet functional.

70-72

Management and Supervision
Discipline

May 31, 2011

73-77 Training Management Oversight

June 30, 2011

78-81 Training Curriculum

June 30, 2011

Noncompliance – Despite receiving DOJ approval for the Disciplinary Matrix during the Second Quarter of 2011, the VIPD subsequently decided to further revise it. The VIPD has not submitted a revised version of the disciplinary matrix to the VIPD for approval.
Noncompliance – The Department has not demonstrated that VIPD personnel are proficient in VIPD policies.
Noncompliance – Despite repeated requests from the OIM, the Training working group failed to provide us

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 16 of 71 Office of the Independent Monitor | 9

CD

Description

Deadlines for Substantial Compliance Under the Consent Decree

Status of Compliance as of March 31, 2012
Noncompliance/ Substantial Compliance
with any training lesson plans during the Second Quarter. In addition, the OIM has not seen evidence that training materials are being subjected to quality control reviews by the VIPD‘s legal and subject matter experts.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 17 of 71
10| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Introduction
This is the Second Quarterly Report of 2012 from the Office of the Independent Monitor (the ―OIM‖ or the ―Monitor‖) for the United States Virgin Islands Police Department (the ―VIPD‖ or the ―Department‖), covering the quarter ending on June 30, 2012.9
The OIM was established in January 2010 to monitor compliance by the United States Virgin Islands and the VIPD with the Consent Decree entered by the United States District Court for the Virgin Islands (the ―Court‖) on March 23, 2009. The Monitors are required by the Consent Decree to ―issue quarterly written, public reports detailing the Territory of the Virgin Islands‘ compliance with and implementation of each substantive provision‖ of the Consent Decree.10
The Consent Decree reflects the agreement between the Virgin Islands, the VIPD, and the United States Department of Justice (the ―DOJ‖) (collectively, the ―Parties‖) to resolve a lawsuit brought by the United States alleging that the Virgin Islands and the VIPD violated 42 U.S.C. § 14141 by engaging ―in a pattern or practice of excessive force by Officers of the Virgin Islands Police Department and by the failure to adequately train, supervise, investigate, and discipline Officers.‖11
The Parties entered into the Consent Decree ―to promote police integrity and prevent conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.‖12 The 104 paragraph Consent Decree contains a broad range of substantive requirements for reform in areas such as: (1) revising the VIPD‘s force-related policies; (2) training Officers to properly use force in accordance with constitutional requirements, VIPD policy, and existing best practices in policing; (3) reporting and investigating use of force events; (4) documenting and investigating complaints alleging Officer misconduct; (5) developing systems for
9 This Report references a limited number of events that occurred after June 30, 2012 to provide context for efforts made by the VIPD outside of the Second Quarter to satisfy its Consent Decree obligations.
10 Consent Decree (―CD‖) ¶ 96. This Quarterly Report, along with the OIM‘s prior reports, is available on the internet at http://www.policemonitor.org/VI/VIindex.html.
11 CD ¶ 6; see also Complaint, United States v. The Territory of the Virgin Islands, No. 3:08-CV-00158-CVG-GWB (D.V.I. 2008).
12 CD ¶ 3.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 18 of 71
Office of the Independent Monitor | 11
managing and supervising Officers; and (6) disciplining Officers found to have engaged in misconduct.
On October 1, 2010, the Court—charged with enforcing the VIPD‘s obligations under the Consent Decree—ordered the Parties to jointly propose a timetable by which the VIPD would substantially comply with each substantive provision in the Consent Decree. The Court was concerned about the VIPD‘s slow rate of progress and saw the timetable as a vehicle to help the Department move forward more quickly. The Parties subsequently filed a timetable on November 24, 2010 that set forth specific dates by which the VIPD would substantially comply with each substantive provision in the Consent Decree (the ―Consent Decree Timetable‖). The Consent Decree Timetable also created interim deadlines for the VIPD to submit force-related policies to the DOJ for approval. The VIPD successfully met nearly every policy submission deadline. However, at the end of the Third Quarter of 2011, the VIPD had missed all of the remaining deadlines for substantial compliance established by the Court-ordered Consent Decree Timetable (deadlines that the VIPD proposed and committed to meeting). For example, under the Consent Decree Timetable, the VIPD was required to substantially comply with Consent Decree ¶¶ 32-58, 70, and 72 by May 31, 2011, ¶¶ 60, 61, and 73-81 by June 30, 2011, and ¶¶ 49, 59, and 63-66 by September 15, 2011. To date, the VIPD has only complied with ¶¶ 8286, 88, and 98 (a chart summarizing the VIPD‘s progress toward substantial compliance is located on pp. 9-12).
In January 2011, to reinvigorate the VIPD‘s Consent Decree compliance process and encourage compliance within the timeframe of the Consent Decree Timetable, the then-Police Commissioner convened a Consent Decree Summit on St. Thomas on January 3 and 4, 2011 (the ―Summit‖).13 At the Summit, the then-Police Commissioner appointed senior VIPD personnel to lead, and ultimately be held accountable for, different aspects of the Consent Decree—Use of Force (Chief of the St. Croix District), Citizen Complaint Process (Chief of the St. Thomas District),14 Management and Supervision (Deputy Chief of St. Thomas), and Training (Director of Training). The Police Commissioner explained that each working group leader was responsible for: (1) designating a
13 The OIM discussed the Summit in the Fourth Quarterly Report of 2010 and the First Quarterly Report of 2011. For more information about the Summit, including objectives and participants, see the Consent Decree Summit Addendum at the end of those Reports.
14 The Citizen Complaint Process working group is now led by the Deputy Chief of St. John.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 19 of 71
12| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
―point person‖ and recruiting other working group members; (2) drafting an action plan; (3) interacting with other VIPD personnel on interrelated Consent Decree issues; and (4) monitoring the working group‘s progress by attending and participating in as many meetings as schedules permit, but no less than twice a month.15 As reported last quarter, the Police Commissioner issued a memorandum requiring all working group leaders to submit bi-weekly reports on the 15th and 30th of each month. Compliance with this requirement during the Second Quarter was inconsistent among all working groups. Reports were routinely submitted late, and for some months, not at all. As a result, the Compliance Coordinator reminded all working group leaders about their obligation to complete timely reports. The OIM urges the working groups to adhere to the Police Commissioner‘s directive, and encourages the Police Commissioner to hold the working group leaders accountable.
During the Second Quarter, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on April 23, 2012 to address the VIPD‘s failure to meet the deadlines set forth in the Consent Decree Timetable. After nearly seven hours of testimony from several witnesses (including one of the Police Practices Experts), the Court met privately with the Parties and ordered them to propose a new deadline by which the VIPD would comply with the Consent Decree. After initially failing to agree on a joint submission, each Party submitted individual proposals for the Court‘s consideration. The DOJ initially proposed eliminating the Consent Decree‘s ―bright line‖ termination date of March 23, 2014, and requiring the VIPD to submit an action plan to the DOJ for approval. The VIPD objected to both aspects of the DOJ‘s proposal. Instead, the VIPD proposed setting June 30, 2013 as the date by which the VIPD must achieve substantial compliance and extending the bright line termination date for the Consent Decree to June 30, 2015. Despite extensive negotiations, the Parties were unable to agree on a mutually acceptable action plan. The Court considered the Parties‘ respective proposals at a July 26, 2012 hearing and subsequently ordered the Parties to submit a proposed joint action plan. On August 30, 2012, the Parties jointly filed a proposed action plan setting new interim deadlines by which the VIPD must achieve
15 Memorandum from the Police Commissioner to various VIPD personnel, titled ―Meeting Current Standards of Policing,‖ dated January 19, 2011. The OIM‘s Police Practices Experts also provided the working group leaders with a memorandum outlining their respective responsibilities. Each of the OIM‘s four Police Practices Experts is assigned to work with a particular working group leader. During the Second Quarter, the Police Practices experts regularly exchanged emails and telephone calls with their counterparts and met in person during the quarter‘s monitoring trips.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 20 of 71
Office of the Independent Monitor | 13
substantial compliance with each of the Consent Decree‘s substantive provisions. The proposed joint action plan also seeks to extend the substantial compliance deadline to October 31, 2013. Decisions by the Court on the proposed joint action plan and the DOJ‘s motion to eliminate the Consent Decree‘s bright line termination date are pending.
The VIPD also made a number of personnel changes during the Second Quarter. In April, the Acting Chief of St. Thomas was elevated to Chief. Later that month, the Director of Training (a member of the Virgin Islands National Guard) announced that he would be on a five-month military leave. The Police Commissioner appointed Sergeant Barrington Thomas to serve as Acting Director of the Training Division in the Director‘s absence, and Senior Cadre Gleston McIntosh to oversee daily training activities for the St. Croix District. In May, the VIPD appointed Lieutenant Maria Colon-Jones to serve as Deputy Chief of St. John. Deputy Chief Jones also assumed leadership of the Citizen Complaint Process working group. The Department also appointed Lieutenant Sandra Colbourne to the position of Consent Decree Manager. Finally, the VIPD appointed Retired Police Captain James Parris to serve as Deputy Chief of St. Croix. The OIM congratulates these individuals on their appointments, and looks forward to continuing to work with them.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 21 of 71
14| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Compliance Assessment
This section of the Report describes the VIPD‘s compliance efforts with respect to each of the substantive provisions of the Consent Decree,16 as well as monitoring activities by the OIM‘s Police Practices Experts during the quarter. The organization of this section of the Report parallels the organization of the Consent Decree. Specifically, we provide a status and assessment discussion that describes and analyzes the VIPD‘s progress toward achieving substantial compliance with the Consent Decree‘s requirements.17 As part of this discussion, we provide an update about the progress of each of the working groups leading these efforts. We also include recommendations to assist the VIPD in achieving full and timely implementation of the Consent Decree‘s requirements.18 A chart summarizing the VIPD‘s progress towards substantial compliance is included at the end of the Executive Summary.
I. Use of Force Policies (CD ¶ 31) & Specific Use of Force Policies (CD ¶¶ 39-41)
A. Status and Assessment
As previously reported, the VIPD has received DOJ approval for many of its force-related policies. For example, the VIPD has issued a total of twelve force-related policies through the end of the Second Quarter: (1) Use of Force; (2) Reportable Use of Force; (3) Impact Weapons; (4) Electronic Control Weapon (―ECW‖); (5) O.C. Spray; (6) Vehicle Pursuit; (7) Spike Strip; (8) Off-Duty Official Action; (9) Firearms; (10) Field Training Officer Program (―FTO‖); (11) Special Operations – Special Response Team and Hostage Negotiations Team (―SRT/HNT‖) Policy, and (12) Special Operations SRT – Sniper (―Sniper‖) Policy. The VIPD adopted these policies in partial satisfaction of ¶¶ 31 to 41 of the Consent Decree. In addition, the Department has created and
16 A summary of the Consent Decree requirements is excerpted at Appendix A. A copy of the full text of the Consent Decree is available at: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/VIPD_CD_03-23-09.pdf. At the DOJ‘s request, the OIM‘s Third Quarterly Report of 2012 will follow a revised format. Among other things, it will evaluate the VIPD‘s compliance with each Consent Decree paragraph individually.
17 The Consent Decree provides that ―[t]he Monitor shall issue quarterly written, public reports detailing the Territory of the Virgin Islands‘ compliance with and implementation of each substantive provision of [the] Agreement.‖ CD ¶ 96.
18 CD ¶ 85.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 22 of 71
Office of the Independent Monitor | 15
put into place the RRR for VIPD personnel to document use of force events pursuant to the Reportable Use of Force Policy.
The Use of Force working group and the Policy and Procedures Committee (the ―Committee‖) have also developed a Response to Resistance Investigation Checklist (the ―Checklist‖) that Supervisors will use when conducting use of force investigations.19 The Department has delayed using the Checklist department-wide because it hopes to replace the existing Use of Force Policy and the Reportable Use of Force Policy with the Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy. The Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy is intended to address concerns among some VIPD personnel that the existing Use of Force Policy and Reportable Use of Force Policy impose too great a burden on Supervisors by requiring ―all inclusive‖ force reviews for comparatively ―minor‖ force incidents. Under the new policy, the VIPD would adjust the extent of its investigation of use of force events in proportion to the type of force used, meaning that comparatively ―minor‖ force events would typically require less exhaustive investigations than more severe force events. The DOJ conditionally approved the policy on November 3, 2011, subject to agreeing on and receiving court approval for corresponding revisions to the Consent Decree that would permit ―tiered‖ force investigations. In the process of reviewing the proposed revisions to the Consent Decree, however, the DOJ discovered internal inconsistencies with the Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy and revoked its conditional approval during the First Quarter. The Parties continued to work on revising the policy. The Parties also continued to negotiate revisions to the Consent Decree during the Second Quarter.
As previously reported, the Chief of the St. Croix District, in his role as the leader of the Use of Force working group, proposed that the Police Commissioner issue a directive to allow tiered use of force investigations pending final approval of the Reporting, Investigation and Review Use of Force Policy. The VIPD ultimately decided against such a directive because tiered use of force investigations would not comply with
19 As we have previously reported, the Checklist is designed to help Supervisors (and Chiefs/Deputy Chiefs) determine whether RRRs are complete, and whether additional information and/or investigative steps are required. The Checklist directs Supervisors to ensure that VIPD personnel are, among other things, reporting use of force events to Central Dispatch, and completing arrest and/or Form 1As, as necessary. As previously reported, Supervisors in the St. Croix District began using the Checklist during the Third Quarter of 2011.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 23 of 71
16| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
the Consent Decree until the Court approves the relevant revisions to the Consent Decree.
Although the Department has made substantial progress finalizing and issuing force related policies, the Department has identified the need for several additional force-related policies, including the: (1) Use of Force Review Board Policy; (2) Arrest Policy; (3) Post Shooting Incident and Procedures Policy; and (4) Officer Involved Shooting Investigating Procedures.20 The VIPD reported during the Fourth Quarter of 2011 that it submitted the Use of Force Review Board Policy—which would create a forum for VIPD personnel to review use of force events—to its Policy Consultant for review. When the OIM inquired about the status of the Use of Force Review Board Policy during the Second Quarter, the Department said that it is still under review by the Department‘s Policy Consultant. The VIPD should follow-up with the Policy Consultant so the policy can be finalized and issued next quarter. The Department did not provide any updates on its Post Shooting Incident and Procedures Policy during the Second Quarter.
The OIM previously encouraged the Use of Force working group to develop an Arrest Policy to address the concern that some Officers were arresting and subsequently releasing individuals without adequately documenting the arrest and/or whether any force was used.21 During the Second Quarter, the Committee reported that it continues to work on the Arrest Policy, and that the United States Virgin Islands Attorney General‘s Office (―VIAG‖), the Police Commissioner, and the VIPD Policy Consultant have collaborated on the policy. The Department should resolve any outstanding issues and issue the Arrest Policy promptly.
As previously reported, until the Department finalizes and provides adequate training on the Arrest Policy, it will continue to underreport
20 If one or more of those policies govern the use of force, the Consent Decree requires that the VIPD obtain DOJ approval before issuing any such policies. Moreover, to the extent that the VIPD develops additional force-related policies after achieving substantial compliance, the subsequent issuance and implementation of those policies will not restart the two-year substantial compliance period.
21 OIM First Quarterly Report of 2011 at 8. At a minimum, the OIM suggested that the Arrest Policy: (i) delineate the differences between an investigative detention and an arrest; (ii) outline the steps that VIPD personnel must follow if they arrest an individual, but later determine that they do not have an adequate basis for the arrest; (iii) require that all Officers, including special unit Officers (e.g., canine and Special Operations), who assist in the arrest be identified in the arrest report and/or Form 1-A; (iv) emphasize the need for VIPD personnel to complete an RRR (in addition to a Form 1-A or arrest report) whenever force is used; and (v) ensure supervisory oversight over the decision to release an arrestee.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 24 of 71
Office of the Independent Monitor | 17
arrests and possible uses of force. The underreporting of arrests and uses of force has a negative impact on the Department‘s Risk Management System (―RMS‖). Without complete arrest and use of force information, the RMS (which, as discussed below, currently alerts Supervisors and Commanders when VIPD personnel surpass a specified number of uses of force within a particular period) will not effectively identify potential issues at an early and remedial stage. The VIPD will not be able to comply with important aspects of the Consent Decree relating to use of force and risk management until it rectifies this problem.
At the end of the Second Quarter, the VIPD is not in substantial compliance with ¶¶ 31 and 39-41 of the Consent Decree because it has not fully implemented its use of force policies. For certain policies, such as the Vehicle Pursuit Policy (issued in March of 2011) and the Spike Strip Policy (issued in March 2011), and the Off Duty Official Action Policy (issued in March 2011), the Department had not provided any training through the end of the Second Quarter.22 Moreover, once the Department provides training on a particular policy, it must ensure that VIPD personnel understand their obligations and are consistently meeting them.
B. Recommendations
The Use of Force working group should work with the Training Division to ensure that training programs are being held for all of the Department‘s force-related policies and that relevant VIPD personnel are attending those programs. The Use of Force working group should also work with the Director of Training to administer post-training examinations to help assess the degree to which VIPD personnel understand the policies and the lessons conveyed during training. The Use of Force working group and Director of Training should then schedule follow-up training (continuing in-service or Roll Call or Commanders Call training) based on the results of those post-training examinations.
The Use of Force working group should continue to work with the Committee to develop and/or finalize all outstanding force-related policies, including the: (1) Use of Force Review Board Policy; (2) Arrest Policy; (3) Post Shooting Incident and Procedures Policy; and (4) Officer
22 The Department held instructor training on the Vehicle Pursuit Policy and Spike Strip Policy in September. The OIM will report on those trainings in the next quarter.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 25 of 71
18| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Involved Shooting Investigating Procedures. While those policies are being finalized, the Use of Force working group should coordinate with the Director of Training to develop corresponding training programs so that training can begin on each policy as soon as possible.
II. Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force (CD ¶¶ 32-38)
A. Status and Assessment
1. Policies and Directives
The VIPD issued four directives during the Second Quarter.
1) A Commissioner‘s Directive, dated April 17, 2012, provided that only VIPD sworn Officers who have met the requirements of the Peace Officers Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.) Council will arrest subjects, conduct searches and seizures, or execute arrest warrants.
2) Directive 003-2012 requires arresting Officers and Supervisors to certify that force was not used during arrests. The VIPD introduced this directive in response to an audit that the Use of Force working group conducted during the First Quarter to identify instances where Officers stated on Form 1As that a subject resisted arrest, but then failed to complete the required RRR. Because VIPD personnel may use force in the course of their duties to gain control of a subject who is resisting, reviewing the paperwork associated with such incidents is one way of monitoring compliance with the Department‘s force reporting requirements. Although the Use of Force working group did not provide any documentation of this audit (which has been a recurring problem), it reported that there were only a few instances where RRRs were not filed. In addition to the required certifications, Commanders in both districts were directed (in writing) to monitor compliance with the directive and the Use of Force Policy and the Reportable Use of Force Policy.
3) Directive 002-2012 reinforces the requirements of the Reportable Use of Force Policy as a means of improving the quality and completeness of use of force investigations. According to the Department, this directive is intended to help reduce the number of use of force investigation files that IAB returns to the Chiefs‘ Offices for follow-up. On St. Croix, IAB

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 26 of 71
Office of the Independent Monitor | 19
returned four investigation files to the Chief‘s Office during the Second Quarter. After further review, two cases did not involve force, and the remaining two are under review by the Chief of the St. Croix District. IAB also returned three investigation files to the Deputy Chief of St. Thomas. With respect to the returned investigative files, IAB noted that Commanders failed to properly dispose of both cases by deeming the investigation ―sustained‖ or ―not sustained,‖ failed to contact IAB and obtain use of force numbers, and failed to conduct a use of force review that evaluated whether the proper procedures were followed. The VIPD has not provided any documentation that these deficiencies have been corrected. The VIPD acknowledges that it must inspect completed use of force investigations to ensure that Supervisors are investigating uses of force in accordance with Consent Decree requirements, including evaluating the basis for the use of force, employing proper techniques for interviewing witnesses, and ensuring that investigation files contain RRRs, photographs, gunshot residue and bullet trajectory test results, and other items required under the Consent Decree.23 The VIPD should document any such inspections and provide the written results to the OIM.
4) A Commissioner‘s Directive, dated April 19, 2012, transferred the Intelligence Unit and Investigation Bureau from the Office of the Police Commissioner to the Office of the Police Chief in each District. Prior to this reorganization, there was uncertainty about the Use of Force working group‘s authority to review uses of force by the Intelligence Unit and Investigation Bureau. The OIM suggests that the Use of Force working group extend its audits to those units in the next quarter.
At a meeting with the VIPD and DOJ, the OIM inquired whether the Use of Force working group had confirmed that VIPD personnel were complying with the directives described above. At that time, the VIPD had not yet assessed compliance. The VIPD subsequently appointed two Use of Force working group members (a Sergeant and a Lieutenant) to monitor compliance with these directives and the Department‘s use of force policies more generally. At the end of the Second Quarter, the
23 See e.g., CD ¶¶ 34, 36-38.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 27 of 71
20| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Compliance Coordinator reports that he did not receive any documentation from the Use of Force working group about its efforts in those areas.
2. OIM Survey of Uses of Force
During the Second Quarter, the OIM‘s Police Practices Experts continued to evaluate the Department‘s use of force reporting practices to determine, among other things, whether investigation files contained all of the documentation required by the Consent Decree. A ―complete‖ investigation file generally consists of the following (to the extent applicable): Form 1A; Arrest Report; completed RRR; video or audio statements from witnesses; photos of injuries, weapons, etc.; the Supervisor‘s investigative report with an analysis of the facts, evidence identified, and findings; evidence that the Department‘s chain of command reviewed and approved the completed investigation file; and a disposition letter. The OIM‘s Police Practices Experts reviewed 17 supposedly complete use of force investigation files during the Second Quarter. Only 65% (11 out of 17) of the investigation files were actually complete.
The OIM‘s Police Practices Experts noted some improvements in the Department‘s force reporting practices during the Second Quarter, but also recurring deficiencies. The Police Practices Experts reviewed a sample of Arrest Reports and Form 1As to determine whether VIPD personnel are reporting force as required by the Use of Force Policy and Reportable Use of Force Policy. Based on that review, it appears that VIPD personnel continue to underreport the use of force. For example, with respect to Arrest Reports on both Districts indicating that force was likely used, 31% (4 out of 13) of Arrest Reports did not have corresponding RRRs.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 28 of 71 Office of the Independent Monitor | 21

OIM Audit of Arrest Reports for the St. Thomas District

Total Number of Arrest Reports identified for further follow-up 10

 Number of cases where use of force was likely

10

 Number of cases with corresponding RRRs

7

 Number of cases for which the Arrest Report indicates that 10 the suspect resisted arrest

 Number of cases identified for further follow-up to track

10

whether a use of force investigation has been completed24

OIM Audit of Arrest Reports for the St. Croix District

Total Number of Arrest Reports identified for further follow-up 3

 Number of cases where use of force was likely

3

 Number of cases with corresponding RRRs

2

 Number of cases identified for further follow-up to track

2

whether a use of force investigation has been completed

Department records also indicate that Zones in both Districts have not completed investigations for a significant number of the uses of force reported to IAB (by forwarding RRRs to IAB) for the first six months of 2012. Only 28% (11 out of 39) of uses of force on St. Thomas, and 22% (8 out of 37) of uses of force on St. Croix have been appropriately

24 Because use of force investigations are typically completed several weeks or months following the use of force, the Police Practices Experts will follow up with IAB during the coming quarters about the status of any investigations into these apparent uses of force. Once the investigations are complete, the Police Practices Experts will conduct a full review of the investigations.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 29 of 71
22| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
investigated by a Supervisor and reviewed by a Deputy Chief or Chief. The remaining investigations are overdue.
The Reportable Use of Force Policy requires that use of force investigations be completed within thirty calendar days. The Reportable Use of Force Policy also provides that the investigating Supervisor must submit a completed investigation file to the Commander within ten calendar days, the Commander must submit findings and conclusions to the Deputy Chief/Chief within five working days after receiving the investigation file, and the Deputy Chief/Chief then has five working days to forward a copy of the investigation file and his/her findings to IAB. In an effort to correct this deficiency, the Deputy Chief of St. Thomas circulated a memorandum requiring all Commanders to complete any delinquent use of force investigations by the end of May, and any Commanders who failed to comply would receive a letter of reprimand. Despite repeated attempts by the OIM to obtain a report on the outcome of this memorandum (e.g., number of investigations completed, number of investigations still outstanding, and number of Commanders who received letters of reprimand), the VIPD failed to provide the requested information by the end of the Second Quarter.
In a case reviewed by an OIM Police Practices Expert on St. Croix, the VIPD not only allowed the time period for conducting an investigation to lapse, but also failed to conduct any investigation at all. In that case, a Sergeant was approached by a complainant explaining that the complainant was robbed at gunpoint. The Sergeant called for back-up and transported the complainant to the scene to identify potential suspects. A Lieutenant and another Sergeant subsequently arrived on the scene and attempted to apprehend the suspects, and one resisted. When the apprehending Sergeant had the resisting suspect on the ground, the suspect punched the Sergeant in the face. With the help of other Officers, the suspect was taken into custody. In violation of Department policy, an uninvolved Supervisor did not conduct a review of the use of force or respond to the scene. Additionally, two of the assisting Officers failed to complete RRRs despite apparently using force.
Seven days before the timeframe for completing an investigation was set to expire, the Chief of the St. Croix District directed IAB to conduct an investigation because other available Supervisors were involved in the use of force. IAB eventually closed the case without conducting an investigation. As a result, no review of the force was ever conducted. The breakdown in VIPD procedures was also never addressed.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 30 of 71
Office of the Independent Monitor | 23
OIM Police Practices Experts also observed that the VIPD‘s failure to train on the Off Duty Official Action Policy may have had consequences in the field.25 One of the OIM‘s Police Practices Experts reviewed a case on St. Croix in which an off duty Sergeant punched an inebriated subject in the face after the subject aggressively approached him and a retired Officer. The Sergeant reported the incident, but an on duty Supervisor never responded to the scene as required by the Reportable Use of Force Policy. Additionally, nothing in the completed investigation file indicates that the on duty Supervisor notified a Commander that an off duty Officer used force as required by the Off Duty Official Action Policy. The investigation that followed was equally flawed. For example, the RRR completed by the off duty Sergeant was not reviewed and approved by a Supervisor or Command officer. Consequently, the RRR fails to include a Supervisor‘s narrative evaluating each use of force or a description of the facts and circumstances that justify, or fail to justify, the Sergeant‘s conduct according to VIPD policy. Despite these deficiencies, no VIPD personnel were disciplined for failing to follow VIPD policies. At the very least, the Department should have ordered additional training for all involved personnel. It is particularly troubling that the non-compliant personnel were of supervisory rank given that Supervisors should be expected to serve as role models for more junior personnel.26
Another OIM Police Practices Expert reviewed a use of force investigation on St. Thomas involving an off duty Officer who, when he stopped for some food, observed a subject threatening a restaurant worker after he refused to serve the subject more alcohol. The Officer intervened, and told the subject to leave the restaurant. In response, the subject assaulted the Officer and knocked him to the ground, attempted to take the Officer‘s weapon, and drew a razor knife from his pocket. After the Officer got to his feet, the subject came toward him. In response, the Officer fired several shots at the subject‘s lower body. When the subject continued to advance, the Officer fired at the subject‘s chest, inflicting non-life threatening injuries. The Officer‘s blood alcohol level, which was taken within hours of the shooting, indicated that he
25 Despite receiving DOJ approval for the Off Duty Official Action Policy in March of 2011, the Department did not hold corresponding in-service training until the Third Quarter of 2012.
26 Likewise, the VIPD reported that an inspection on June 8, 2012 to determine whether Officers and Supervisors were using their assigned Permanent Designator Number (―PDNs‖) as required by VIPD policy showed that ―Supervisors are not complying with the Commissioner‘s Directive of December 2011,‖ which requires VIPD personnel to include their PDNs on all police records. Status Report at 23.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 31 of 71
24| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
had consumed alcohol. The subsequent investigation was conducted by IAB and concluded that the shooting was justified, but that the Officer was in violation of Department policies because he fired warning shots, carried and used a firearm while under the influence of alcohol, and carried out official action while off duty. Remedial training and substance abuse counseling were recommended. This outcome, however, does not fully account for the severity of the violations. The Disciplinary Policy‘s penalty for such a violation would likely fall on the lower end of the applicable penalty range, yet no discipline was imposed.27
Although the Department has made progress by issuing and training on the Use of Force Policy and Reportable Use of Force Policy, it is not in substantial compliance with ¶¶ 32-38 of the Consent Decree because it is not adequately evaluating, documenting, and reviewing uses of force.
B. Recommendations
In addition to documenting any audits and sharing its findings with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM, the Use of Force working group should review whether: (1) Supervisors are conducting adequate use of force investigations; (2) the Chiefs/Deputy Chiefs are reviewing investigations, correcting deficiencies, and forwarding closed cases to the IAB and Training Division (for review and archiving); and (3) the Department is completing investigations within the time periods prescribed in the Reportable Use of Force Policy. Because the Department has a relatively short fifty-day statute of limitations to charge VIPD personnel with misconduct, it is critical that the VIPD complete investigations within the required periods. The Use of Force working group should assess whether Supervisors on both Districts are forwarding copies of RRRs to the Chiefs, IAB and the Training Division. Moreover, the OIM recommends that the VIPD implement a protocol for assigning use of force investigations when Supervisors are involved in the use of force.
During the Third Quarter the VIPD held in-service training on the Off Duty Official Action Policy. In light of the gravity of the apparent violations of the Off Duty Official Action Policy described above, the Department should reinforce the policy through further in-service, Roll
27 The VIPD continues to revise its Disciplinary Matrix. See Section IV. Management and Supervision.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 32 of 71
Office of the Independent Monitor | 25
Call and Commanders Call training, and should test compliance with periodical audits.
The VIPD also held in-service training on the Off Duty Official Action Policy during the Third Quarter. Because of the seriousness of violations of this policy discovered by the Police Practices Experts during the Second Quarter and described above, the Department should continue to reinforce the police during further in-service, Roll Call and Commanders Call training, and periodical test VIPD personnel‘s proficiency with the policy.
With respect to use of force reporting, the Use of Force working group should audit Form 1As and Arrest Reports to determine the extent to which force is being reported across the Districts. Based on these audits, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to report uses of force. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work in concert with the Chiefs, IAB and the Training Division to provide remedial training, or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions if necessary.
The Use of Force working group should also audit whether Supervisors are signing Form 1As as they are required to do. A Supervisor‘s signature is an indication that they have reviewed and approved the report. Prior to signing the Form 1A, the Supervisor should assess whether force was used and whether the Department‘s use of force reporting and investigating requirements were met. If subsequent reviews or audits by higher authority within the VIPD discover that a use of force report and investigation are not adequate, the Supervisor who signed the Form 1A and/or Arrest Report should be held accountable.
Finally, as discussed above, the IAB routinely returns supposedly completed investigation files to the Chiefs in both Districts for additional investigation. Because IAB cannot order the Chiefs to comply with its requests, the OIM encourages the Police Commissioner to intervene as necessary. One option would be for the Police Commissioner to receive periodic reports from IAB identifying any investigations that have been returned to the Chiefs and whether IAB has received any further information in response.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 33 of 71
26| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
III. Citizen Complaint Process (CD ¶¶ 42-58)
A. Public Information (CD ¶¶ 42-43) & Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints (CD ¶¶ 44-45)
1. Status and Assessment
The VIPD has issued the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizens Complaint Policy pursuant to ¶¶ 42 to 58 of the Consent Decree. The Consent Decree requires that VIPD vehicles are equipped with English, Spanish, and French and/or French Patois language versions of the complaint process materials.28 With input from the OIM, the Compliance Coordinator revised the Citizen Complaint Form during the Second Quarter to capture more complete information required by the Consent Decree. The Complaint Process working group continued to document inspections to monitor whether complaint process materials, including the Citizen Complaint Form, were available in the St. Thomas District. The working group reported that Citizen Complaint Forms were not readily available at Zone A, and that Complaint Forms in Zone C were not available in English. The working group has not conducted similar inspections in the St. Croix District, but reports that it plans to do so during the Third Quarter.
To help bring about greater compliance with the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy, the leader of the Citizen Complaint Process working group sent a memorandum to all Commanders on both Districts reinforcing the policy‘s requirements. The memorandum requires Commanders to inspect their assigned Zones for the required complaint process materials and to record their results on Periodic Inspection Report forms. Commanders must provide completed forms to the Office of the Police Chief in both Districts on the 10th and 20th of each month. Additionally, the memorandum requires all Zones to hold Roll Call and Commanders Call training on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy on a weekly basis. The OIM commends the VIPD‘s efforts to reinforce training on these policies. We encourage Commanders to coordinate any training with the Director of Training. The Citizen Complaint Process
28 With respect to the Patois translation, the OIM has previously reported that the Department has had difficulty identifying an individual to translate the brochure into Patois. This requirement, however, may be obviated because the Parties are negotiating revisions to the Consent Decree that would remove the requirement that the VIPD translate complaint process materials to Patois.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 34 of 71
Office of the Independent Monitor | 27
working group should report on the Department‘s compliance with the memorandum next quarter. The OIM also encourages Commanders to ensure that complaint/compliment materials are ―always available‖ (as required by the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy) in the Zones, and the working group should continue to periodically inspect that the complaint/compliment materials are also available in police vehicles.
The VIPD reports that it conducted additional training on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy during Officer in-service training during the Second Quarter. The OIM has requested lesson plans for this training (and all in-service training), but the VIPD has not yet provided them. Nevertheless, the VIPD claims that the lesson plans are complete and have been reviewed by the Acting Director of Training and the VIPD‘s policy consultant.
To assess the proficiency of VIPD personnel on the citizen complaint process, the Complaint Process working group interviewed 4 VIPD personnel in the St. Thomas District at the end of June.29 The working group focused its inquiry on the process for filing a complaint, and the Supervisor‘s role in receiving a citizen‘s complaint. As a result of these inspections, the VIPD concluded that the VIPD must provide more Roll Call training on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints.
The OIM reached a similar conclusion while monitoring on St. Croix during the Second Quarter. There, a Police Practices Expert questioned Officers about their knowledge of the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and found that only 50% (3 out of 6) Officers responded correctly when asked to explain the process for filing a citizen complaint. The remaining responses omitted several key aspects of the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy, including: (1) how a citizen can file a complaint; (2) the Officer‘s obligations when a citizen wants to file a complaint; and (3) how citizens will be informed about the outcome of the complaint.
Finally, the VIPD reports that Public Service Announcements (―PSAs‖) about the citizen complaint process continue to be broadcast on fourteen radio stations on both Districts. All PSAs are sixty second segments that run one to two times per day five days per week, and will continue to run until the current contract expires in February of 2013.
29 The Complaint Process working group began conducting similar audits on St. Croix during the Third Quarter.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 35 of 71
28| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
The OIM is pleased with the Department‘s progress, specifically developing complaint forms, brochures, and public service announcements, and making those materials available at various governmental properties and community centers, but the Department is not in substantial compliance with ¶¶ 42-45 of the Consent Decree because VIPD personnel (as the VIPD admits) are not yet proficient with the citizen complaint policies.
2. Recommendations
The Complaint Process working group, in conjunction with the Audit Team (once it is functioning), should continue to test whether VIPD personnel adequately understand and comply with the complaint process. The OIM requests that the working group document its efforts and share its results with the OIM. The VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training as appropriate.
The Complaint Process working group should work to transition responsibility for confirming whether government properties and VIPD vehicles are equipped with the required complaint process materials to Supervisors. This process needs to be indoctrinated into VIPD culture. Finally, the Complaint Process working group should also consider drafting a policy/directive for the Police Commissioner‘s signature that requires the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to monitor the progress and due dates for completing the complaint investigations that are assigned to their Districts by the IAB, and to hold their subordinates accountable for completing investigations in a timely manner.
B. Investigation of Complaints (CD ¶¶ 46-58)
1. Status and Assessment
The Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy governs the investigation of citizen complaints. During the First Quarter, the Department trained Supervisors on St. Thomas on that policy, and the same training was held on St. Croix during the Second Quarter. One of the OIM‘s Police Practices Experts observed this training (see Section V. Training). Following training on both Districts, the Department reports that it endeavored to audit Supervisors‘ knowledge of the preponderance of the evidence standard (the evidentiary standard that the Department uses to investigate citizen complaints and uses of force). To facilitate these efforts, the Compliance Coordinator asked the VIAG in March for help developing a series of questions and answers to administer to Supervisors after training to assess their understanding of

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 36 of 71
Office of the Independent Monitor | 29
the preponderance of the evidence standard. The VIAG, however, has not responded to the Compliance Coordinator‘s request. The Department‘s capacity to properly investigate citizen complaints (and uses of force) was further stalled because the Training Division omitted (despite a request from the leader of the Complaint Process working group) preponderance of the evidence standard training from the Second Quarter‘s in-service training program. The VIPD reports that the Compliance Coordinator will speak with the Acting Director of Training to ensure that preponderance of the evidence training is included in future in-service training for Supervisors.
Additional training on the preponderance of the evidence standard is critical. As previously reported, while monitoring on St. Croix during the Second Quarter, one of the Police Practices Experts asked Supervisors about their understanding of the preponderance of evidence standard. Only 50% (3 out of 6) of the Supervisors correctly explained the preponderance of the evidence standard or how it differs from the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
The Complaint Process working group also reports, as it did during the First Quarter, that it will audit completed citizen complaint investigations to ensure that Supervisors are properly applying the preponderance of the evidence standard to investigations and that Supervisors comply with the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. The Complaint Process working group reports that the working group leader reviewed completed investigation files in the Office of the Police Chief and at Zones in the St. Thomas District to ensure that supervisors applied the preponderance of evidence standard when reviewing investigation files, and that all witnesses and complainants were interviewed. The working group, however, did not record the results of its inspections or share its audit methodology with the OIM. Accordingly, the OIM renews its request that the working group develop a protocol for and document these audits, and urges the Complaint Process working group leader, the Director of Training, the Director of IAB, and the VIAG to collaborate and provide follow-up inservice training on the preponderance of the evidence standard if necessary. The OIM also encourages the working group to conduct a similar audit on the St. Croix District during the Third Quarter.
Finally, under ¶ 51 of the Consent Decree, investigating Supervisors must interview all Officers who were present at the scene of an incident, and those interviews must be audio or video recorded. The Complaint Process working group continues to report during the Second Quarter that some interviews are not being recorded or videotaped

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 37 of 71
30| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
because compact discs are not available in the St. Thomas/St. John District. To resolve this issue, the Compliance Coordinator ordered 400 compact discs, and in the interim has made compact discs available at IAB.
The Consent Decree and Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy also require the VIPD to periodically inform complainants about the status of their complaints, including the final disposition. The VIPD‘s Status Report states ―there is no evidence that the Zones in either District [are] meeting this requirement.‖ The VIPD acknowledges that the Citizen Complaint Process working group and the Audit Team (when it is fully functional) must implement periodic inspections to identify and resolve any deficiencies.30 Similarly, the VIPD acknowledges that the Citizen Complaint Process working group and the Audit Team must conduct further inspections to determine whether completed citizen complaint investigations are being resolved with one of the required dispositions (―unfounded,‖ ―sustained,‖ ―not sustained,‖ or ―exonerated‖).31
During the First Quarter, the OIM reported that the Zones are not referring all allegations of Officer misconduct to IAB within five days as required in the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. The Complaint Process working group leader met with the Director of IAB during the Second Quarter and reported that Zones on both Districts are mostly compliant with this requirement.32 The working group, however, has not provided any documentation supporting that conclusion. The Complaint Process Working Group should document these audits and share the results with the OIM.
Similarly, the VIPD also reports that Commanders are not completing their investigations within the time period allotted under the policy. In an effort to correct this deficiency, the Deputy Chief of St. Thomas sent a memorandum requiring all Commanders to complete any delinquent citizen complaint investigations by the end of May. Any Commanders who failed to comply would receive a letter of reprimand. Despite repeated attempts by the OIM to learn the outcome of this demand (e.g., number of investigations completed, number of investigations still outstanding, and number of Commanders who received letters of reprimand), the VIPD failed to provide the requested
30 Status Report at 16. 31 Status Report at 20. 32 Complaint Process working group Bi-Weekly Report for June 15-30.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 38 of 71
Office of the Independent Monitor | 31
information during the second quarter. The OIM encourages the Deputy Chief of St. Croix to take a similar inventory of any delinquent investigations and to hold Commanders responsible for completing investigations. As the OIM has previously cautioned, the Department cannot afford to let complaints of potential misconduct linger considering the Department has a 50 day statute of limitations for disciplining officers.
In sum, at the end of the Second Quarter, the VIPD is not in substantial compliance with ¶¶ 46-58 of the Consent Decree concerning the investigation of complaints. Specifically, the VIPD has not demonstrated that it has adequately trained investigating Supervisors on the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. Additionally, the VIPD has failed to ensure that complaints are being adequately investigated within the allotted time period, or that complainants are being kept apprised about the status of their complaints.
2. Recommendations
The OIM‘s recommendations have not changed since the First Quarter because the VIPD has not made significant progress in key areas. The VIPD must provide Officers with additional training on the Citizen Complaint process and then conduct and document periodic audits to ensure that VIPD personnel are complying with the relevant policies.33 The Complaint Process working group should also assess whether VIPD personnel properly follow the complaint process from intake, to investigation, to final disposition. Finally, the Complaint Process working group should evaluate whether: (1) Supervisors use proper interview techniques (i.e., they are not asking leading questions) during an investigation; (2) complainants are informed about the outcome of their complaint; (3) the preponderance of the evidence standard is properly applied; and (4) investigations are completed and returned to IAB within the timeframe specified in the policies. Based on its audits, the Complaint Process working group should identify any trends or areas for improvement. Additionally, the VIPD and VIAG should finalize the questions that they are developing to assure that Supervisors understand and are comfortable applying the preponderance of the evidence standard.
33 The VIPD acknowledged the need to audit its citizen complaint process in its Status Report.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 39 of 71
32| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
IV. Management and Supervision (CD ¶¶ 59-72)
A. Risk Management System (CD ¶¶ 59-68)
1. Status and Assessment
As previously reported, the VIPD has chosen the computer program IAPro as its RMS. The RMS will help the Department to track incidents and identify patterns relating to potentially problematic behavior by VIPD personnel. VIPD personnel use Blue Team—a companion computer program to IAPro—to enter RRRs directly into IAPro. Blue Team also allows Supervisors and Commanders to review and sign-off on use of force investigations, and to monitor use of force patterns.
The VIPD reports that following Blue Team training on St. Thomas during the First Quarter, VIPD personnel now enter RRRs and citizen complaints into Blue Team, but some confusion resulted because Officers mistakenly thought that entering the information into Blue Team negated the need to complete a hardcopy RRR. The Department said that additional training is required to clarify any misunderstandings. The Department must still schedule Blue Team training on St. Croix. The Management and Supervision working group reports that the Training Academy on the St. Croix District is unavailable because of Officer Recruit training. Attempts to reserve alternative space outside the Department have failed, but the working group reported during the Third Quarter that the Police Commissioner‘s conference room will accommodate the training.
The OIM received conflicting reports on the functionality of Blue Team. Although the VIPD‘s Status Report indicates that ―the Blue Team software also is operational in both Districts,‖ one of the OIM‘s Police Practices Experts received conflicting information from VIPD personnel while monitoring during the Third Quarter. The OIM requests that the Management and Supervision working group conduct periodic tests on both Districts to ensure that Blue Team is fully operational in all required locations on both Districts.
The large capacity servers that the Management Information Systems Bureau (―MIS‖) (the Department‘s information technology group) ordered to increase the Department‘s electronic storage capacity for IAPro and other databases finally arrived during the First Quarter. The servers, however, were not installed during the Second Quarter because the VIPD must first resolve several maintenance issues (i.e., install an air conditioner and electrical outlets) at the Training Academy in the St.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 40 of 71
Office of the Independent Monitor | 33
Thomas District. It is unclear why these maintenance issues were not resolved while the VIPD waited for the servers to arrive during a severalmonth manufacturing delay. Unfortunately, this lack of foresight impedes the Department‘s ability to resolve persistent technological limitations.
The Department reports that it is working to finalize an arrest database on both Districts to track key information about arrests. With input from the IAB, the Records Bureau, MIS, and the Planning and Research Bureau on both Districts, the Compliance Coordinator led efforts during the Second Quarter to modify the arrest form to include additional data fields required by the Consent Decree. The VIPD submitted the revised arrest form to the Planning and Research Bureau for review. The VIPD intends to provide an update on final approval by the Police Commissioner during the Third Quarter.
The VIPD continued to make revisions to the RMS Protocol pursuant to ¶ 64 of the Consent Decree during the Second Quarter. The comment and revision process for the RMS Protocol began on April 15, 2011 when the VIPD submitted an initial draft of the RMS Protocol to the DOJ. During the Second Quarter, the VIPD submitted its ninth revised draft of the RMS Protocol to the DOJ. During the Third Quarter, on October 2, 2012, the DOJ approved the RMS Protocol.
As previously reported, the RMS Protocol provides various thresholds that trigger supervisory review. For example, if an Officer receives more than X number of complaints within Y period of time, IAPro will alert the Officer‘s Supervisor (and other appropriate personnel) to the potential issue and need for review. When reporting arrest and use of force data, DOJ requires that the VIPD use ratios based on the conduct of VIPD personnel (the total number of arrests where force was used divided by the total number of arrests) to identify potentially problematic behavior. The VIPD, however, currently uses numerical thresholds based on historic norms (X number of uses of force within a twelve month period). The DOJ and VIPD have agreed that, for the time being, the VIPD may continue to use thresholds rather than ratios until such time when the VIPD can rely on its arrest and force records.34 For
34 As previously reported, the VIPD contends that ongoing technical limitations and incomplete arrest and force records would render ratios unreliable for the time being. With respect to the Department‘s arrest and force records, that information may be unreliable because: (1) there are instances where Officers make an arrest, use force, and release the subject without completing an arrest report or documenting the release; (2) when arrests are documented, the arrest report may not identify all involved officers (particularly where a group of officers is involved in
Footnote continued

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 41 of 71
34| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
now, IAPro will notify an Officer‘s Supervisor when the Officer reaches two uses of force within a six-month period. The Early Intervention Program (―EIP‖) Coordinator will then conduct a review and determine if further action is required. The Parties agree that the Department will not be in compliance with the Consent Decree until it implements a ratiobased RMS Protocol.
The DOJ approved the VIPD‘s Data Input Plan on March 22, 2011, but the Department had not provided any training on the plan as of the end of the Second Quarter. Specifically, the Data Input Plan identifies information about VIPD personnel (including, but not limited to, uses of force, disciplinary issues, motor vehicle accidents, and sick days) that the Department is required to enter into IAPro to facilitate its risk management function. The VIPD reports that during the Second Quarter the Training Division disseminated copies of all approved policies, including the Data Input Plan, to VIPD personnel. Once dissemination is complete, the VIPD states that the IAB will provide training on the Data Input Plan.
To help track VIPD personnel (who may change job functions, names, etc.) the Police Commissioner issued a directive during the Fourth Quarter of 2011 ordering that a PDN be assigned to all sworn personnel, including designated civilian personnel with assignments as agents, auxiliaries, and forensic technicians. The PDN is a four digit number assigned by the Virgin Islands Territorial Emergency Management Agency (―VITEMA‖).35 Officers are required to use their PDN (which personnel will have for their entire career) on all police reports, rather than their badge numbers as was the previous practice. According to the Department, all VIPD personnel on both Districts have received PDNs.
The Compliance Coordinator continued to review Form 1As from the St. Thomas District to determine whether personnel are using their PDNs. The inspection revealed that 20 out of 60 Form 1As did not include the Officer‘s PDN, and none of the reports included the Supervisor‘s PDN. Although the Police Commissioner instructed the Chief of the St. Croix District (or his designee) to conduct a similar audit,
Footnote continued from previous page
an arrest); and (3) Officers who physically make an arrest are not always identified in the arrest report. The VIPD seeks to overcome these issues by improving its arrest and force record keeping. The development of a comprehensive arrest database is one aspect of achieving this goal (see supra at p. 28). 35 VITEMA is responsible for the Virgin Island‘s 911 system.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 42 of 71
Office of the Independent Monitor | 35
the Management and Supervision working group has not reported that any inspections have occurred on St. Croix. Moreover, the VIPD acknowledges that some Officers in the St. Croix District are not using their PDN. The OIM encourages the Management and Supervision working group to continue to monitor whether VIPD personnel are using their PDNs as required.
In sum, while the VIPD has made progress implementing certain aspects of IAPro, the RMS Protocol needs to be finalized, the Data Input Plan needs to be fully implemented, and additional training on Blue Team is required. Therefore, at the end of the Second Quarter, the Department has not substantially complied with ¶¶ 59-68 of the Consent Decree.
2. Recommendations
The Management and Supervision working group should promptly finalize the Department‘s RMS Protocol, Blue Team Protocol, and Disciplinary Matrix, and train on the Data Input Plan. With respect to the RMS Protocol, the VIPD should work with the DOJ to finalize the policy expeditiously given the number of drafts that have been exchanged to date, and the limited number of changes left to make. Moreover, once the RMS Protocol is implemented, the Department must conduct the required beta test (i.e., an initial full scale test) of the RMS. The Department must also remedy any outstanding technical issues relating to IAPro and Blue Team, including installing the Department‘s new servers.
The Management and Supervision working group must also conduct Blue Team training on St. Croix, and together with the Training Division, determine whether follow-up training for Blue Team on either District is needed. Since VIPD personnel will eventually enter RRRs directly into Blue Team, the Management and Supervision working group should ensure that VIPD personnel are proficient using Blue Team in order to avoid any instances where uses of force are unreported because an individual is not proficient on Blue Team.
Finally, the Department should complete drafts of the Behavioral Health Services Policy and Officer Peer Support Policy. Once those policies are in ―near final‖ form, the OIM would welcome the opportunity to provide comments.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 43 of 71
36| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
B. Oversight (CD ¶ 69)
1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations
The VIPD is not in substantial compliance with ¶ 69 of the Consent Decree because it has not finalized and implemented an Audit Protocol for the RMS and other areas of the Consent Decree (e.g., use of force citizen complaints). The VIPD will not be able to ensure that it has substantially complied with the Consent Decree‘s substantive provisions until it finalizes the Audit Protocol. The VIPD has reported for several quarters that its Policy Consultant is working on a draft Audit Protocol, but has not provided a timeline by which he intends to complete the policy. In developing such a policy, the VIPD should consider specifying the audit methodology that will be used when conducting audits and identifying the documents or other materials it will use to make its determinations. Because it is the VIPD‘s responsibility to complete and implement the policy, the OIM encourages the VIPD to follow up with the Policy Consultant on the Audit Protocol in order to finalize it during the Third Quarter of 2012.
During the Fourth Quarter of 2011, the VIPD formed an Audit Team to evaluate the effectiveness of the Department‘s internal controls. Despite some activity during the First Quarter of 2012, the VIPD reports during the Second Quarter that the Audit Team ―is not yet a functional entity‖36 because the Department has not finalized the Audit Protocol and the Audit Team has not received any training on auditing procedures. The VIPD reports that the Audit Team has identified training in Phoenix, Arizona, and that Audit Team members will attend in September or October of 2012. Additionally, the VIPD has reported previously that the Audit Team is working on an action plan to prioritize areas for auditing and to set deadlines by which to complete the audits. The VIPD, however, did not provide the OIM with an update on the action plan during the Second Quarter.
C. Discipline (CD ¶¶ 70-72)
1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations
As previously reported in April, the DOJ approved the Disciplinary Policy and Matrix,37 which provides disciplinary guidelines for different types of misconduct. Nevertheless, the VIPD subsequently decided to
36 Status Report at 21. 37 OIM First Quarterly Report of 2011 at 19.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 44 of 71
Office of the Independent Monitor | 37
further revise the ―charge and penalty section‖ of the Disciplinary Matrix; any such revisions will require DOJ approval. The Management and Supervision working group, however, reports that the VIPD made no progress revising the Disciplinary Matrix during the Second Quarter. The Chief of the St. Thomas District, as the leader of the Committee, has tasked the Management and Supervision working group with revising the Disciplinary Matrix. A meeting was scheduled during the Second Quarter to discuss the Disciplinary Matrix, but was cancelled and not rescheduled. Because the OIM has observed first-hand that the Department inconsistently applies disciplinary sanctions, stalled progress is detrimental to the Department‘s efforts to comply with the Consent Decree.38
At the end of the Second Quarter, the VIPD is not in substantial compliance with ¶¶ 70-72 of the Consent Decree because it has not finalized and implemented the Disciplinary Matrix.
V. Training (CD ¶¶ 73-81)
A. Management Oversight (CD ¶¶ 73-77) and Curriculum (CD ¶¶ 78-81)
1. Status and Assessment
For the first time since the working groups were formed in January 2011, the Training working group has submitted an Action Plan to the OIM. For many quarters, the OIM has provided feedback on action plans submitted by other working groups and provided specific recommendations for improvement. The Training working group, however, squandered the opportunity to benefit from these comments and submitted an action plan with the same deficiencies that the OIM has raised previously with other working groups. For example, the action plan fails to provide any dates by which the Department will comply with provisions of the Consent Decree, and does not provide a roadmap for achieving substantial compliance. Additionally, efforts toward achieving substantial compliance are not provided for all provisions. One of the Police Practices Expert discussed these deficiencies with the Training working group and encouraged the working group to revise its action plan accordingly and to submit a new version to the OIM during the Third Quarter.
38 See, e.g., OIM First Quarterly Report of 2012 at 33.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 45 of 71
38| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
As the VIPD has previously reported, a bureaucratic impasse between the Department and Property and Procurement had prevented the VIPD from offering many Consent Decree related training programs/courses in prior quarters.39 During the Second Quarter, however, the VIPD reported that all pending contracts had received approval, allowing the Department to proceed with instructor training for several Consent Decree policies, including Field Training Officer trainthe-trainer,40 Basic and Advanced SWAT Certification (which will include training on the VIPD‘s recently issued SRT/HNT Policy and Sniper Policy), Pursuit Driving and Spike Strip train-the-trainer, and TASER train-the-trainer. These trainings are scheduled for the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2012. The VIPD also received approval of a contract with its Policy Consultant to provide Consent Decree related training, such as Investigating Uses of Force, the Citizen Complaint Process, and Off-Duty Conduct.
During the Second Quarter, the VIPD provided Consent Decree training on the St. Croix District entitled ―Investigating Use of Force for Supervisors,‖ ―Investigating Citizens Complaint Process for Supervisors,‖ and ―Leadership Training for Supervisors.‖41 The same training was held on the St. Thomas District during the First Quarter.
The Department also held train-the-trainer training on the Department‘s firearms simulators. Although instructors have been certified, Officers have not been trained because the Department is developing a standard operating procedure (―SOP‖) to address how the simulators should be used during training. Once drafting is complete, the Training Division will submit the SOP to the Committee for approval. The Training working group also reports that the IAB has provided the Training Division with several use of force investigation files to use for
39 Property and Procurement requires vendors located outside of the Virgin Islands to obtain a business license from the Department of Licensing and Consumer Affairs, a process that can take several weeks or more.
40 The OIM has repeatedly stated that the FTO program is critical. Once instructors are certified, the VIPD should provide training to the FTO candidates as soon as practicable thereafter because the current FTOs were never adequately trained. The rudimentary training that they received focused on how to fill out basic paperwork relating to their trainees.
41 The Training Division conducted other non-Consent Decree related training for VIPD personnel in both Districts during the Second Quarter, including ―Tint and Noise Meter Train-the-Trainer‖ and train-the-trainer training on the Department‘s firearms simulators.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 46 of 71
Office of the Independent Monitor | 39
scenario based training to demonstrate proper use of force decision making.
One of the OIM‘s Police Practices Experts observed the ―Investigating Citizens Complaint Process for Supervisors‖ training.42 The OIM learned that materials such as audiocassettes or compact discs were not readily available in the Department to allow Supervisors and IAB agents to record complainant interviews and witness statements as required by the Misconduct and Citizens Complaints Policy. The OIM‘s Police Practices Experts also learned that Supervisors were receiving citizen complaints and closing the cases without referring the complaints to IAB or completing an investigation according to the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. As the OIM has previously reported, some Supervisors arrived late or left the training for prolonged periods of time. The Director of Training, however, addressed the class and stated that a Supervisor who misses more than ninety minutes of instruction for a particular training will not receive credit for attending that training and will be required to repeat the entire training. While this is a positive development toward enforcing attendance, the OIM encourages the VIPD (to the extent it has not done so already) to formalize this policy throughout the Department.
During the Second Quarter the VIPD also began in-service training (which will continue during the Third Quarter) for Supervisors on both Districts. In-service training for Officers will be held and reported on during the Third Quarter.43 According to the schedule provided by the VIPD, Supervisors attended in-service training on many important Consent Decree related policies, including the Use of Force Policy, Reportable Use of Force Policy, Firearms Policy, Impact Weapons Policy, Electronic Control Weapons Policy, O.C. Spray Policy, Firearms Policy, Canine Policy, Off-Duty Official Action Policy, Psychological Fitness for Duty Policy, Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy, Investigating Misconduct and Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy. The VIPD reports that instructors submitted lesson plans for in-service training to the Training Division for approval, and that the lesson plans were reviewed by the VIPD‘s Policy Consultant. Despite repeatedly asking the
42 The OIM observed the ―Investigating Use of Force for Supervisors‖ and ―Leadership Training for Supervisors‖ training held on the St. Thomas District during the First Quarter and reported on the trainings in the last quarterly report.
43 During the April 23, 2012 hearing, the VIPD told the Court that they expect to complete all Consent Decree related training by December 21, 2012.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 47 of 71
40| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Department to provide those lesson plans, the OIM had not received them by the end of the Second Quarter.
Nevertheless, the VIPD reports that records of lesson plans and other training materials are maintained on both Districts. For now, files are maintained manually in alphabetical order and electronically filed and stored according to the date the training record was entered into the database. During the Second Quarter, Police Practices Experts inspected training records on both Districts. The Training Division demonstrated the capabilities of its training database on St. Thomas, and provided a binder of organized lesson plans for inspection. The binder, however, did not contain all lesson plans because when the Police Practice Expert asked to see a lesson plan for training on the ECW Policy (and TASERs in particular), the Training Division could not locate a copy. Files on St. Croix appeared to be less organized. Hardcopy lesson plans were stacked in files on a desk, and an Excel spreadsheet that allows for little flexibility (e.g., queries must be entered exactly and can only include two data points). MIS, however, has plans for a new system. Once the previously referenced large capacity servers are installed on both Districts, the VIPD intends to maintain previously referenced records electronically in a uniform database.
The Training working group also reports that at the end of each training, VIPD personnel complete forms to evaluate the quality of instruction provided. The Training work group indicates that the evaluations are reviewed by the Director of Training or his designee, and subsequently stored in a binder in the Training Division. According to the VIPD, the Training Division has developed a series of 5 to 10 questions based on the Department‘s policies to test Officers‘ proficiency with policies following training. The OIM‘s requests to review these questionnaires, however, have gone unanswered.
With respect to Roll Call training, the VIPD reports that the policy is not fully implemented because all Zones have not appointed a Training Coordinator for Roll Call training. Despite this delay, the VIPD reports that completed Roll Call Training Forms (which Supervisors complete to record Roll Call or Commanders Call training in the Zones) are forwarded to the Training Division as required, and copies of the forms are kept in binders in the Chiefs‘ Offices on both Districts. The OIM requested copies of all Roll Call Training Forms for Consent Decree related trainings held during the Second Quarter, but the VIPD has not provided this documentation.
Finally, the Department must also review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure compliance with

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 48 of 71
Office of the Independent Monitor | 41
applicable laws and VIPD policy. To meet this requirement, the VIPD has discussed entering into a memorandum of understanding (―MOU‖) with the VIAG to review policies and training. At the VIAG‘s request, the Compliance Coordinator identified all Consent Decree provisions that the MOU will cover. At the end of the Second Quarter, the VIAG has not responded to the VIPD.44
2. Recommendations
As we have emphasized in previous reports, the VIPD should develop lesson plans for all training programs in advance of the corresponding training (and in most cases while the policy is being finalized) so they can be vetted appropriately, including review of all lesson plans by the Director of Training and the VIAG, if necessary, without delaying training.
The OIM also encourages the Police Commissioner to hold the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs accountable for their subordinates‘ compliance with training requirements. To that end, the Training Division should continue to keep the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs apprised whenever VIPD personnel in their command miss a scheduled training. Additionally, the Training Division should work closely with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to arrange further training (in-service, Roll Call, and Commanders Call) on certain policies for which compliance has been problematic, including the ECW Policy, Accepting Citizen Complaints Policy, and the preponderance of the evidence standard for Supervisors.
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶¶ 73-81 of the Consent Decree. In addition to holding training programs for a number of recently issued policies, the Training Division should work closely with the Use of Force, Complaint Process, and Management and Supervision working groups to prepare training programs for policies that are under development. Moreover, the Training Division should identify areas that require additional training, either through additional in-service training or Roll Call and Commanders Call training, to ensure that VIPD personnel adequately understand their obligations.
44 During the Third Quarter, the VIAG reported that it concluded that a MOU was unnecessary because the Consent Decree details VIAG‘s responsibility for reviewing policies and training.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 49 of 71
42| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
VI. Monitoring, Reporting, and Implementation (CD ¶¶ 82-102)
1. Status, Assessment, and Recommendations
On July 6, 2012, the VIPD submitted its twelfth Status Report to the DOJ and the OIM. We reiterate that it is in the VIPD‘s interest to share as much information with the OIM as possible so that we can accurately, fairly, and comprehensively report on all of the VIPD‘s efforts. To that end, we ask that the VIPD follow through once it has committed to providing the OIM with certain materials (e.g., lesson plans, training questionnaires), and that the VIPD do so without the OIM having to repeat its requests. Finally, the OIM encourages the VIPD to clearly state in its status report whether it believes that it has achieved substantial compliance with each substantive provision of the Consent Decree. We note that the VIPD incorrectly claimed to be in substantial compliance with only one provision (¶42) during the Second Quarter. For the reasons provided in Section III. Citizen Complaint Process, the VIPD has not yet achieved substantial compliance with paragraph 42.
After the OIM first requested access several quarters ago, the VIPD and VIAG finally granted the OIM access during the Second Quarter to the administrative investigation files for two fatal police involved shootings that occurred on St. Thomas in September 2011 and on St. Croix in January 2012. The VIPD and VIAG also agreed to grant access to certain other materials, such as arrest reports, arrest warrants, and warrant application regardless of whether these materials were included in open criminal investigation files.45 The Police Practices Experts‘ review of those administrative investigation files cannot be completed, however, until the VIPD provides certain missing materials that the OIM has been requesting for months.
2. Status of Substantial Compliance
Before the Consent Decree expires on March 23, 2014, the VIPD must substantially comply with each Consent Decree provision and remain in compliance for two years.46 Under the Consent Decree Timetable, the VIPD should have substantially complied with ¶¶ 32-58, 70, and 72 by May 31, 2011, ¶¶ 60, 61, and 73-81 by June 30, 2011,
45 CD ¶ 95. 46 CD ¶ 103.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 50 of 71
Office of the Independent Monitor | 43
and ¶¶ 49, 59, 63-66 by September 15, 2011. Instead, they have only complied with ¶¶ 82-86, 88, and 98.
Specifically, as the OIM has previously reported, the VIPD has only complied with the following Consent Decree provisions (a chart summarizing the VIPD‘s progress toward substantial compliance is at the end of the Executive Summary):
 In January 2010, the Parties to the Consent Decree selected the Monitor (CD ¶¶ 82-86);
 Effective June 2009, the Police Commissioner appointed a Compliance Coordinator to serve as a liaison between the Parties to the Consent Decree and the Monitor (CD ¶ 88); and
 Beginning in June 2009, the VIPD began issuing quarterly status reports delineating the steps taken by the VIPD to comply with the Consent Decree (CD ¶ 98).
The OIM provided a draft Substantial Compliance Thresholds Chart (―Chart‖) to the Department on November 1, 2011. The Chart is intended to guide the VIPD toward substantial compliance by identifying the criteria that the OIM will use to evaluate the VIPD‘s compliance with the Consent Decree. After receiving general comments from the VIAG during the Fourth Quarter of 2011, the OIM sent a letter on December 1, 2011 to the VIPD‘s legal counsel requesting a conference call to discuss the VIPD‘s comments. After lengthy delays by the VIAG, the OIM and the VIAG had a substantive conversation on April 3, 2012 during which the VIAG agreed to provide the OIM with specific draft language by May 3, 2012 to amend any metrics that the VIAG considered objectionable. As of the end of the Second Quarter, the VIAG had not responded as promised. As we stated last quarter, there is no excuse for this delay. We encourage the Police Commissioner to follow up with the VIAG about the OIM‘s outstanding request for the VIAG‘s comments.
Despite these delays, the OIM remains hopeful that the Chart will be finalized and that the OIM will be able to use the Chart to evaluate the Department‘s compliance by the Fourth quarter of 2012. Once the Chart is finalized, the Audit Team should utilize it to conduct its own internal audits during the life of the Consent Decree and beyond.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 51 of 71
44| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Conclusion
While the VIPD continues to make progress in certain areas, particularly in connection with the citizen complaint process, a tremendous amount of work remains. Completing timely and adequate use of force and complaint investigations is paramount for the Department to assess whether VIPD personnel are following Department policies, and for the Department to evaluate the need for further training and, if necessary, discipline personnel who consistently fail to comply with Department policies.
In order to move toward substantial compliance, the Department must ensure that the Audit Team becomes a functioning entity capable of conducting audits and working in concert with the Training Division, IAB, and the working groups to conduct audits. A robust auditing function is essential to the Department‘s ability to ensure that policies are implemented, that personnel understand and comply with Department policies, and that remedial training or other required action is taken to ensure that VIPD personnel are equipped to carry out Department policies and procedures in their daily policing activities.
The OIM is hopeful that the proposed joint action plan that the Court ordered the Parties to submit will refocus the VIPD‘s Consent Decree compliance efforts. Under the Parties‘ proposed joint action plan (which is subject to the Court‘s review), the VIPD must comply with each substantive provision in the Consent Decree by October 31, 2013 and then remain in compliance for two years. We believe that the VIPD can meet those mandates if it commits substantially more effort to complying with the Consent Decree. However, if the VIPD maintains the status quo, it will not achieve substantial compliance.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 52 of 71

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 53 of 71

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 54 of 71
Office of the Independent Monitor | i
Appendix A Summary of Consent Decree Requirements
Below is a summary of the requirements imposed by each substantive section of the Consent Decree. Because these summaries of the substantive requirements significantly lengthen our reports, we include them in this Appendix to provide the reader with context concerning the VIPD‘s progress in implementing the broad range of reforms required under each section of the Consent Decree.
I. Use of Force Policies (CD ¶ 31)
A. Requirements
Under paragraph 31 of the Consent Decree, the VIPD is required to review and revise its use of force policies as necessary to:
 Define terms clearly, including establishing a definition of force that is consistent with the definition of force under the Consent Decree;1
 Incorporate a use of force model that teaches officers to use, as appropriate, strategies such as disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, or calling in specialized units to assist with a situation;
 Advise VIPD officers that, whenever possible, individuals should be allowed to submit voluntarily to arrest before force is used;
 Reinforce that the use of excessive force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and potential civil liability;
 Ensure that sufficient less lethal force alternatives are available to all VIPD officers; and
 Explicitly prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized.2
1 Under the Consent Decree, ―[t]he term ‗force‘ means any physical coercion used to effect, influence or persuade an individual to comply with an order from an officer. The term shall not include ordinary, unresisted handcuffing. The term shall include the use of chemical irritant and the deployment of a canine and/or pointing a firearm at or in the direction of a human being.‖ CD ¶ 21.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 55 of 71
ii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
This provision requires that the VIPD implement its revised use of force policies immediately after the DOJ has reviewed and approved finalized versions of the policies.
II. Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force (CD ¶¶ 32-41)
A. General Use of Force Events (CD ¶¶ 32-38)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires that the VIPD document in writing all uses of force and develop a use of force reporting form on which officers are required to record each and every type of force used in an incident. The use of force reports must include: (1) a narrative description, prepared by a supervisor, of the events preceding the use of force; (2) a narrative description, prepared by the involved officer, of the event relating to the use of force incident; and, (3) audiotaped statements, as appropriate, from those officers.3
The Consent Decree requires officers to notify their supervisors following any use of force or allegation of excessive force. The supervisor must respond to the scene, examine the person who was subjected to the use of force for injury, interview him or her to determine the extent of any injuries, and ensure that the person receives medical attention, if necessary.
A supervisor must conduct a review and evaluation of each use of force by a VIPD officer. The Consent Decree contains the following requirements relating to these evaluations of uses of force:
 The supervisor must prepare a detailed narrative description of the incident that includes all of the facts and circumstances relevant to determining whether or not the involved officers‘ conduct was justified.
Footnote continued from previous page 2 The Consent Decree defines ―deadly force‖ as ―any use of force likely to cause death
or serious physical injury, including, but not limited to, the discharge of a firearm.‖ CD ¶ 20. 3 The Consent Decree defines ―supervisor‖ as a ―sworn VIPD employee at the rank of corporal or above (or anyone acting in those capacities) and non-sworn personnel with oversight responsibility for other officers.‖ CD ¶ 27.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 56 of 71
Office of the Independent Monitor | iii
 The supervisor must evaluate the grounds for the use of force and determine whether the involved officers‘ actions were consistent with VIPD policy.
 To filter out potential bias, reviews of use of force incidents may not be conducted by any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized action that led to a use of force or allegation of excessive force.
 Supervisors are required to interview all witnesses of a use of force, as well as all witnesses of any incident in which an injury results from a use of force. Supervisors must ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident, subject to any limitations imposed by any applicable provision of collective bargaining agreements or law.
 Supervisors are not permitted to ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that might, for example, suggest legal justifications for the officers‘ conduct.
 Supervisors must consider all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence, as appropriate. Supervisors are required to make reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between statements provided by witnesses and make determinations with respect to the credibility of witnesses when feasible. The VIPD is required to train all of its supervisors on methods and factors for evaluating the credibility of a witness.
 Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that use of force reports identify every officer who was involved in a use of force incident or was on the scene when the incident occurred. Supervisors must ensure that use of force reports reflect whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided to an injured person, and, if not, whether the person refused medical treatment. Supervisors also must ensure that use of force reports include contemporaneous photographs or video of all injuries resulting from the underlying incident. These images must be taken both before and after any treatment of the injuries, including the cleansing of wounds.
 Supervisors are required to evaluate the performance of all officers under their command who use force or were involved in

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 57 of 71
iv| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
an incident that resulted in a subject being injured due to a use of force by an officer.
 Finally, the Consent Decree requires a Deputy Chief to review and evaluate every use of force performance review prepared by a VIPD supervisor. The Deputy Chief‘s review must include the identification of any deficiencies in the supervisors‘ reviews and must require supervisors to correct any such deficiencies. The Consent Decree requires the Department to hold supervisors accountable for the quality of their use of force reviews, including subjecting a supervisor to appropriate corrective or disciplinary action in cases where the supervisor failed to conduct a timely and thorough review, or failed to recommend or implement appropriate corrective action with respect to a subject officer.
The VIPD also must investigate all critical firearm discharges.4 These reviews must account for all shots fired and the locations of all officers who discharged their weapons. In connection with the investigation of all critical firearm discharges, the VIPD is required to conduct, as appropriate, ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue and bullet trajectory tests.
B. Specific Force Policies (CD ¶¶ 39-41)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop a Use of Firearms Policy that is consistent with applicable law and current professional standards. This policy must:
 Prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition and inform officers that any such use may subject them to disciplinary action;
 Establish a single, uniform system for reporting all firearm discharges;
 Prohibit officers from obtaining service ammunition from any source other than official VIPD channels;
4 The Consent Decree defines the term ―critical firearm discharge‖ as ―each discharge of a firearm by a VIPD officer with the exception of range and training discharges and discharges at animals.‖ CD ¶ 22.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 58 of 71
Office of the Independent Monitor | v
 Specify the number of rounds VIPD officers are authorized to carry; and,
 Require that all discharges of firearms by officers, including unintentional discharges, whether on duty or off-duty at the time of the discharge, are reported and investigated.
The VIPD also must develop a revised policy regarding officers‘ offduty conduct that:
 Provides that, absent exigent circumstances, off-duty officers must notify the VIPD or the relevant local law enforcement agency before taking police action; and
 Requires that an officer who responds to an incident while offduty must submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests if it appears that the officer had consumed alcohol or was otherwise impaired at the time of the incident.
Finally, the VIPD is required to implement a policy that provides for an intermediate force device that falls between the use of chemical spray and the use of a firearm on the use of force continuum. This intermediate force device must be one that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The VIPD must incorporate the use of this intermediate force device into its use of force continuum and train officers in the device‘s use on an annual basis.
III. Citizen Complaint Process (CD ¶¶ 42-58)
A. Public Information (CD ¶¶ 42-43) & Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints (CD ¶¶ 44-45)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop and implement a program to inform members of the public that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any VIPD officer. The Consent Decree contains the following requirements with respect to this public information program:
 The VIPD must develop and distribute complaint forms, fact sheets, informational posters, and public service announcements that describe its citizen complaint process.
 The VIPD must make complaint forms and informational materials available at government facilities, including VIPD

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 59 of 71
vi| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
stations, substations, mobile substations, and libraries. These forms and materials also must be available on the Internet and, upon request, with community groups and at community centers.
 Each VIPD station, substation, and mobile substation must permanently post a placard that describes the complaint process and includes relevant contact information, including telephone numbers. These placards must be displayed in English, Spanish, and, where necessary in light of the local community, in French or French Patois.
 VIPD officers are required to carry English, Spanish, French, and French Patois5 versions of complaint forms and informational brochures in their vehicles at all times while on duty.
 If a citizen objects to an officer‘s conduct, the officer is required to inform the citizen of his or her right to make a complaint.
 Officers are prohibited from discouraging any person from making a complaint concerning an officer‘s conduct.
The Consent Decree imposes the following requirements relating to the availability of means by which members of the public may lodge complaints against VIPD officers and the tracking of such complaints:
 The VIPD must be able to receive complaints filed in writing or orally, in person or by mail, and by telephone (or TDD), facsimile, or electronic mail.
 The duty officer at the front desk of each District station shall be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints. At the intake stage, an officer taking a complaint is permitted to describe facts that relate to a complainant‘s demeanor and physical conditions but may not express
5 The OIM notes that paragraph 43 of the Consent Decree does not expressly require VIPD officers to carry French language complaint forms and informational brochures in addition to French Patois. However, in light of the third sentence in paragraph 43 (which requires French language placards describing the complaint process), the OIM believes that this was an inadvertent omission. For future printings of brochures and other similar promotional information, the OIM suggests that the VIPD create versions in English, Spanish, French, and French Patois to satisfy the intent of the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 60 of 71
Office of the Independent Monitor | vii
opinions regarding the complainant‘s mental competency or veracity.
 Upon receipt, the VIPD is required to assign each complaint a unique identifier number, which must be provided to the complainant.
 The VIPD must track each complaint according to the type of misconduct alleged in the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, and improper search).
 Copies of all allegations of misconduct against a VIPD officer that are filed with the Zone Commands shall be referred to the IAB within five business days.
B. Investigation of Complaints (CD ¶¶ 46-58)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree establishes numerous specific requirements relating to the investigation of complaints against VIPD officers, including the following:
 Complaints must be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. The VIPD is required to develop and implement appropriate training regarding application of the preponderance of the evidence standard in internal investigations of allegations of officer misconduct.
 The VIPD must explicitly prohibit an officer from being involved in the investigation of a complaint or incident if the officer used force during the underlying incident, was involved in conduct that led to the injury of a person during the incident, or authorized the conduct that led to the reported incident.
 The VIPD must investigate every citizen complaint and the resolution of each complaint shall be documented in writing.
 The VIPD must develop a clear policy and procedure regarding the intake of complaints, including anonymous and confidential complaints, against VIPD officers.
 The Department must implement a centralized system for numbering and tracking all complaints.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 61 of 71
viii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
 IAB is responsible for determining whether each individual investigation of a complaint will be assigned to a Zone, retained by IAB, or referred for possible criminal investigation.
 If IAB refers a complaint to one of the Zones for investigation, the Zone must immediately forward to IAB copies of all documents, findings, and recommendations so that IAB is able to track and monitor the investigation.
 The Police Commissioner must be notified of all complaints alleging excessive force or violation of a person‘s Constitutional rights within twenty-four hours of the VIPD‘s receipt of the complaint.
The VIPD also is required to develop a single policy governing the investigation of misconduct complaints, regardless of whether the investigation of such complaints is conducted by IAB or a Zone command. This policy must:
 Provide guidance concerning factors for investigators to consider in evaluating the credibility of the complainant and other witnesses, examining and interrogating accused officers and other witnesses, identifying potential misconduct that is not specifically referred to in the complaint, and applying the preponderance of the evidence standard. The VIPD also must train all officers who perform internal investigations on these issues.
 Require that VIPD investigators ensure that all officers present at the scene of the underlying incident provide a statement and that all interviews be recorded, as appropriate, on audio or video.
 Require that investigation findings include conclusions regarding whether:
 The police action was in compliance with policy, training, and legal standards, regardless of whether the complainant suffered harm;
 The incident involved misconduct by any officer;
 The use of different tactics could have, or should have, been employed;

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 62 of 71
Office of the Independent Monitor | ix
 The underlying incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling, or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and
 The incident suggests that the VIPD should revise its policy, training, or tactics.
 Establish that each allegation investigated must be resolved by a finding of either ―unfounded,‖ ―sustained,‖ ―not sustained,‖ or ―exonerated.‖6
 Provide guidance to all investigators regarding procedures for handling allegations of potential criminal misconduct, including the referral of such allegations to the Virgin Islands Attorney General‘s Office or other appropriate agency for possible criminal prosecution. The policy must establish the entity or individual responsible for making the determination as to whether a matter should be investigated criminally. The policy also must require the completion of the VIPD‘s administrative investigations of potentially criminal misconduct, regardless of the initiation or outcome of any criminal proceedings.
 Require that all relevant police activity, including each use of force, be investigated, even if the activity or force was not specifically complained about.
 Require that investigations evaluate any searches or seizures that occurred during the underlying incident.
 Prohibit investigators from closing an investigation solely because a complaint is withdrawn, the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of an injury, or the complainant will not provide additional statements or written statements. The policy shall require that, under such circumstances, investigators must continue the
6 Under the Consent Decree, a finding of ―unfounded‖ means that there are insufficient facts establishing that the alleged incident actually occurred. A finding of ―sustained‖ means that there is sufficient evidence to determine that the alleged incident occurred and that the officer‘s actions were improper. A finding of ―not sustained‖ means that there is insufficient evidence that the alleged misconduct occurred. Finally, a finding of ―exonerated‖ means that the alleged conduct occurred but that the conduct did not violate VIPD policies, procedures, or training. Each of these findings must be based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. CD ¶ 57.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 63 of 71
x| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
investigation as necessary to determine whether the allegations can be resolved based on available information, evidence, and investigative techniques.
 Prohibit investigators from considering the fact that a complainant pleaded guilty to, or was found guilty of, an offense as evidence of whether or not an officer used a type of force or as a justification for the investigator to close the investigation.
The VIPD must keep complainants periodically informed of the status of the investigation of their complaints. Upon the completion of each investigation, the VIPD must notify the complainant of the outcome of the investigation, including an appropriate statement regarding whether any disciplinary action or non-disciplinary corrective action was taken against any officer.
Finally, the Consent Decree requires that unit commanders evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command in order to identify potential problems or training needs. Unit commanders must report any such issues to the appropriate VIPD entity in the form of a recommendation that appropriate action in response to the identified issues be taken.
IV. Management and Supervision (CD ¶¶ 59-72)
A. Risk Management System (CD ¶¶ 59-68)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop and implement a Risk Management System (―RMS‖) that includes a computerized relational database or a paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for the supervision and management of VIPD personnel. The VIPD is required to use this data regularly to promote respect for civil rights and the employment of best police practices, manage risks, and potential liability for the Department, and evaluate the performance of VIPD officers and personnel across all ranks, units, and shifts.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 64 of 71 Office of the Independent Monitor | xi
The Consent Decree specifically requires the VIPD to collect and record the following information in its new RMS:
 All uses of force;
 Canine bite ratios;7
 The number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers;
 All injuries to prisoners;
 All instances in which a VIPD officer used force and the subject was charged with resisting arrest, assault on a police officer, disorderly conduct, or obstruction of official or police business;
 All critical firearm discharges, whether they took place on duty or off-duty;
 All complaints against officers and the dispositions of those complaints;
 All criminal proceedings, civil or administrative claims, and civil lawsuits resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel;
 All vehicle pursuits;
 All incidents involving the pointing of a firearm;
 All disciplinary action taken against VIPD officers; and
 For incidents included in the database, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (e.g., the officer‘s name, badge number, shift, and supervisor) and member of the public (including race and ethnicity or national origin, if such information is available).
The VIPD has the option either to purchase the RMS ―off the shelf‖ and customize the system to VIPD‘s requirements or to develop and
7 A canine bite ratio relates to apprehensions in which a canine unit participated. It is the ratio of incidents that involved the canine biting or otherwise coming into physical contact with the suspect compared to the overall number of such apprehensions in which a canine unit participated.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 65 of 71
xii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
implement the RMS pursuant to a contracting schedule set forth in the Consent Decree.8
Within 120 days of the effective date of the Consent Decree, the VIPD is required to prepare a protocol for the use of the RMS, which must be submitted to DOJ for review and approval. Any proposed modifications to the RMS protocol also must be submitted to DOJ for review and approval prior to the implementation of the proposed modifications. The RMS protocol must contain:
 Provisions regarding data storage, data retrieval, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation, and audit;
 Requirements that the automated system be able to analyze data according to the following criteria:
 The number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit;
 The average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and
 The identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit.
 Requirements relating to the generation of reports on a monthly basis that describe data contained in the RMS and identify patterns of conduct by individual officers and units;
 Requirements that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors initiate appropriate interventions with individual officers, supervisors, and units based on activity and pattern assessments derived from the information contained in the RMS and that the VIPD has the following intervention options available:
 Discussions among Deputy Chiefs, managers, supervisors, and officers;
 Counseling;
 Training; and,
8 See CD ¶ 66.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 66 of 71
Office of the Independent Monitor | xiii
 Documented action plans and strategies designed to modify officer conduct and activity.
 A requirement that all interventions be documented in writing and entered into the RMS;
 A provision that actions taken as a result of information derived from the RMS be based on all relevant and appropriate information—including the nature of the officer‘s assignment, crime trends, and crime problems—and not solely on the number or percentage of incidents in any category of information recorded in the RMS;
 A requirement that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors promptly review the RMS records of all officers who transfer into their sections or units;
 A requirement that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors be evaluated based on their ability to use RMS to enhance the effectiveness of their units and to reduce risks associated with officer conduct;
 Provisions that IAB shall manage and administer the RMS and that IAB shall conduct quarterly audits of RMS to ensure compliance with the RMS protocol; and
 A requirement that appropriate managers conduct regular reviews, at least quarterly, of relevant RMS information to evaluate officer performance across the Virgin Islands. The purpose of such reviews is to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all VIPD units in order to identify significant patterns or series of incidents.
Within 120 days of the implementation of the RMS (or later with the agreement of DOJ), the VIPD must prepare, for the DOJ‘s review and approval, a Data Input Plan for including appropriate fields and values for new and historical data entered into the RMS.
 The Data Input Plan must identify the data to be included in the RMS and the means for inputting the data, the specific fields of information to be included in the RMS, the historical time periods for which information will be inputted into the system, deadlines for inputting data, and the persons responsible for the input of data.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 67 of 71
xiv| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
 The Data Input Plan must provide for the input of historical data that is up to date and complete into the RMS.
 Once the RMS is operational, the VIPD is required to enter information into the RMS in a timely, accurate, and complete manner and to maintain the RMS data in a secure and confidential manner.
The VIPD must maintain all personally identifiable information about individual officers that is contained in RMS for at least five years. The VIPD shall maintain information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis in the RMS indefinitely.
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD, even prior to the implementation of the RMS, to use existing databases and resources to the fullest extent possible to identify patterns of conduct by individual VIPD officers or groups of officers.
Following the initial implementation of the RMS, the VIPD may propose to add, subtract, or modify data tables and fields in the system, modify the types of documents entered into the RMS, or modify the standardized reports generated by the RMS. The VIPD is required to submit all such proposals to the DOJ for review and approval prior to implementing the proposed changes.
B. Oversight (CD ¶ 69)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop a protocol for conducting audits within the RMS, which must be followed by the VIPD personnel responsible for conducting audits. The protocol must establish a regular and fixed audit schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency and cover all VIPD Zones.
C. Discipline (CD ¶¶ 70-72)
1. Requirements
The VIPD is required to use a disciplinary matrix to take into account a subject officer‘s violations of various rules, as opposed to considering only repeated violations of the same rule. The VIPD must revise its disciplinary matrix to increase penalties for uses of excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, and dishonesty. The revised disciplinary matrix, which must be reviewed and approved by DOJ, is required to provide the VIPD with the discretion to impose any

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 68 of 71
Office of the Independent Monitor | xv
appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes an officer‘s misconduct reflects a lack of fitness for duty.
 Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD is not permitted to take mere non-disciplinary corrective action against an officer in cases in which the revised disciplinary matrix indicates that the imposition of discipline is appropriate.
 In cases in which disciplinary action is imposed on an officer, the VIPD is required to also consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action is necessary.
The VIPD‘s policy must identify clear time periods by which each step—from the receipt of a complaint through the imposition of discipline, if any—of the complaint adjudication process should be completed. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions of these deadlines must not be granted without the Police Commissioner‘s written approval and notice to the complainant. The policy must outline appropriate tolling provisions in the limited circumstances when an extension of these deadlines is necessary.
V. Training (CD ¶¶ 73-81)
A. Management Oversight (CD ¶¶ 73-77)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to provide training to its officers that is consistent with VIPD policy, the law, and proper police practices. Accordingly, the Consent Decree requires that:
 The VIPD review all use of force policies and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy;
 After completing its initial review of its force-related policies and training programs, the VIPD must conduct regular reviews of its use of force training program at least semi-annually.
 The VIPD must ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by training instructors; and,
 The VIPD must make best efforts to train each work shift as a team in its use of force training.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 69 of 71
xvi| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Under the Consent Decree, the VIPD‘s Director of Training, either directly or through his or her designees, is responsible for:
 Ensuring the quality of all use of force training;
 Developing and implementing use of force training curricula;
 Selecting and training VIPD officer instructors;
 Developing, implementing, approving, and overseeing all inservice training;
 In conjunction with the District Chiefs, developing, implementing, approving, and overseeing a protocol for patrol division roll calls that is designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in law, policies, and procedures;
 Establishing procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and
 Conducting regular training needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
The VIPD must keep complete and accurate records of force-related lesson plans and other training materials. These lesson plans must be maintained in a central, commonly accessible file and must be clearly dated.
The VIPD also must maintain training records for every VIPD officer. These records must reliably reflect the training that each officer has received. These records must include, at a minimum, the course description, duration, curriculum, and instructor for each training program in which each individual officer participated.
B. Curriculum (CD ¶¶ 78-81)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD‘s Director of Training to review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure that the training program complies with applicable laws and VIPD policy. Moreover, the Director of Training must consult with the Virgin Island Attorney General‘s Office concerning any additions, changes, or modifications regarding use of force training or policies to ensure compliance with applicable laws.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 70 of 71
Office of the Independent Monitor | xvii
The VIPD must provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on the use of force. This use of force training must address the following topics:
 The VIPD‘s use of force model;
 Proper use of force decision-making;
 The VIPD‘s use of force reporting requirements;
 The Fourth Amendment and other Constitutional requirements;
 Examples of scenarios faced by VIPD officers that illustrate proper use of force decision-making;
 De-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without using force;
 Instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a suspect, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying an arrest may be appropriate responses to a situation even when the use of force would be legally justified;
 Threat assessment; and
 Appropriate training regarding conflict management.
The VIPD also is required to provide training to all officers regarding the citizen complaint process. The VIPD must develop a protocol, to be used by all VIPD officers, that sets forth an appropriate process for handling and responding to complaints by members of the public. The VIPD must train officers regarding this protocol.
 The VIPD also is required to train all supervisors with respect to appropriate burdens of proof in conducting misconduct investigations. This training also must include a discussion of the factors investigators should consider in evaluating complainant or witness credibility.
Finally, the VIPD must provide training to all supervisors regarding leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices.
 This training must be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of the officer‘s assumption of

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 59-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 71 of 71 xviii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
supervisory responsibilities. This training also must be made a part of the annual in-service training of supervisors. VI. Monitoring, Reporting, and Implementation
(CD ¶¶ 82-102) 1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to appoint a full-time Compliance Coordinator to serve as a liaison among the Virgin Islands Attorney General‘s Office, VIPD, the OIM, and DOJ. The Compliance Coordinator‘s responsibilities include:
 Coordinating the VIPD‘s compliance and implementation activity relating to the Consent Decree;
 Facilitating the provision of data and documents and access to VIPD employees and materials to the Monitor and DOJ as needed;
 Ensuring the proper maintenance of relevant documents and records relating to the Consent Decree; and
 Assisting the Police Commissioner and his designees in assigning compliance-related tasks to appropriate VIPD personnel.
In addition to fulfilling these functions, the VIPD must file with the Monitor and the Virgin Islands Attorney General‘s Office, with a copy to DOJ, quarterly status reports describing the steps taken during the reporting period to comply with each provision of the Consent Decree.
Finally, the Virgin Islands and the VIPD are required to implement the provisions of the Consent Decree ―as soon as reasonably practicable‖ and, in any event, no later than 150 days after the March 23, 2009 effective date of the Consent Decree.
8644380

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 1 of 96
Third Quarterly Report of 2012 of the
Independent Monitor for the
Virgin Islands Police Department
William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel Independent Monitors
Office of the Independent Monitor Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
One New York Plaza New York, NY 10004
212.859.8000 http://www.policemonitor.org
January 25, 2013

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 2 of 96

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 3 of 96
Independent Monitoring Team
Independent Monitors William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
Fried Frank Monitoring Team Elizabeth P. Kozlowski Joshua D. Roth
Police Practices Coordinator Chief Charles A. Gruber Elgin (Illinois) Police Department (retired)
Police Practices Experts Superintendent Ann Marie Doherty Boston (Massachusetts) Police Department (retired) Chief Dennis E. Nowicki Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Police Department (retired) Chief Robert L. Stewart Ormond Beach (Florida) Police Department (retired)

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 4 of 96 Office of the Independent Monitor |
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................ 1 Introduction ........................................................................... 5 Compliance Assessment .......................................................... 7
Use of Force Policies........................................................ 7 Citizen Complaint Process ............................................. 26 Management and Supervision ........................................ 46 Training ........................................................................ 61 Conclusion............................................................................ 72 Appendix A Summary of Consent Decree Requirements ............ i

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 5 of 96 Office of the Independent Monitor | 1
Executive Summary

This is the Third Quarterly Report of 2012 (the ―Report‖) from the Office of the Independent Monitor (the ―OIM‖ or the ―Monitor‖) for the United States Virgin Islands Police Department (the ―VIPD‖ or the ―Department‖), covering the quarter ending on September 30, 2012.1 The OIM notes that at the beginning of the First Quarter of 2013 prior to the publication of this Report, the Police Commissioner announced his resignation on January 14, 2013. The OIM will report on any developments concerning the appointment of a new Police Commissioner in coming quarters.
In the Third Quarter, the OIM‘s Police Practices Experts conducted four week-long monitoring trips to the United States Virgin Islands (the ―Territory‖). During these trips, the Police Practices Experts spent time meeting with and providing technical assistance to VIPD personnel, observing Consent Decree related training, and reviewing closed investigation files and other police records. The Police Practices Experts reviewed 26 completed use of force investigations and 5 completed citizen complaint investigations. The assessments contained in this Report are primarily based on the Police Practices Experts‘ observations and the Department‘s quarterly Status Report, dated October 2, 2012 (―VIPD Report‖).
The OIM‘s Police Practices Experts reviewed a sample of Arrest Reports to determine whether VIPD personnel are reporting force as required by the Use of Force Policy and Reportable Use of Force Policy pursuant to ¶¶ 31-32 of the Consent Decree. Based on this review, it appears that VIPD personnel continue to underreport uses of force. The Police Practices Experts reviewed 243 Arrest Reports, and identified 18 Arrest Reports (7% of the total) where it appeared that force was used based on the Officer‘s narrative or because the Arrest Report indicated that the subject resisted arrest. Of those 18 Arrest Reports, 61% (11 out of 18) did not have corresponding Response to Resistance Report forms (―RRR‖) as required by the Reportable Use of Force Policy.
To further evaluate the Department‘s use of force reporting practices, the OIM reviewed 26 completed use of force investigation files. Only 50% (12 out of 24) of the purportedly complete investigation files that we reviewed were in fact complete.2 The VIPD also continues to allow the timeframe for completing use

1

This Report references a limited number of events that occurred after September 30,

2012 to provide context for efforts made by the VIPD outside of the Third Quarter to satisfy its

Consent Decree obligations.

2

Some statistics are calculated from a total number less than 26 because: (1) the Police

Practices Experts were unable to draw certain conclusions based on the information included

in the investigative files; or (2) a Consent Decree requirement did not appear to be applicable

based on the information included in the investigative files.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 6 of 96
2 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
of force investigations to expire before completing the required investigations.3 For the first nine months of 2012, 27% (20 out of 74) of use of force investigations on St. Thomas, and 33% (18 out of 55) of use of force investigations on St. Croix were completed on time. The remaining investigations are overdue.4 Force accountability, including fully reporting all uses of force, is a critical requirement of the Consent Decree. Without that, uses of force may never be investigated, training deficiencies may never be identified and addressed, and the Department‘s use of force statistics (which fuel much of the VIPD‘s risk management program) will be incomplete.
The Police Practices Experts‘ review of completed use of force investigations also demonstrated persistent deficiencies and areas for improvement. In particular, Supervisors failed to address all uses of force for a given incident (i.e., where multiple Officers use force on a single subject), Deputy Chiefs failed to indicate whether they concurred with the Commanding Officer‘s findings, Supervisors directly involved in a use of force continued improperly to oversee the corresponding investigations, and Supervisors failed to ensure that their Officers were timely recording uses of force according to the Use of Force Policy and the Reportable Use of Force Policy. Officers and Supervisors should be held accountable for not complying with the Department‘s policies, especially after having been trained, and if necessary, should be disciplined for continued non-compliance.
Despite the VIPD‘s efforts to conduct additional training on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy (¶ 42) during Officer in-service training in the Second Quarter, the Police Practices Experts saw no improvement in Officers‘ knowledge of the complaint process during the Third Quarter. While monitoring on both Districts, the Police Practices Experts questioned Officers about their knowledge of the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and found that 40% (4 out of 10) of Officers on St. Thomas and 36% (4 out of 11) of Officers on St. Croix responded correctly when asked to explain the process for filing a citizen complaint.5 Officers‘ responses on both Districts omitted key aspects of the policy, including: (1) the Officer‘s obligations when a citizen

3

The Reportable Use of Force Policy requires that use of force investigations be

completed within thirty calendar days. The Reportable Use of Force Policy also provides that

the investigating Supervisor must submit a completed investigation file to the Commander

within ten calendar days, the Commander must submit findings and conclusions to the Deputy

Chief/Chief within five working days after receiving the investigation file, and the Deputy

Chief/Chief then has five working days to forward a copy of the investigation file and his/her

findings to the Internal Affairs Bureau (―IAB‖).

4

The total number of use of force investigations represents those investigations that were

reported to IAB on St. Thomas and St. Croix.

5

We also note that an eleventh Officer on the St. Thomas District was asked about the

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy, but the Officer refused to respond.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 7 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 3
wants to file a complaint; and (2) how citizens will be informed about the outcome of the complaint. Demonstrating improvement over prior quarters, however, 71% (5 out of 7) of Supervisors on St. Thomas and 60% (3 out of 5) of Supervisors on St. Croix correctly explained the preponderance of the evidence standard and how it differs from the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
Although certain working groups (particularly the Complaint Process working group) are conducting audits relating to their areas of responsibility, other working groups have yet to audit the VIPD‘s compliance with relevant Consent Decree provisions. Additionally, although certain members of the Audit Team received audit training during the Third Quarter, it appears that the VIPD‘s Audit Team (which is responsible for auditing the Department‘s Consent Decree compliance efforts as a whole) is still not functional.
After nearly two years of work, the U.S. Department of Justice (the ―DOJ‖) approved the VIPD‘s Risk Management System (―RMS‖) Protocol on October 2, 2012 pursuant to ¶ 62 of the Consent Decree. The RMS Protocol will dictate how the Department‘s RMS functions. The Department has not yet implemented the RMS Protocol by, among other things, conducting the required ―beta test.‖
The VIPD conducted in-service training for Officers and Supervisors on several use of force policies that had not previously been the subject of training (e.g., the Off-Duty Official Action Policy and the Firearms Policy). The Police Practices Experts observed several in-service training sessions during the Third Quarter and noted that some VIPD personnel missed significant portions of the training, and that other VIPD personnel were ―no shows.‖ Additionally, the VIPD is only beginning to assess whether VIPD personnel are absorbing the information provided during training. The Department should use posttraining reviews to assess whether VIPD personnel understand the information conveyed during training, and then schedule follow-up training (continuing inservice or Roll Call or Commanders Call training) as needed.
The OIM is hopeful that a new joint action plan—proposed by the VIPD and the DOJ (collectively, ―the Parties‖) and approved by the Court during the Fourth Quarter—will reinvigorate the VIPD‘s Consent Decree compliance efforts. We are mindful, however, that the Parties jointly agreed on and the Court approved a similar document on November 24, 2010. As we have previously reported, the VIPD failed to satisfy many of the interim deadlines set forth in that document and still has not substantially complied with a single substantive Consent Decree provision. In order for the joint action plan to succeed (when previous efforts have failed), the VIPD must commit substantially more effort to complying with the Consent Decree, and must adhere to the more specific interim steps for compliance provided in the new joint action plan. The Police Commissioner should hold every member of the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 8 of 96
4 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
VIPD (from the Chiefs to Patrol Officers) responsible for doing their part to advance the VIPD‘s Consent Decree compliance efforts.
After monitoring the VIPD for almost three years, we are certain that the VIPD will not achieve substantial compliance if the VIPD maintains the status quo. The OIM expects that the VIPD will strictly adhere to the new deadlines agreed to by the Parties and approved by the Court, and that the VIPD will explain in detail any missed deadlines in future Status Reports following a missed deadline.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 9 of 96 Office of the Independent Monitor | 5

Introduction

This is the Third Quarterly Report of 2012 from the Office of the Independent Monitor (the ―OIM‖ or the ―Monitor‖) for the United States Virgin Islands Police Department (the ―VIPD‖ or the ―Department‖), covering the quarter ending on September 30, 2012.
The OIM was established in January 2010 to monitor compliance by the United States Virgin Islands and the VIPD with the Consent Decree entered by the United States District Court for the Virgin Islands (the ―Court‖) on March 23, 2009. The Monitors are required by the Consent Decree to ―issue quarterly written, public reports detailing the Territory of the Virgin Islands‘ compliance with and implementation of each substantive provision‖ of the Consent Decree.6
The Consent Decree reflects the agreement between the Virgin Islands, the VIPD, and the United States Department of Justice (the ―DOJ‖) (collectively, the ―Parties‖) to resolve a lawsuit brought by the United States alleging that the Virgin Islands and the VIPD violated 42 U.S.C. § 14141 by engaging ―in a pattern or practice of excessive force by officers of the Virgin Islands Police Department and by the failure to adequately train, supervise, investigate, and discipline officers.‖7
The Parties entered into the Consent Decree ―to promote police integrity and prevent conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.‖8 The 104 paragraph Consent Decree contains a broad range of substantive requirements for reform in areas such as: (1) revising the VIPD‘s force-related policies; (2) training Officers to properly use force in accordance with constitutional requirements, VIPD policy, and existing best practices in policing; (3) reporting and investigating use of force events; (4) documenting and investigating complaints alleging Officer misconduct; (5) developing systems for managing and supervising Officers; and (6) disciplining Officers found to have engaged in misconduct.
On October 1, 2010, the Court—charged with enforcing the VIPD‘s obligations under the Consent Decree—ordered the Parties to jointly propose a timetable by which the VIPD would substantially comply with each substantive provision in the Consent Decree. The Court was concerned about the VIPD‘s

6

Consent Decree (―CD‖) ¶ 96. This Quarterly Report, along with the OIM‘s prior reports,

is available on the internet at http://www.policemonitor.org/VI/VIindex.html.

7

CD ¶ 6; see also Complaint, United States v. The Territory of the Virgin Islands, No. 3:08-

CV-00158-CVG-GWB (D.V.I. 2008).

8

CD ¶ 3.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 10 of 96
6 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
slow rate of progress and saw the timetable as a vehicle to help the Department move forward more quickly. The Parties subsequently filed a timetable on November 24, 2010 that set forth specific dates by which the VIPD would substantially comply with each substantive provision in the Consent Decree (the ―Consent Decree Timetable‖). The Consent Decree Timetable also created interim deadlines for the VIPD to submit force-related policies to the DOJ for approval. The VIPD successfully met nearly every policy submission deadline. However, by the end of the Third Quarter of 2011, the VIPD had missed all of the remaining deadlines for substantial compliance established by the Courtordered Consent Decree Timetable (deadlines that the VIPD proposed and committed to meeting). For example, under the Consent Decree Timetable, the VIPD was required to substantially comply with Consent Decree ¶¶ 32-58, 70, and 72 by May 31, 2011, ¶¶ 60, 61, and 73-81 by June 30, 2011, and ¶¶ 49, 59, and 63-66 by September 15, 2011. To date, the VIPD has only complied with the following non-substantive provisions: ¶¶ 82-86, 88, and 98.
In January 2011, to reinvigorate the VIPD‘s Consent Decree compliance process and encourage compliance within the timeframe of the Consent Decree Timetable, the then-Police Commissioner convened a Consent Decree Summit on St. Thomas on January 3 and 4, 2011 (the ―Summit‖).9 At the Summit, the then-Police Commissioner appointed senior VIPD personnel to lead, and ultimately be held accountable for, different aspects of the Consent Decree— Use of Force (Chief of the St. Croix District),10 Citizen Complaint Process (Chief of the St. Thomas District),11 Management and Supervision (Deputy Chief of St. Thomas), and Training (Director of Training). The Police Commissioner explained that each working group leader was responsible for: (1) designating a ―point person‖ and recruiting other working group members; (2) drafting an action plan; (3) interacting with other VIPD personnel on interrelated Consent Decree issues; and (4) monitoring the working group‘s progress by attending and participating in as many meetings as schedules permit, but no less than twice a month.12

9

The OIM discussed the Summit in the Fourth Quarterly Report of 2010 and the First

Quarterly Report of 2011. For more information about the Summit, including objectives and

participants, see the Consent Decree Summit Addendum at the end of those Reports.

10

Following on-duty injuries sustained by the Chief of St. Croix during the Third Quarter,

the Deputy Chief of St. Croix assumed responsibility as Acting Chief of St. Croix and Acting

Leader of the Use of Force working group. The Acting Chief appointed a Captain as his point

person, and she has recruited new members and commenced regular meetings of the working

group.

11

The Citizen Complaint Process working group is now led by the Deputy Chief of

St. John.

12

Memorandum from the Police Commissioner to various VIPD personnel, titled ―Meeting

Current Standards of Policing,‖ dated January 19, 2011. The OIM‘s Police Practices Experts

also provided the working group leaders with a memorandum outlining their respective

responsibilities. Each of the OIM‘s four Police Practices Experts is assigned to work with a

particular working group leader. During the Second Quarter, the Police Practices experts

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 11 of 96 Office of the Independent Monitor | 7

Compliance Assessment
This section of the Report describes the VIPD‘s compliance efforts with respect to each of the substantive provisions of the Consent Decree,13 as well as monitoring activities by the OIM‘s Police Practices Experts during the quarter. The organization of this section of the Report parallels the organization of the Consent Decree. Specifically, we provide a status and assessment discussion that describes and analyzes the VIPD‘s progress toward achieving substantial compliance with the Consent Decree‘s requirements.14 As part of this discussion, we provide an update about the progress of each of the working groups leading these efforts. We also include recommendations to assist the VIPD in achieving full and timely implementation of the Consent Decree‘s requirements.15
Use of Force Policies
31. The VIPD will review and revise its use of force policies as necessary to: a) define terms clearly; b) define force as that term is defined in this Agreement; c) incorporate a use of force model that teaches disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements or calling in specialized units as appropriate responses to a situation; d) advise that, whenever possible, individuals should be allowed to submit to arrest before force is used; e) reinforce that the use of excessive force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and/or civil liability; f) ensure that sufficient less lethal alternatives are available to all patrol officers; and g) explicitly prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized. Once the DOJ has reviewed and approved these policies, the VIPD shall immediately implement any revisions.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 31 of the Consent Decree.

regularly exchanged emails and telephone calls with their counterparts and met in person

during the quarter‘s monitoring trips.

13

A summary of the Consent Decree requirements is excerpted at Appendix A. A copy of

the full text of the Consent Decree is available at:

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/VIPD_CD_03-23-09.pdf.

14

The Consent Decree provides that ―[t]he Monitor shall issue quarterly written, public

reports detailing the Territory of the Virgin Islands‘ compliance with and implementation of

each substantive provision of [the] Agreement.‖ CD ¶ 96.

15

CD ¶ 85.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 12 of 96
8 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
VIPD Status Report, dated October 2, 2012:
The VIPD reports that the Compliance Coordinator submitted the following policies to the leader of the Committee for annual review as required by the Consent Decree: Use of Force, Firearms, Impact Weapons, Electronic Control Weapon (―ECW‖), O.C. Spray, Off Duty Official Action, Vehicle Pursuit, Spike Strip, Special Response Team (―SRT/HNT‖), and SRT – Sniper (―Sniper‖). The Chief of Police for the St. Thomas District and the Acting Chief of Police for the St. Croix District disseminated a memorandum to all sworn personnel requesting input on these policies.
During the Third Quarter the VIPD reports that the Department‘s Policy Consultant continued work on the Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy, the Arrest Policy, the Officer Involved Shooting Policy, and the Audit Policy. The VIPD also reports that the Audit Policy and the Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy were submitted to the Policy Committee for review during the Third Quarter, and that the Policy Consultant continues to work on the Officer Involved Shooting Policy. The Arrest Policy is under review by the U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General‘s Office (the ―VIAG‖).
OIM Report:
As previously reported, the VIPD has received DOJ approval for twelve force-related policies through the end of the Third Quarter: (1) Use of Force; (2) Reportable Use of Force; (3) Impact Weapons; (4) ECW; (5) O.C. Spray; (6) Vehicle Pursuit; (7) Spike Strip; (8) Off-Duty Official Action; (9) Firearms; (10) Field Training Officer Program (―FTO‖); (11) SRT/HNT; and (12) Sniper. The VIPD adopted these policies in partial satisfaction of ¶¶ 31 to 41 of the Consent Decree. The Department‘s Use of Force Policy incorporates all of the elements set forth in subparts a-g of ¶ 31. In addition, the Department has created and put into place the Response to Resistance Reporting Forms (―RRR‖) (formerly known as Use of Force Reports) for VIPD personnel to document use of force events pursuant to the Reportable Use of Force Policy (which should be completed whenever force is used). During the Third Quarter, however, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of the Department‘s use of force policies or that the Department has fully implemented the policies. The Consent Decree defines implementation as ―the development or putting into place of a policy or procedure, including the appropriate training of personnel.‖
During the Third Quarter, the Department announced an annual review of its use of force policies. As part of this process, in his role as the acting leader of the Use of Force working group, the Acting Chief of the St. Croix District asked all Commanders to comment on the policies.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 13 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 9
The Department has also identified the need for several additional forcerelated policies, including the: (1) Use of Force Review Board Policy; (2) Arrest Policy; (3) Post Shooting Incident and Procedures Policy; and (4) Officer Involved Shooting Investigating Procedures. During the Third Quarter, the Use of Force working group reported that the Department has stopped work on the Use of Force Review Board Policy because it is not mandated by the Consent Decree ―and may be burdensome at this stage of our compliance efforts.‖16 Instead, the VIPD will rely on the review mechanism included in the Use of Force Policy and Reportable Use of Force Policy (discussed below at ¶ 32).17
During the Third Quarter, the Policy Committee (the ―Committee‖) reported that it continues to work on the Arrest Policy, and that the policy is under review by the VIAG. The underreporting of arrests and uses of force has a negative impact on the Department‘s RMS.18 Without complete arrest and use of force information, the RMS (which, as discussed below, currently alerts Supervisors and Commanders when VIPD personnel surpass a specified number of uses of force within a particular period) will not be able to as effectively identify potential issues at an early and remedial stage. The VIPD will not be able to comply with important aspects of the Consent Decree relating to use of force and risk management until it rectifies this problem.
The Department reported during the Third Quarter that it will combine the Post Shooting Incident and Procedures Policy and the Officer Involved Shooting Investigating Procedures and that the VIPD‘s Policy Consultant will draft the policy.
Although the Department has made strides developing and/or revising force-related policies, the Department has not complied with ¶ 31 because it has not adequately implemented all of those policies. Under ¶ 31, the VIPD is required to ―implement‖ its Use of Force Policies.

16

The VIPD should consider whether a Use of Force Review Board would be helpful in the

future to review patterns of force that are not readily discernible from a single use of force

incident. In order for a Use of Force Review Board to be effective, the VIPD must seek

assistance and participation from Supervisors with robust backgrounds in reviewing force,

tactical, and training force practices.

17

The Use of Force working group recommended to the Police Commissioner that the

Department reserve consideration of a Use of Force Review Board until a later time, and also

recommended that the Training Division establish a ―Training Committee‖ to review uses of

force and use of force training.

18

The OIM has reviewed use of force investigation files in which Officers have used force

when taking a subject into custody (i.e., arresting the subject), but the Officer then released the

subject without charging the subject, preparing an arrest report, or completing a RRR to

document a use of force.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 14 of 96
10 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Recommendations:
Under the direction of the Acting Chief of the St. Croix District and his appointed point person, the Use of Force working group provided the OIM with meeting minutes during the Third Quarter. While this is a step in the right direction, the biweekly reports submitted by the Use of Force working group should provide more detail about the specific actions taken by the working group and the challenges the VIPD faces achieving compliance with the use of force provisions of the Consent Decree. This information will help the Police Practices Experts evaluate the Use of Force working group‘s efforts each quarter, and allow them to make appropriate recommendations going forward.
The Use of Force working group should continue to work with the Training Division to ensure that training programs are held for all of the Department‘s force-related policies on an on-going basis and that relevant VIPD personnel are attending those programs. The Use of Force working group should also work with the Director of Training to evaluate post-training examinations to help assess the degree to which VIPD personnel understand the policies and the lessons conveyed during training. The Use of Force working group and Director of Training should then schedule follow-up training (continuing in-service or Roll Call or Commanders Call training) based on the results of those post-training examinations. In addition, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate. The Use of Force working group should also provide the OIM with documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of the policy or that the Department has fully implemented the policy.
The Department should also explain the process for its annual review of VIPD policies and the extent of the VIAG‘s involvement in the review. The VIPD should document the results of this review and provide them to the OIM. As the Consent Decree makes clear (¶ 103), it is the VIPD‘s burden to demonstrate compliance with the Consent Decree. In addition, the Department should resolve any outstanding concerns, disseminate the Arrest Policy promptly, and implement the policy by providing training to VIPD personnel. As previously reported, until the Department finalizes and provides adequate training on the Arrest Policy, it will continue to underreport arrests and possible uses of force.
32. The VIPD will require all uses of force to be documented in writing. The use of force report form will indicate each and every type of force that was used, and require the evaluation of each use of force. Use of force reports will include a supervisor’s narrative description of the events preceding the use of force, and include the officer(s)’ narrative description of events and the officer(s)’ audiotaped statement.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 15 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 11
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 32 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Status Report:
The VIPD reports that the requirements of ¶ 32 are included in the Reportable Use of Force Policy. The Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy will eventually supersede the Use of Force policy if it is approved by the DOJ.
The VIPD claims to have complied with ¶ 32 because it has developed, disseminated, and trained on the Reportable Use of Force Policy. The VIPD also reports that it has created a form to document all uses of force, that all uses of force are capable of being entered on Blue Team, and that statements from officers can be video and audio recorded.
OIM Report:
The VIPD has issued the Use of Force Policy and Reportable Use of Force Policy in response to the requirements of ¶ 32. The Department continues to work on the Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy. The Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy is intended to address concerns among some VIPD personnel that the existing Use of Force Policy and Reportable Use of Force Policy impose too great a burden on Supervisors by requiring ―all inclusive‖ force reviews for comparatively ―minor‖ force incidents. Under the new policy, the VIPD would adjust the extent of its investigation of use of force events in proportion to the type of force used, meaning that comparatively ―minor‖ force events would typically require less exhaustive investigations than more severe force events. The DOJ conditionally approved the Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy on November 3, 2011, subject to agreeing on and receiving court approval for corresponding revisions to the Consent Decree that would permit ―tiered‖ force investigations. In the process of reviewing the proposed revisions to the Consent Decree, however, the DOJ discovered internal inconsistencies with the Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy and revoked its conditional approval during the First Quarter. The Parties continued to work on revising the policy. During the Third Quarter, the Parties submitted revised Consent Decree language to the Court, which the Court approved during the Fourth Quarter.
Although the VIPD reported that it complied with ¶ 32, the Department continues to underreport force. The Department will not be in compliance with ¶ 32 until its members substantially comply with the reporting and investigating requirements contained in the Department‘s policies.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 16 of 96
12 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
During the Third Quarter, the OIM‘s Police Practices Experts continued to review a sample of Arrest Reports to determine whether VIPD personnel are reporting force as required by the Use of Force Policy and Reportable Use of Force Policy. The Police Practices Experts reviewed a total of 243 Arrest Reports on St. Thomas and St. Croix, and identified that force was likely used in 7% (18 out of 243) of the Arrest Reports because the Officer‘s narrative suggested that force was used or the Officer indicated that the subject resisted arrest. Based on this review, it appears that VIPD personnel are underreporting the use of force because 61% (11 out of 18) of those Arrest Reports did not have corresponding RRRs (documenting the force that was used) as required by the Reportable Use of Force Policy.
To further evaluate the Department‘s use of force reporting practices, the OIM reviewed 26 completed use of force investigation files on St. Thomas and St. Croix. Throughout the Report, certain statistics may be calculated from a total number less than 26 because: (1) the Police Practices Experts were unable to draw certain conclusions based on the information included in the investigative files; or (2) a Consent Decree requirement did not appear to be applicable based on the information included in the investigative files.
For example, only 50% (12 out of 24) of the investigation files purporting to be complete were actually complete. A ―complete‖ investigations file generally consists of the following (to the extent applicable): Form 1A; Arrest Report; completed RRR; video or audiotaped statements from witnesses; photos of injuries, weapons, etc.; the Supervisor‘s investigative report with an analysis of the facts, evidence identified, and findings; evidence that the Department‘s chain of command reviewed and approved the completed investigation file; and a disposition letter.
With respect to the other requirements of this provision, Supervisors described the events preceding the use of force in 71% (17 out of 24) of the investigation files, 96% (24 out of 25) of the investigation files included the Officer‘s description of events, and the use of force report in 92% (23 out of 25) of the investigation files indicated the type of force used. Only 46% (11 out of 24) of the investigative files, however, included audiotaped statements from the involved Officers.
In addition, only 50% (13 out of 26) of the investigations were completed within the timeline required under the Reportable Use of Force Policy. The Reportable Use of Force Policy requires that use of force investigations be completed within thirty calendar days. The Reportable Use of Force Policy also provides that the investigating Supervisor must submit a completed investigation file to the Commander within ten calendar days, the Commander must submit findings and conclusions to the Deputy Chief/Chief within five working days after receiving the investigation file, and the Deputy Chief/Chief

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 17 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 13
then has five working days to forward a copy of the investigation file and his/her findings to IAB.
Department records also indicate that Zones on both Districts have not completed investigations for a significant number of the uses of force reported to IAB (by forwarding RRRs to IAB) for the first nine months of 2012. Only 27% (20 out of 74) of use of force investigations on St. Thomas, and only 29% (15 out of 52) of use of force investigations on St. Croix have been completed. The remaining investigations are overdue.
Recommendations:
As the OIM‘s Police Practices Experts have done, the Use of Force working group and Supervisors should audit Form 1As and Arrest Reports to determine the extent to which force is being recorded on RRRs and reported across the Districts. Based on these audits, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to report uses of force. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work in concert with the Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, IAB and the Training Division to provide remedial training, or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions if necessary. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.19
33. Officers shall notify their supervisors following any use of force or upon the receipt of an allegation of excessive force. Supervisors will respond to the scene, examine the subject for injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain, and ensure that the subject receives needed medical attention.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 33 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that the requirements of ¶ 33 are incorporated into the Reportable Use of Force Policy, and that the Department will monitor to ensure continued compliance.

19

Generally, the Police Practices Experts review use of force investigations that do not

have a large number of witnesses or evidence. Under these circumstances, most use of force

investigations should be completed within the required 30 days. When circumstances arise

that make it impossible to complete an investigation within this time period, the Department

should include in the investigation file a statement explaining the delay and evidence that an

extension has been requested and granted.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 18 of 96
14 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
OIM Report:
As discussed in connection with Consent Decree ¶ 32, the Police Practices Experts reviewed 26 complete investigation files during the Third Quarter to evaluate the Department‘s use of force reporting practices. Among other things, that review showed that Officers timely notified Supervisors following a use of force 50% (12 out of 24) of the time. The review also showed that Supervisors responded to the scene and conducted an investigation in 35% (8 out of 23) of the investigations. In 55% (6 out of 11) of the investigations where injuries were sustained, the Supervisor described the injuries.
Recommendations:
The Use of Force working group should audit whether Officers are notifying their Supervisors following any use of force or allegation of excessive use of force. The Use of Force Work Group should also audit whether Supervisors are responding to the scene of a use of force, examining the subject for injury, interviewing the subject for complaints of pain, and ensuring that the subject receives needed medical attention. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
34. Supervisors will review, evaluate, and document each use of force, and will complete the supervisor’s narrative description section of the use of force report. The supervisor’s narrative description will include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer’s conduct. As part of this review, the supervisor will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officer’s actions were within VIPD policy. An officer who used force during the incident, or whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized conduct leading to the use of force or allegation of excessive force, will not be eligible to review the incident.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 34 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that the requirements of ¶ 34 are incorporated into policy ―already in effect department wide.‖ The Department states that it will monitor conduct to ensure continued compliance.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 19 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 15
OIM Report:
As discussed in connection with Consent Decree ¶ 32, to evaluate the Department‘s use of force reporting practices, the Police Practices Experts reviewed 26 complete investigation files during the Third Quarter. In 54% (13 out of 24) of the completed use of force investigations reviewed, Supervisors included narratives describing the facts and circumstances that justified or failed to justify the Officer‘s conduct. In 58% (14 out of 24) of the completed use of force investigations, the Supervisor evaluated the basis for the use of force; in 83% (20 out of 24) of the investigations the Supervisor determined whether the Officer‘s actions were within VIPD policy; and 67% (14 out of 21) of the investigations were conducted by Supervisors who were not directly involved in the use of force incident.
Recommendations:
The Use of Force working group should audit whether Supervisors are conducting adequate use of force investigations. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM. The Use of Force working group should also audit Form 1As and Arrest Reports to determine the extent to which force is being recorded on RRRs and reported across the Districts. The Use of Force working group‘s audits should also include a review of investigations by specific Supervisors or Commanders whose force reviews repeatedly fail to meet the requirements of ¶ 34. Based on these audits, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to report uses of force. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work in concert with the Chiefs, IAB and the Training Division to provide remedial training, or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions if necessary.
35. The parties agree that it is improper interview procedure during use of force reviews to ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer’s conduct when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. In each review, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. The VIPD will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. The VIPD will train all of its supervisors on the factors to consider when valuating credibility.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 35 of the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 20 of 96
16 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that its Policy Consultant conducted Use of Force training for Supervisors on both Districts during the Third Quarter. Following training, the Training Director submitted a memorandum to the Chief of the St. Croix District reporting the names of Supervisors who were ―no shows‖ at the Investigating Use of Force training held on St. Croix in July. The Training Director did not receive a response, but informed the Compliance Coordinator that he would resubmit his memorandum to the Acting Chief of the St. Croix District.
OIM Report:
As discussed in connection with Consent Decree ¶ 32, to evaluate the Department‘s use of force reporting practices, the Police Practices Experts reviewed 26 complete investigation files during the Third Quarter. Among other things, that review showed that Supervisors used leading questions in 18% (2 out of 11) of the completed use of force investigations for which formal statements were taken.
In addition, a Police Practices Expert observed a training for Supervisors on investigating uses of force during the Third Quarter. The VIPD‘s Policy Consultant conducted the training over a two-day period, and covered the proper practices and techniques for investigating uses of force. During the first day, the Policy Consultant reviewed the Consent Decree provisions relating to use of force and the Department‘s corresponding use of force policies. The Policy Consultant also instructed Supervisors on how to evaluate, document, and report uses of force. Training during the second day emphasized Supervisors‘ responsibilities at the scene of an incident, techniques for collecting and analyzing evidence, techniques for conducting and recording witness and Officer interviews, techniques for assessing witness credibility, and best practices for writing supervisory reports, including assessing the level of force used, recording the injuries sustained at the scene and whether medical attention was provided, and photographing or videotaping all injuries.
The Police Practices Expert concluded that the training held during the Third Quarter was an improvement over similar earlier training. Notably, the class was interactive and instructors relied on real life situations to reinforce the material that was taught.
As a result of this training, the OIM expects to see considerable improvement in the quality of Supervisors‘ investigations in the Fourth Quarter in all Zones and Districts.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 21 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 17
Recommendations:
The Use of Force working group should audit whether Supervisors are conducting adequate use of force investigations. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
The Use of Force working group should audit investigations to determine the extent to which Supervisors are complying with the requirements of ¶ 35. Based on these audits, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work in concert with the Chiefs, IAB and the Training Division to provide remedial training, or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions if necessary.
36. Supervisors shall conduct a performance review of all uses of force or an injury resulting from a use of force by any officer under their command. In a performance review, supervisors shall interview all witnesses to a use of force or an injury resulting from a use of force. Consistent with the requirements of the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable law, VIPD supervisors shall ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident. Supervisors shall ensure that all use of force reports identify all officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred. Supervisors shall ensure that all reports indicate whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided, and whether the subject refused medical treatment. Supervisors shall ensure that all reports include contemporaneous photographs or videotapes taken of all injuries at the earliest practicable opportunity, both before and after any treatment, including cleansing of wounds.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 36 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that the requirements of this provision are covered by policy ―already in place department wide.‖ The Department states that it will monitor conduct to ensure continued compliance.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 22 of 96
18 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
The VIPD also reports that an instructors training course for the Vehicle Pursuit Policy and the Spike Strip Policy was held on St. Croix for selected Officers from both Districts.20
OIM Report:
As discussed in connection with Consent Decree ¶ 32, to evaluate the Department‘s use of force reporting practices, the Police Practices Experts reviewed 26 complete investigation files during the Third Quarter. Among other things, that review showed that all witnesses to a use of force or an injury resulting from a use of force were interviewed in 67% (12 out of 18) of the completed use of force investigations reviewed. All Officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred were identified in 79% (19 out of 24) of the investigations. In 55% (6 out of 11) of the investigations where injuries were sustained, the Supervisor described the injuries.
A Police Practices Expert also observed a Supervisor‘s training on investigating uses of force during the Third Quarter. The VIPD‘s Policy Consultant conducted the training over a two-day period, and covered the proper practices and techniques for investigating use of force incidents. During the first day, the VIPD‘s Policy Consultant reviewed the use of force related Consent Decree provisions and the Department‘s policies developed to address these requirements. The Policy Consultant also instructed Supervisors on how to evaluate, document, and report on uses of force. Training during the second day emphasized Supervisors‘ responsibilities at the scene of an incident, proper techniques for collecting and analyzing evidence, proper techniques for conducting and recording witness and Officer interviews, techniques for assessing witness credibility, and best practices for writing supervisory reports, including assessing the level of force used, recording the injuries sustained at the scene and whether medical attention was provided, and photographing or videotaping all injuries.
The Police Practices Expert concluded that the training held during the Third Quarter was an improvement over similar training conducted previously by the Department. In particular, the class was interactive and engaged in the instruction by asking and responding to questions posed to reinforce understanding of the proper practices for investigating uses of force.
As a result of training, the OIM is encouraged that it will discover improvements in Supervisors‘ investigations as early as the Fourth Quarter.

20

It is not clear how the Vehicle Pursuit Police or the Spike Strip Policy are related to

performance reviews, which is the focus of ¶ 36. Going forward, the VIPD should tailor its

report to address the requirements of each paragraph in the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 23 of 96 Office of the Independent Monitor | 19

Recommendations:
The Use of Force working group should audit investigations to determine the extent to which Supervisors are complying with the requirements of ¶ 36. Based on these audits, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work in concert with the Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, IAB and the Training Division to provide remedial training (including administering pre- and post-examinations at training), or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions if necessary. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
37. A Deputy Chief will evaluate each performance review conducted by supervisors, identify any deficiencies in those reviews, and require supervisors to correct any deficiencies. Supervisors will be held accountable for the quality of their reviews. Appropriate non-disciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary action will be taken when a supervisor fails to conduct a timely and thorough review, or neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action, or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 37 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD acknowledges that ―there is room for improvement in the quality of use of force reviews‖ by the Department. The VIPD is hopeful that improvement will follow revisions to the Consent Degree that permit Zone Commanders (rather than Deputy Chiefs) to review use of force investigations, leaving Deputy Chiefs ―more time to deal with operational matters.‖21
At the Commissioner‘s direction, the VIPD reports that it abandoned developing a Use of Force Review Board Policy. The Committee, however, continues to work on the Disciplinary Matrix, Blue Team Protocol, and the Reporting, Investigation and Review Use of Force Policy.
OIM Report:
For several quarters, the OIM has reminded the VIPD that the Reportable Use of Force Policy requires that use of force investigations be completed within thirty calendar days. The Reportable Use of Force Policy also provides that the

21

The Court approved the Parties‘ proposed revisions to the Consent Decree on December

13, 2012.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 24 of 96
20 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
investigating Supervisor must submit a completed investigation file to the Commander within ten calendar days, the Commander must submit findings and conclusions to the Deputy Chief/Chief within five working days after receiving the investigation file, and the Deputy Chief/Chief then has five working days to forward a copy of the investigation file and his/her findings to IAB. In an effort to improve compliance with these requirements, the Deputy Chief of St. Thomas issued a memorandum in May of 2012 requiring all Commanders to complete any delinquent use of force investigations by the end of May (the deadline was later extended to the end of June). According to the memorandum, any Commanders who failed to comply would receive a letter of reprimand.
After repeated attempts by the OIM since May to obtain a report on the outcome of this memorandum, the VIPD provided the OIM in the Third Quarter with copies of letters of reprimand issued to a Sergeant and a Lieutenant on St. Thomas for failing to correct deficiencies in their use of force investigations. The VIPD has not indicated whether other Supervisors received similar letters of reprimand. On a visit to the St. Thomas District, one of the Police Practices Experts learned that the Department delayed providing the OIM with the memorandum because only a small percentage of use of force investigations were completed on time, and the Department wanted an opportunity to investigate the issue and resolve any deficiencies with IAB.
As discussed in connection with Consent Decree ¶ 32, to evaluate the Department‘s use of force reporting practices, the Police Practices Experts reviewed 26 complete investigation files during the Third Quarter. In 72% (18 out of 25) of the investigations reviewed, a Deputy Chief reviewed the Supervisor‘s investigation report. The Deputy Chief identified deficiencies with the Supervisor‘s investigation and required that the Supervisor correct the deficiencies in 14% (3 out of 22) of the completed use of force investigations. Additionally, 23% (3 out of 13) of the completed use of force investigations indicated that corrective action was taken against a Supervisor who failed to conduct a timely and thorough review.
Recommendations:
The Use of Force working group should audit investigations to determine the extent to which Supervisors are complying with the requirements of ¶ 37. In particular, the Use of Force working group should audit whether Supervisors conduct adequate use of force investigations, and whether the Chiefs/Deputy Chiefs are reviewing investigations, identifying deficiencies, and forwarding closed cases to the IAB and Training Division (for review and archiving). Based on these audits, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work in concert with the Chiefs, IAB and the Training Division to provide remedial training, or other corrective action, including

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 25 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 21
disciplinary sanctions if necessary. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
38. The VIPD will investigate or review as appropriate all critical firearm discharges. The VIPD will ensure that the investigation or review accounts for all shots and the locations of all officers who discharged their firearms. The VIPD will conduct all ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot reside or bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 38 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that all critical firearm discharges continue to be investigated by the IAB.
OIM Report:
During the Third Quarter the VIPD did not provide the OIM with any documentation showing that the IAB is in fact investigating critical firearms discharges.22 Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendation:
The VIPD must provide the OIM with documentation that IAB is investigating critical firearms as required by ¶ 38 of the Consent Decree.
39. VIPD shall complete development of a Use of Firearms policy that complies with applicable law and current professional standards. The policy shall prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition and shall inform officers that any such use may subject them to disciplinary action. The policy shall establish a single, uniform reporting system for all firearms discharges. The policy shall prohibit officers from obtaining service ammunition from any source except through official VIPD channels, and shall specify the number of rounds VIPD authorizes its officers to carry. The policy will continue to require that all discharges of firearms by officers on- or off-duty, including unintentional discharges, be reported and investigated.

22

The VIPD reported during the First Quarter of 2013 that there were no critical firearm

discharges during the Third Quarter of 2012.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 26 of 96
22 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 39 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it has developed and disseminated a Firearms Policy, and conducted in-service training on the policy during the Third Quarter. The Firearms Policy is currently under annual review.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued its Firearms Policy on May 3, 2011. The Firearms Policy addresses all of the requirements set forth in ¶ 39. During the Third Quarter, however, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with any documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of the policy or that the Department has fully implemented the policy.
The Department announced during the Third Quarter that the Firearms Policy will be among the policies reviewed as part of an annual review. As part of this process, the Acting Chief of Police of the St. Croix District (in his role as the acting leader of the Use of Force working group) asked all Commanders to provide comments about the Department‘s use of force policies. The VIPD did not provide any information during the Third Quarter about the commanders‘ responses and what action, if anything, the Department has taken as a result.
Recommendations:
The Use of Force working group should continue to work with the Training Division to ensure that training programs are held for the Firearms Policy on an on-going basis and that relevant VIPD personnel are attending those programs. The Use of Force working group should also work with the Director of Training to evaluate post-training examinations to help assess the degree to which VIPD personnel understand the policies and the lessons conveyed during training. The Use of Force working group and Director of Training should then schedule follow-up training (continuing in-service or Roll Call or Commanders Call training) based on the results of those post-training examinations. In addition, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate.
The Department also should conduct routine inspections to determine that VIPD personnel are carrying only authorized ammunition, as required by the Firearms Policy. Officers found to be carrying unauthorized ammunition should be disciplined. The results of these inspections and any resulting

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 27 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 23
discipline should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
The Use of Force working group should also provide the OIM with documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of ¶ 39 and that the Department has fully implemented the Off-Duty Official Action Policy. As the Consent Decree makes clear (¶ 103), it is the VIPD‘s burden to demonstrate compliance with the Consent Decree.
Finally, the Department should explain the process for its annual review of VIPD policies and the extent of the VIAG‘s involvement in the review. The VIAG‘s legal review is critical and required. The VIPD should document the results of this review and provide them to the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM during the Fourth Quarter. The Use of Force working group should also provide the OIM with documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of the policy or that the Department has fully implemented the policy.
40. The VIPD shall revise its policies regarding off-duty officers taking police action to: a) provide that off-duty officers shall notify on-duty VIPD or local law enforcement officers before taking police action, absent exigent circumstances, so that they may respond with appropriate personnel and resources to handle the problem; b) provide that, if it appears the officer has consumed alcohol or is otherwise impaired, the officer shall submit to field sobriety, breathalyser, and/or blood tests.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 40 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
During the Third Quarter, VIPD instructors conducted in-service training on the Off-Duty Official Action Policy on both Districts. The policy is currently under annual review.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued its Off-Duty Official Action Policy on March 20, 2011. The policy addresses all of the requirements set forth in subparts a-b of ¶ 40. During the Third Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with any documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of the policy or that the Department has fully implemented the policy. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 28 of 96
24 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Recommendations:
The Use of Force working group should continue to work with the Training Division to ensure that training programs are held on the Off-Duty Official Action Policy on an on-going basis and that relevant VIPD personnel are attending those programs. The Use of Force working group should also work with the Director of Training to evaluate post-training examinations to help assess the degree to which VIPD personnel understand the policies and the lessons conveyed during training. The Use of Force working group and Director of Training should then schedule follow-up training (continuing inservice or Roll Call or Commanders Call training) based on the results of those post-training examinations. In addition, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate.
The Use of Force working group should also provide the OIM with documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of ¶ 40 and that the Department has fully implemented the Off-Duty Official Action Policy. As the Consent Decree makes clear (¶ 103), it is the VIPD‘s burden to demonstrate compliance with the Consent Decree.
41. The VIPD shall continue to provide an intermediate force device, which is between chemical spray and firearms on the force continuum, that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The VIPD shall continue its policy regarding the intermediate force device, incorporate the intermediate force device into the force continuum and train all officers in its use on an annual basis.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 41 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it has developed, received DOJ approval for, and disseminated the ECW Policy. The VIPD contends that it has complied with the requirements of ¶ 41 because certain Officers have been trained to use and have been issued a TASER.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the ECW Policy on March 30, 2011. The policy addresses all of the requirements set forth in ¶ 41. During the Third Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with any documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of the policy or that the Department has fully

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 29 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 25
implemented the policy. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The Use of Force working group should continue to work with the Training Division to ensure that training programs are held on the ECW Policy on an on-going basis and that relevant VIPD personnel are attending those programs. The Use of Force working group should also work with the Director of Training to evaluate post-training examinations to help assess the degree to which VIPD personnel understand the policies and the lessons conveyed during training. The Use of Force working group and Director of Training should then schedule follow-up training (continuing in-service or Roll Call or Commanders Call training) based on the results of those post-training examinations. In addition, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate.
The Use of Force working group should also provide the OIM with documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of the policy or that the Department has fully implemented the policy. As the Consent Decree makes clear (¶ 103), it is the VIPD‘s burden to demonstrate compliance with the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 30 of 96
26 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Citizen Complaint Process
42. The VIPD will develop and implement a program to inform persons that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any officer. This program will include distribution of complaint forms, fact sheets, informational posters, and public service announcements that describe the citizen complaint process.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 42 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that its has substantially complied with the requirements of ¶ 42 because it has developed and implemented a program to educate the public on the VIPD‘s complaint and compliment process through Public Service Announcements, brochures, posters, and compliment/complaint forms in various languages as required.
The VIPD states that it is conducting and documenting inspections in the Zones, substations, and police vehicles to ensure that all compliment/complaint materials are available.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2012 pursuant to ¶¶ 42-58 of the Consent Decree. Despite providing additional training on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy during the Second Quarter, the Police Practices Experts saw no improvement in Officers‘ knowledge of the complaint process in the Third Quarter. During the Third quarter, Police Practices Experts questioned Officers about their knowledge of the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and found that 40% (4 out of 10) of Officers on St. Thomas and 36% (4 out of 11) of Officers on St. Croix responded correctly when asked to explain the process for filing a citizen complaint.23 Officers‘ responses on both Districts omitted key aspects of the policy, including: (1) the Officer‘s obligations when a citizen wants to file a complaint; and (2) how citizens will be informed about the outcome of a complaint. The Complaint Process working group, however, did not provide the OIM with any

23

We also note that an eleventh Officer on the St. Thomas District was asked

about the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy, but refused to respond.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 31 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 27
documentation that it conducted similar audits to assess the proficiency of VIPD personnel with the citizen complaint process.
Recommendations:
The VIPD has made significant progress issuing the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizens Policy, and developing and disseminating promotional material concerning the Department‘s citizen complaint process. However, as the OIM‘s audits make clear, the VIPD must provide Officers with additional training on the complaint process and then conduct and document periodic audits to ensure that VIPD personnel are complying with the relevant policies. The Complaint Process working group should also work with the Director of Training to evaluate posttraining examinations to help assess the degree to which VIPD personnel understand the policies and the lessons conveyed during training. The Complaint Process working group and Director of Training should then schedule follow-up training (continuing in-service or Roll Call or Commanders Call training) based on the results of those post-training examinations. In addition, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate.
43. The VIPD will make complaint forms and informational materials available at appropriate government properties such as VIPD district stations, substations, and mobile substations, libraries, the Internet, and, upon request, to community groups and community centers. At each VIPD district station, substation, and mobile substation, the VIPD will permanently post a placard describing the complaint process and include the relevant phone numbers. These placards shall be displayed in both English and Spanish and where deemed necessary in French or French Patois to account for diversity in the VI population. The VIPD will require all officers to carry informational brochures and complaint forms, in English, Spanish, and French Patois translation, in their vehicles at all times while on duty. If a citizen objects to an officer’s conduct, that officer will inform the citizen of his or her right to make a complaint. Officers will not discourage any person from making a complaint.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 43 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it has complied with the mandates of ¶ 43 because it has made the required compliment/complaint materials available at the locations required by the Consent Decree. In particular, VIPD policy requires

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 32 of 96
28 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Officers to carry compliment/complaint materials at all times while on duty, and the materials must also be available at designated locations.
OIM Report:
The VIPD generally made compliant forms and informational materials available at VIPD offices, but the VIPD has not provided any documentation showing that those materials are available at other government properties, such as libraries. Additionally, the VIPD has not provided any documentation showing that officers inform citizens of their right to file a complaint and that officers do not discourage citizens from doing so.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should expand the scope of its ongoing audits to determine whether complaint forms and related informational materials are all available at all required locations. The VIPD should also audit whether Officers are informing citizens of their right to file a complaint and that Officers are not discouraging citizens from doing so. One way to do that is to ask members of the community to serve as ―testers‖ to report on Officers‘ responses in relevant scenarios. Through the Department‘s information campaign, the VIPD should also inform citizens that they may contact the Department if an Officer refuses to take their complaint or attempts to discourage them from filing a complaint. The VIPD should then provide documentation of these audits to the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
44. Complaints may be filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile or electronic mail. The duty officer at the front desk of each district station will be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints, which persons may file at any district station. Complaint intake officers may describe facts that bear upon a complainant’s demeanor and physical condition but may not express opinions regarding his/her mental competency or veracity. Each complaint will be resolved in writing. Upon receipt, each complaint will be assigned a unique identifier, which will be provided to the complainant. Each complaint will be tracked according to the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, improper search, etc.).
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 44 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it continues to accept citizen complaints at the various locations required by ¶ 44. The VIPD has made complaint/compliment

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 33 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 29
―drop boxes‖ available at the Zones and substations. All complaints are assigned a complaint number, and any complaints investigated by IAB are resolved in writing. The VIPD acknowledges that more work is needed to ensure that complaints investigated in the Zones are resolved in writing.
OIM Report:
The DOJ approved the Acceptance of Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. The VIPD, however, has not provided any documentation during the Third Quarter showing that complaints are resolved in writing, that complaint numbers are being provided to complainants or that complaints are being tracked. Generally, the Police Practices Experts have found that IAB routinely tracks complaints and sends out delinquency notices to the Zones when they are past due. Nevertheless, it is the VIPD‘s responsibility to audit the Department‘s compliance with this provision and to provide documentation evidencing compliance to the OIM. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should conduct audits to determine whether all complaints are being resolved in writing, whether complaint numbers are being provided to complainants, and whether complaints are being tracked. The VIPD should then provide documentation relating to those audits to the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
45. Copies of all allegations of misconduct against the VIPD filed with the Zone Commands will be referred to Internal Affairs Unit (“IAU”) within five business days.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 45 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
During the Third Quarter, the VIPD made efforts to assess whether complaints were referred to IAB within five business days. In July, however, the VIPD conducted an inspection of complaints received in the St. Thomas/St. John District, and reported that all of the complaints were received by IAB within five business days. The VIPD indicates that it will continue to monitor this requirement on both Districts.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 34 of 96
30 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
OIM Report:
The VIPD did not provide the OIM with any documentation relating to the audits referenced above. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
The Police Practices Experts, however, reviewed 5 completed citizen complaint investigations while monitoring during the Third Quarter and all investigations (5 out of 5) were referred to IAB within five business days.
Recommendations:
The Complaint Process working group should develop a process for auditing whether copies of all allegations of misconduct are referred to the IAB within five business days. The Department should then provide documentation relating to those audits to the OIM.
46. Complaints will be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, for which the Territory will develop and implement appropriate training.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 46 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that the preponderance of the evidence standard was reviewed during a two-day training on the Investigating Misconduct and the Citizen Complaint Policy during the Third Quarter. Questions testing Supervisors‘ knowledge of the preponderance of the evidence standard were reportedly included in a post-training examination, but the VIPD has not provided the results of those examinations. The VIPD recognizes that ―ongoing training on the preponderance of [the] evidence standard will be beneficial to Supervisors helping them to competently and confidently apply this standard in the investigation of complaints.‖ The Compliance Coordinator recommended that the Director of Training include preponderance of the evidence training in in-service training schedules in the future.
During the Second Quarter, the Compliance Coordinator also requested the VIAG‘s help to design test questions on the preponderance of the evidence standard to be used during in-service and Roll Call trainings. The VIAG supplied such questions during the Fourth Quarter.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 35 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 31
OIM Report:
The Police Practices Experts asked Supervisors on both Districts about their understanding of the preponderance of the evidence standard. Demonstrating improvement over prior quarters, 71% (5 out of 7) of the Supervisors on St. Thomas and 60% (3 out of 5) of Supervisors on St. Croix correctly explained the preponderance of the evidence standard and how it differs from the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
Recommendations:
The Complaint Process working group should coordinate with the Training Division to offer training to Supervisors on the preponderance of the evidence standard on an ongoing basis and to ensure that relevant VIPD personnel are attending those programs. The Complaint Process working group should also work with the Director of Training to evaluate post-training examinations to help assess the degree to which Supervisors understand the preponderance of the evidence standard and the lessons conveyed during training. The Complaint Process working group and Director of Training should then schedule follow-up training based on the results of those posttraining examinations. In addition, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate. The Complaint Process working group should provide the OIM with any documentation that it conducted such audits during the Third Quarter.
47. The VIPD will explicitly prohibit from investigating an incident any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to the injury to a person, or who authorized the conduct that led to these reportable incidents.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 47 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it has incorporated the requirements of ¶ 47 into the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy, which is ―in effect.‖ The VIPD, however, recognizes that more work is required because ―[c]ontinued training on the policy coupled with inspections and or audits of complaint files are essential to ensuring adherence.‖

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 36 of 96
32 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
OIM Report:
In 10% (2 out of 21) of the completed use of force investigations reviewed by the Police Practices Experts during the Third Quarter, Supervisors who were involved in the use of force incident were also responsible for investigating that same incident. During the Third Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with any documentation that the Department is in compliance with this Consent Decree provision. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The Complaint Process working group should conduct and document periodic audits of investigation files to ensure that Officers directly involved with a use of force incident are not investigating such incidents. The VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate. The Complaint Process working group should provide documentation of its audits to the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
48. The VIPD will investigate every citizen complaint. The VIPD will establish a clear policy and procedure regarding the intake of any complaint, including anonymous and confidential complaints, against a VIPD officer. This policy and these procedures will include instructions to an officer for taking a complaint and prompt delivery to a supervisor.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 48 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
According to the VIPD, ―[t]he investigation of complaints is one area that the VIPD realizes that need improvement as evidence[d] by the number of complaints that remain[] uninvestigated during this quarter.‖ The Deputy Chief of St. John in her role as leader of the Complaint Process working group, together with the Director of IAB, continue to review outstanding complaints and coordinate with the Chiefs on both Districts to inform Commanders of their delinquency in completing complaint investigations.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy on August 2, 2011. Despite repeated training on the policy, the Department has not provided any documentation to the OIM demonstrating that Officers are

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 37 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 33
proficient in the citizen complaint process. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
The VIPD reported that the Department received more complaints about Officer discourtesy and Officers‘ failure to take action than any other category of complaint.24 The VIPD explained that discourtesy continues to be the leading basis for citizen complaints. According to the VIPD, this trend is potentially attributable to ―the public‘s perception of the quality[,] or lack thereof, of service being provided by our members.‖ As a result, many VIPD personnel received customer service training.
While monitoring during the Third Quarter, the Police Practices Experts saw no improvement in Officer‘s knowledge of the complaint process this quarter. The Police Practices Experts questioned Officers about their knowledge of the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and found that 40% (4 out of 10) of Officers on St. Thomas and 36% (4 out of 11) of Officers on St. Croix responded correctly when asked to explain the process for filing a citizen complaint.25 Officers‘ responses on both Districts omitted key aspects of the policy, including: (1) the Officer‘s obligations when a citizen wants to file a complaint; and (2) how citizens will be informed about the outcome of the complaint.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should develop a process to audit whether complaints are being adequately investigated within the allotted time period. The Complaint Process working group should also consider drafting a policy/directive for the Police Commissioner‘s signature that requires the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to monitor the progress and due dates for completing the complaint investigations that are assigned to their Districts by the IAB, and to hold their subordinates accountable for completing investigations in a timely manner. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM. In addition, the VIPD should evaluate whether the number of complaints for Officer discourtesy decrease during future quarters as a result of many VIPD personnel receiving customer service training.

24

Other categories include: absence from assignment without authorization; abuse of

process – conflict of interest; abuse of process – personal interest; assault; citizen contact;

defamation of character; excessive use of force – close hand; extortion; failure to comply with

rules and procedures; failure to submit RRR; harassment; oppression; received traffic ticket

wrongfully; refusal to take police report from citizen; unlawful search – warrantless vehicle

search; unnecessary use of force; unprofessional conduct; unsatisfactory performance –

department policies.

25

We also note that an eleventh Officer on the St. Thomas District was asked about the

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy, but the Officer refused to respond.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 38 of 96
34 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
49. The VIPD will institute a centralized numbering and tracking system for all complaints and each complaint will receive a tracking number as quickly as possible. The IAU will be designated as the primary and centralized agency to determine whether the investigation will be assigned to zone (one of the seven zones located throughout the Virgin Islands), retained by the IAU, or referred for possible criminal investigation. If the IAU refers a complaint to a zone, copies of all documents, findings, and recommendations should be immediately forwarded to the IAU for tracking and monitoring. For complaints alleging the excessive use of force or violation of a person’s constitutional rights, the Police Commissioner should be notified no less than twentyfour hours after receipt of a complaint.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 49 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it continues to use a centralized numbering and tracking system for all complaints.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy on August 2, 2011. That policy addresses the requirements of ¶ 49. The VIPD has not, however, provided documentation showing that the policy is being properly executed. For example, the VIPD has not demonstrated that the Police Commissioner is being notified of complaints regarding the excessive use of force or violations of constitutional rights within 24 hours. Though OIM is aware of individual cases where the Police Commissioner was notified of such complaints, we have not routinely been provided with reports of all such notifications. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The Complaint Process working group should develop a process for auditing whether the Department has complied with the requirements of ¶ 49. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
50. The VIPD will adopt a single policy concerning the investigation of misconduct complaints, regardless of whether the investigation is conducted by the IAU or a zone.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 39 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 35
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 50 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD contends that it has complied with ¶ 50 because it developed and trained on the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued its Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. That policy specifies a uniform process for investigating complaints, whether by the Zones or IAB. During the Third Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with any documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of the policy or that the Department has fully implemented the policy. According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The Complaint Process working group should continue to test whether VIPD personnel adequately understand and comply with the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy. The VIPD must provide VIPD personnel with additional training on the citizen complaint process and then conduct and document periodic audits to ensure that VIPD personnel are complying with the relevant policies. The VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate.
The Complaint Process working group should coordinate with the Training Division to offer training to Supervisors on the preponderance of the evidence on an ongoing basis. The Complaint Process working group should also evaluate whether: (1) Supervisors use proper interview techniques (i.e., they are not asking leading questions) during an investigation; (2) complainants are informed about the outcome of their complaint; (3) the preponderance of the evidence standard is properly applied; and (4) investigations are completed and returned to IAB within the timeframe specified in the policies. Based on its audits, the Complaint Process working group should identify any trends or areas for improvement.
51. The VIPD will establish policies and procedures and train all of its investigators on the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility; examination and interrogation of accused officers and other witnesses; identifying misconduct even if it is not specifically

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 40 of 96
36 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
named in the complaint; and using the preponderance of the evidence standard as the appropriate burden of proof. VIPD investigators will ensure that all officers on the scene of an incident provide a statement regarding the incident. The policy will require that all interviews be mechanically recorded using an audio or video tape.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 51 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
In compliance with ¶ 51, the VIPD says that it continued to train on the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued its Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. That policy addresses the requirements of ¶ 51. During the Third Quarter, however, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with any documentation showing that Officers are abiding by the policy. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
While monitoring on both Districts during the Third Quarter, the Police Practices Experts asked Supervisors about their understanding of the preponderance of the evidence standard. Demonstrating improvement over prior quarters, 71% (5 out of 7) of the Supervisors on St. Thomas and 60% (3 out of 5) of Supervisors on St. Croix correctly explained the preponderance of the evidence standard and how it differs from the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. The OIM also requests that the VIPD provide the number of VIPD personnel who have received training, and the number of VIPD personnel who have yet to receive training.
Recommendations:
The Complaint Process working group should continue to test whether VIPD personnel adequately understand and comply with the complaint process. The VIPD must provide VIPD personnel with additional training on the citizen complaint process and then conduct and document periodic audits to ensure that VIPD personnel are complying with the relevant policies. The VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 41 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 37
The Complaint Process working group should coordinate with the Training Division to offer training to Supervisors on the preponderance of the evidence standard on an ongoing basis. The Complaint Process working group should also evaluate whether investigators correctly: evaluate complainant or witness credibility; examine and interrogate accused Officers and other witnesses; and identify misconduct. The audits should also evaluate whether VIPD investigators take statements from all Officers on the scene of an incident. Based on its audits, the Complaint Process working group should identify any trends or areas for improvement. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
52. The policy will require that the investigative findings include whether: 1) the police action was in compliance with policy, training and legal standards, regardless of whether the complainant suffered harm; 2) the incident involved misconduct by any officer; 3) the use of different tactics should or could have been employed; 4) the incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and 5) the incident suggests that the VIPD should revise its policies, training, or tactics.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 52 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
According to the VIPD, it realizes that ―improvement is necessary in the quality of investigations as well as the quality and completeness of reviews of investigative files. This is an ongoing process that requires continued training and internal monitoring or inspections.‖ The VIPD notes that inspections by the Complaint Process working group are particularly important since the Audit Team is not yet functioning.
OIM Report:
During the Third Quarter, the Police Practices Experts reviewed 5 completed citizen complaint investigations. Some statistics are calculated from a total number less than 5 because: (1) the Police Practices Experts were unable to draw certain conclusions based on the information included in the investigative files; or (2) a Consent Decree requirement did not appear to be applicable based on the information included in the investigative files. All of the investigations (4 out of 4 noted whether the police action complied with Department policy, training and legal standards. But, 50% (2 out of 4) of the investigations recorded whether the incident indicated a need for additional training, counseling or other non-disciplinary corrective measures. Also, 25% (1 out of 4) of the investigations included a recommendation as to whether the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 42 of 96
38 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
VIPD should revise its policies, training, or tactics in light of the conduct. In addition, 75% (3 out of 4) of the investigations indicated whether the incident involved Officer misconduct. Finally, none of the investigations (0 out of 2), stated whether different tactics should or could have been employed.
The VIPD issued its Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. That policy reflects the requirements contained in ¶ 52. During the Third Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with any documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of the policy or that the Department has fully implemented the policy. According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The Complaint Process working group should continue to test whether VIPD personnel adequately understand and comply with Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy. The VIPD must provide additional training on the citizen complaint process and then conduct and document periodic audits to ensure that VIPD personnel are complying with the relevant policies. The VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate.
The Complaint Process working group should coordinate with the Training Division to offer training to Supervisors on the preponderance of the evidence on an ongoing basis. The Complaint Process working group should also evaluate whether Supervisors‘ investigations make determinations as to whether: 1) the police action was in compliance with policy, training and legal standards; 2) the incident involved misconduct by any officer; 3) the use of different tactics should or could have been employed; 4) the incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and 5) the incident suggests that the VIPD should revise its policies, training, or tactics. Based on its audits, the Complaint Process working group should identify any trends or areas for improvement. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
53. The policy will provide clear guidance to all investigators regarding the procedures for handling criminal misconduct allegations, referring them to the Virgin Islands Attorney General's Office or other appropriate agency for possible criminal prosecution, and the entity or individual who should make the determination of whether the complaint should be investigated criminally. The policy shall continue to require the completion of an administrative investigation, irrespective of the initiation or outcome of criminal proceedings.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 43 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 39
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 53 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it has ―established [and] implemented‖ the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy, and that continued inspections are required to ensure compliance with this provision.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued its Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. During the Third Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with any documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of the policy or that the Department has fully implemented the policy. According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The Complaint Process working group should develop a process to audit whether allegations of criminal misconduct are referred to the VIAG or other appropriate agency for possible criminal prosecution, and whether administrative investigations progress in a timely manner and are completed, irrespective of the initiation or outcome of criminal proceedings. Based on its audits, the Complaint Process working group should identify any trends or areas for improvement. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
54. In each investigation, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. There will be no automatic preference for an officer's statement over a non-officer's statement, nor will the VIPD completely disregard a witness' statement merely because the witness has some connection to the complainant. The VIPD will make efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 54 of the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 44 of 96
40 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it has ―established [and] implemented‖ the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy, and that continued inspections are required to ensure compliance with this provision.
OIM Report:
During the Third Quarter, the Police Practices Experts reviewed 5 completed citizen complaint investigations. In 75% (3 out of 4) of the applicable investigations, the VIPD considered all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence. Additionally, for complaints where there were witnesses, 50% (1 out of 2) of the investigations included credibility determinations of witnesses. For all of the investigations reviewed (5 out of 5), an Officer‘s statement was not given automatic preference over a nonOfficer‘s statement. Additionally, material inconsistencies between witness statements were relevant and documented in one case.
The VIPD issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. During the Third Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with any documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of the policy or that the Department has fully implemented the policy. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The Complaint Process working group should develop a process to audit whether the VIPD personnel consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and makes credibility determinations, if feasible, in all investigations. Audits should also evaluate whether preference is given to an Officer's statement over a nonOfficer's, and whether the VIPD makes efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. Based on its audits, the Complaint Process working group should identify any trends or areas for improvement. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
55. During an investigation, all relevant police activity, including each use of force (i.e., not just the type of force complained about) will continue to be investigated. The investigation will also evaluate any searches or seizures that occurred during the incident. The VIPD will not close an investigation simply because the complaint is withdrawn or the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of injury or the complainant will not provide additional statements or written statements; rather, the investigating agency will continue its investigation as necessary to determine whether the original allegation(s)

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 45 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 41
can be resolved based on the information, evidence, and investigatory procedures and techniques available. In each investigation, the fact that a complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense will not be considered as evidence of whether a VIPD officer used or did not use a type of force, nor will it justify discontinuing the investigation.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 55 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it has ―established [and] implemented‖ the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy, and that continued inspections are required to ensure compliance with this provision.
OIM Report:
During the Third Quarter, the Police Practices Experts reviewed 5 completed citizen complaint investigations. Only one of the investigations required the Department to evaluate any searches or seizures (which the Department did). Additionally, only 2 investigations required the VIPD to assess whether an investigation was closed because the complainant was unwilling or unable to provide medical records, or because the complainant pled or was found guilty. The Police Practices Experts‘ review determined that the investigations were not closed for these reasons.
The VIPD issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. During the Third Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with any documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of the policy or that the Department has fully implemented the policy. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The Complaint Process working group should develop a process for auditing whether VIPD personnel comply with ¶ 55. The VIPD should also develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
56. The complainant will be periodically kept informed regarding the status of the investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, the complainant will be notified of its outcome, including an appropriate

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 46 of 96
42 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
statement regarding whether any non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action was taken.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 56 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that IAB is complying with ¶ 56, but that there is ―need for improvement‖ at the Zones.
OIM Report:
During the Third Quarter, the Police Practices Experts reviewed 5 completed citizen complaint investigations. In 25% (1 out of 4) of the investigations, the Police Practices Experts confirmed that the complainant was periodically kept informed regarding the status of the investigation. In 75% (3 out of 4) of the investigations the complainant was notified upon completion of the investigation about the outcome of the investigation, including an appropriate statement regarding whether any non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action was taken.
The VIPD issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. During the Third Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with any documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of the policy or that the Department has fully implemented the policy. According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The Complaint Process working group should continue to audit whether VIPD personnel adequately understand and comply with the complaint process. The Complaint Process working group should evaluate whether the complainant is periodically kept informed about the status of the investigation, and notified about its outcome. Based on its audits, the Complaint Process working group should identify any trends or areas for improvement, and develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply with these requirements, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM. Additionally, the Department should ensure that it is notifying citizens of the final disposition of any complaints.
57. Each allegation in an investigation will be resolved by making one of the following dispositions: a) "Unfounded," where the investigation

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 47 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 43
determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that no facts to support that the incident complained of actually occurred; b) “Sustained,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person's allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the incident occurred and the actions of the officer were improper; c) “Not Sustained,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred; and d) “Exonerated,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate VIPD policies, procedures, or training.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 57 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that IAB is complying with ¶ 57, but that there is ―need for improvement‖ at the Zones.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued its Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. Among other things, that policy requires the Department to resolve all allegations with one of four findings: ―unfounded;‖ ―sustained;‖ ―not sustained;‖ and ―exonerated.‖ Based on the Police Practices Experts‘ review of closed investigations, it appears that there is some confusion about the meaning of and differences between these terms, and, in particular, the difference between ―exonerated‖ and ―unfounded.‖ ―Exonerated‖ should be used when the investigation reveals that the alleged conduct occurred, but did not violate Department policy or generally accepted police practices. On the other hand, ―unfounded‖ should be used when the investigation reveals that conduct complained of never occurred.
During the Third Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with any documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of the policy or that the Department has fully implemented the policy. According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The Complaint Process working group should develop a process for auditing whether VIPD personnel comply with ¶ 57. The VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply with these

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 48 of 96
44 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
requirements, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM. The VIPD should also provide further training to reinforce the meaning of and differences between the four disposition findings.
58. Unit commanders will evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command to identify underlying problems and training needs. Any such problems or needs will be relayed in the form of a recommendation to the appropriate VIPD entity.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 58 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that the Citizen Complaint Process working group is working to reinforce the requirements of ¶ 58 with all Zone Commanders since investigations of citizen complaints continue to be completed outside the time frame required by policy. Although IAB reports that the number of outstanding reports has decreased in September, the VIPD has issued letters of reprimand to certain Commanders in the St. Thomas District. Because incomplete investigations continue to be submitted to IAB, the VIPD recognizes that ―the Chain of Command beginning with the first line Supervisor to the Office of the Chief has to commit to improving the quality of their reviews and working groups also must intensify and increase random inspections of these files.‖ The VIPD‘s report did not specifically address the requirements of ¶ 58.
OIM Report:
During the Third Quarter, the Police Practices Experts reviewed 26 completed use of force investigations. Unit commanders identified underlying problems and training needs in 31% (8 out of 26) of the completed use of force investigations reviewed by the Police Practices Experts during the Third Quarter. There was evidence that these problems or needs were relayed to the appropriate VIPD entity in 38% (3 out of 8) of the completed use of force investigations. Only 29% (5 out of 17) of the completed use of force investigations included evidence that the recommended corrective action was taken.
During the Third Quarter the Police Practices Experts reviewed 5 completed citizen complaint investigations. Unit commanders identified underlying problems and training needs in 50% (2 out of 4) of those investigations. Evidence that these problems or needs were relayed to the appropriate VIPD entity existed in 33% (1 out of 3) of the completed citizen

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 49 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 45
complaint investigations. There was no evidence in the completed citizen complaint investigations that the recommended corrective action was taken.
Recommendations:
The Complaint Process working group should develop a process for auditing whether VIPD personnel comply with ¶ 58. The VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply with the requirements, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 50 of 96
46 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Management and Supervision
59. The VIPD will develop and implement a risk management system to include a new computerized relational database or paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for supervision and management of the VIPD. Priority will be given to the VIPD obtaining any established program and system. The VIPD will regularly use this data to promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 59 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it continues to work on an arrest database. To that end, the Compliance Coordinator led efforts to revise the Arrest/Detention Form, which will be used to collect information that will be entered into the arrest database. The revised form was submitted to the Planning and Research Bureau in May 2012 to be assigned a policy number and submitted to the Police Commissioner for review and approval. However, by the end of the Third Quarter, the Planning and Research Committee had yet to review the form and submit it to the Police Commissioner. Although the arrest database is a component of the Department‘s Risk Management System (―RMS‖), the VIPD should report on its efforts to comply with the requirements of ¶ 59.
OIM Report:
As previously reported, the VIPD has chosen the computer program IAPro as its RMS. The RMS will help the Department to track incidents and identify patterns relating to potentially problematic behavior by VIPD personnel. VIPD personnel use Blue Team—a companion computer program to IAPro—to enter force data, including RRRs, directly into IAPro. Blue Team also allows Supervisors and Commanders to review and sign-off on use of force investigations, and to monitor use of force patterns. During the Third Quarter, the Department again reported that it is working to finalize an arrest database on both Districts to track key information about arrests. The VIPD, however, did not provide the OIM with any documentation that the Department is in compliance with this Consent Decree provision. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 51 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 47
Recommendations:
Even though the Department has implemented certain aspects of IAPro, the RMS Protocol needs to be fully implemented by, among other things, conducting the required beta test (i.e., an initial full scale test) of the RMS. The Department must also remedy any outstanding technical issues relating to IAPro and Blue Team, including conducting Blue Team training for St. Croix.
60. The new risk management system will collect and record the following information: a) all uses of force; b) canine bite ratios; c) the number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers; d) all injuries to prisoners; e) all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with “resisting arrest,” “assault on a police officer,” “disorderly conduct,” or “obstruction of official business;” f) all critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty; g) all complaints (and their dispositions); h) all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the Territory and its officers, or agents, resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel; i) all vehicle pursuits; j) all incidents involving the pointing of a firearm (if any such reporting is required); and k) all disciplinary action taken against officers.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 60 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it has developed force-related policies, forms to documents uses of force, and installed Blue Team to allow electronic entry of all use of force incidents.
The VIPD also reports that the Management and Information Systems Bureau (―MIS‖) configured copy machines in the Zones on both Districts to function as scanners. Supervisors, however, still need to be trained on the scanning function of the copiers. The VIPD says that enabling the scanning function in the Zones in order to load documents directly into Blue Team is a requirement in the Blue Team Protocol.
OIM Report:
As previously reported, the VIPD has chosen the computer program IAPro as its RMS. The RMS will help the Department to track incidents and identify patterns relating to potentially problematic behavior or deviations from Department policy by VIPD personnel. VIPD personnel use Blue Team—a companion computer program to IAPro—to enter force data, including RRRs,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 52 of 96
48 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
directly into IAPro. Blue Team also allows Supervisors and Commanders to review and sign off on use of force investigations, and to monitor use of force patterns. Although the Department held Blue Team training on St. Thomas during the First Quarter, by the end of the Third Quarter, Blue Team training had not been provided on St. Croix.
Recommendations:
Even though the Department has implemented certain aspects of IAPro, the RMS Protocol needs to be fully implemented by, among other things, conducting the required beta test (i.e., an initial full scale test) of the RMS to ensure that the data required by ¶ 60 is entered. The Department must also remedy any outstanding technical issues relating to IAPro and Blue Team, including conducting Blue Team training for St. Croix.
61. The new risk management system will include, for the incidents included in the database, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (e.g., name, badge number, shift and supervisor) and civilian (e.g., race, ethnicity or national origin, if available).
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 61 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that there has been improvement during the Third Quarter with VIPD personnel in the St. Thomas District using their Permanent Designator Number (―PDN‖) on police reports. The VIPD also reported that the Police Commissioner signed a purchase order in excess of $37,000 for 400 new badges with PDNs imprinted on them.
OIM Report:
To help track VIPD personnel (who may change job functions, names, etc.) the Police Commissioner issued a directive during the Fourth Quarter of 2011 ordering that a PDN be assigned to all sworn personnel, including designated civilian personnel with assignments as agents, auxiliaries, and forensic technicians. The PDN is a four digit number assigned by the Virgin Islands Territorial Emergency Management Agency (―VITEMA‖). Officers are required to use their PDN (which personnel will have for their entire career) on all police reports, rather than their badge numbers as was the previous practice. According to the Department, all VIPD personnel on both Districts have received PDNs. The VIPD, however, did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department is in full compliance with this Consent

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 53 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 49
Decree provision. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
Even though the Department has implemented certain aspects of IAPro, the RMS Protocol needs to be fully implemented by, among other things, conducting the required beta test (i.e., an initial full scale test) of the RMS. The Department must also remedy any outstanding technical issues relating to IAPro and Blue Team, including conducting Blue Team training for St. Croix. The Department should also audit whether Officers are using their PDNs on all police reports, rather than their badge numbers as was the previous practice. These audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
62. Within 120 days of the implementation of the new risk management system, or later with the agreement of DOJ, the VIPD will prepare, for the review and approval of DOJ, a plan for including appropriate fields and values of new and historical data into the risk management system (the "Data Input Plan"). The Data Input Plan will identify the data to be included and the means for inputting such data (direct entry or otherwise), the specific fields of information to be included, the past time periods for which information is to be included, the deadlines for inputting the data, and the responsibility for the input of the data. The Data Input Plan will include historical data that is up-to-date and complete in the risk management system. The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final review and approval within 30 days after it is presented for approval.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 62 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that, although the IAB planned to hold training on the Data Input Plan, the VIPD has decided to contract with an outside vendor to provide the training. The VIPD is also researching vendors to conduct Risk Management/Early Intervention Program training. The VIPD has had discussions with one vendor and intends to contact others. Once a vendor is selected, a training schedule will be established and shared with the OIM.
OIM Report:
The DOJ approved the VIPD‘s Data Input Plan on March 22, 2011, but the Department had not provided training on the plan as of the end of the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 54 of 96
50 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Third Quarter. The Data Input Plan identifies information about VIPD personnel (including, but not limited to, uses of force, disciplinary issues, motor vehicle accidents, and sick days) that the Department is required to enter into IAPro to facilitate its risk management function.
While the VIPD has made progress implementing certain aspects of IAPro, the Data Input Plan needs to be fully implemented. The VIPD has not provided the OIM with any documentation that the Department is in compliance with this Consent Decree provision. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should provide the OIM with documentation that the Data Input Plan is fully implemented and that the specific fields of information and other data required by the Plan are entered into IAPro.
63. The VIPD will, within 120 days, prepare for the review and approval of DOJ, and thereafter implement, a protocol for using the risk management system. The VIPD will submit for the review and approval of DOJ all proposed modifications to the protocol prior to implementing such modifications.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 63 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it held four meetings in September to discuss revisions to the RMS Protocol prior to submitting another draft to the DOJ for final approval.
OIM Report:
After several years of work, the VIPD submitted its final version of the RMS Protocol to DOJ during the Third Quarter; DOJ approved it on October 2. As previously reported, the RMS Protocol provides various thresholds that trigger supervisory review. For example, if an Officer receives more than X number of complaints within Y period of time, IAPro will alert the Officer‘s Supervisor (and other appropriate personnel) to the potential issue and need for review. When reporting arrest and use of force data, the Consent Decree requires that the VIPD use ratios based on the conduct of VIPD personnel (the total number of arrests where force was used divided by the total number of arrests) to identify potentially problematic behavior. The VIPD, however,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 55 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 51
currently uses numerical thresholds based on historic norms (X number of uses of force within a twelve month period). The DOJ and VIPD have agreed that, for the time being, the VIPD may continue to use thresholds rather than ratios until such time when the VIPD can rely on its arrest and force records. For now, IAPro will notify an Officer‘s Supervisor when the Officer reaches two uses of force within a six-month period. The Early Intervention Program (―EIP‖) Coordinator will then conduct a review and determine if further action is required. The Parties agree that the Department will not be in compliance with the Consent Decree until it implements a ratio-based RMS Protocol.
Recommendations:
Even though the Department has implemented certain aspects of IAPro, the RMS Protocol needs to be fully implemented by, among other things, conducting the required beta test (i.e., an initial full scale test) of the RMS. The Department must also remedy any outstanding technical issues relating to IAPro and Blue Team, including conducting Blue Team training for St. Croix. Once the Department can rely on its arrest and force records, the VIPD must begin to use ratios, rather than numerical thresholds, as triggers for supervisory review of Officers‘ conduct.
64. The protocol for using the risk management system will include the following provisions and elements: a) The protocol is comprised of the following components: data storage, data retrieval, reporting, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation and audit; b) The protocol will require the automated system to analyze the data according to the following criteria: (i) number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; (ii) average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and (iii) identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; c) The protocol will require the system to generate reports on a monthly basis describing the data and data analysis and identifying individual and unit patterns; d) The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors will review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, system reports, and will evaluate individual officer, supervisor, and unit activity; e) The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors initiate intervention for individual officers, supervisors and for units based on appropriate activity and pattern assessment of the information contained in the risk management system; f) The protocol will require that intervention options include discussion by deputy chiefs, managers, supervisors, and officers; counseling; training; and supervised, monitored, and documented action plans and strategies designed to modify activity. All interventions will be documented in writing and entered into the automated system (appropriate intervention options will be employed

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 56 of 96
52 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
based on the evaluation described in subsection (e) above; g) The protocol will specify that actions taken as a result of information from the risk management system be based on all relevant and appropriate information, including the nature of the officer's assignment, crime trends and crime problems, and not solely on the number or percentages of incidents in any category of information recorded in the risk management system; h) The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors will promptly review the risk management system records of all officers recently transferred to their sections and units; i) The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors be evaluated on their ability to use the risk management system to enhance effectiveness and reduce risk; j) The protocol will require that the system be managed and administered by the Internal Affairs Unit of the VIPD. The IAU of the VIPD will conduct quarterly audits of the system to ensure action is taken according to the process described above; k) The protocol will require regular reviews, at no less than quarterly intervals by appropriate managers of all relevant risk management system information to evaluate officer performance territory-wide, and to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all VIPD units in order to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 64 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it submitted a revised draft of the RMS Protocol to the DOJ on September 24, 2012. The DOJ returned the draft to the VIPD on September 26, 2012 with limited comments. The VIPD addressed the DOJ‘s comments and submitted a further revised draft the same day.
OIM Report:
On October 2, 2012, the DOJ approved the RMS Protocol. As previously reported, the RMS Protocol provides various thresholds that trigger supervisory review. For example, if an Officer receives more than X number of complaints within Y period of time, IAPro will alert the Officer‘s Supervisor (and other appropriate personnel) to the potential issue and need for review. When reporting arrest and use of force data, the Consent Decree requires that the VIPD use ratios based on the conduct of VIPD personnel (the total number of arrests where force was used divided by the total number of arrests) to identify potentially problematic behavior. The VIPD, however, currently uses numerical thresholds based on historic norms (X number of uses of force within a twelve month period). The DOJ and VIPD have agreed that, for the time being, the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 57 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 53
VIPD may continue to use thresholds rather than ratios until such time when the VIPD can rely on its arrest and force records. For now, IAPro will notify an Officer‘s Supervisor when the Officer reaches two uses of force within a sixmonth period. The EIP Coordinator will then conduct a review and determine if further action is required. The Parties agree that the Department will not be in compliance with the Consent Decree until it implements a ratio-based RMS Protocol.
Recommendations:
Even though the Department has implemented certain aspects of IAPro, the RMS Protocol needs to be fully implemented by, among other things, conducting the required beta test (i.e., an initial full scale test) of the RMS. The Department must also remedy any outstanding technical issues relating to IAPro and Blue Team, including conducting Blue Team training for St. Croix. Once the Department can rely on its arrest and force records, the VIPD must begin to use ratios, rather than numerical thresholds, as triggers for supervisory review of Officers‘ conduct.
65. The VIPD will maintain all personally identifiable information about an officer included in the risk management system during the officer's employment with the VIPD for at least five years. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis will be maintained indefinitely in the risk management system. On an ongoing basis, the VIPD will enter information into the risk management system in a timely, accurate, and complete manner, and maintain the data in a secure and confidential manner.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 65 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports during the Third Quarter, as it has previously, that the VIPD has selected IAPro software to record the information required by ¶ 65. The VIPD also reports that IAB is responsible for recording and entering this data into IAPro, and that data entry is ongoing. Consequently, IAB has begun to generate reports with certain statistics relating to uses of force and citizen complaints. MIS, however, must develop a system for ―backing up‖ the information stored in IAPro.
OIM Report:
During the Third Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with any documentation that the Department is in compliance with this Consent Decree

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 58 of 96
54 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
provision. According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
Even though the Department has implemented certain aspects of IAPro, the RMS Protocol (approved by the DOJ on October 2, 2012), and the Data Input Plan need to be fully implemented. The Department should demonstrate for the Police Practices Experts during an upcoming monitoring trip that the Department maintains personally identifiable information about an Officer for at least five years in IAPro, and that information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis is maintained indefinitely. The Department should enter information into IAPro in a timely, accurate, and complete manner, and maintain the data in a secure and confidential manner.
66. The new risk management system will be purchased off the shelf and customized by VIPD. Alternatively, the new risk management system may be developed and implemented according to the following schedule: a) Within 150 days of the effective date of this Agreement, subject to the review and approval of DOJ, the VIPD will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP); b) Within 270 days of the issuance of the RFP, or later with the agreement of DOJ, the VIPD will select the contractor to create the risk management system; c) Within 150 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the VIPD will submit the protocol for using the risk management system to DOJ for review and approval. The VIPD will share drafts of this document with DOJ and the Monitor (a position described in Section VII) to allow DOJ and the Monitor to become familiar with the document as it develops and to provide informal comments on it. The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final approval within 30 days after it is presented for review and approval; d) Within 14 months of selecting the contractor, the VIPD will have ready for testing a beta version of the risk management system consisting of: (i) server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the VIPD's existing automated systems; (ii) necessary data base software installed and configured; (iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and (iv) the use of force information system completed, including historic data. DOJ and the Monitor will have the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version using use of force data and test data created specifically for purposes of checking the risk management system; e) The risk management system computer program and computer hardware will be operational and fully implemented within 20 months of the selection of the risk management system contractor.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 59 of 96 Office of the Independent Monitor | 55

Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 66 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports during the Third Quarter, as it has previously, that the VIPD has selected IAPro software for the VIPD‘s RMS, and that IAPro is operable in both Districts. The VIPD also reports that the large capacity servers purchased to accommodate large data and video storage for IAPro and other programs were finally installed during the Third Quarter on both Districts. However, MIS noted that four hard drives were missing from the servers and need to be replaced. The Department was scheduled to transfer information to the new servers at the end of the Third Quarter.
Technical difficulties caused the VIPD to cancel follow-up Blue Team training scheduled for the St. Thomas District the week of September 10, 2012. The Department has not yet offered Blue Team training for the St. Croix District, but expected to do so in October of 2012.26
OIM Report:
As previously reported, the VIPD has chosen the computer program IAPro as its RMS. The RMS will help the Department to track incidents and identify patterns relating to potentially problematic behavior by VIPD personnel. VIPD personnel use Blue Team—a companion computer program to IAPro—to enter force data, including RRRs, directly into IAPro. Blue Team also allows Supervisors and Commanders to review and sign off on use of force investigations, and to monitor use of force patterns. Although the Department held Blue Team training on St. Thomas during the First Quarter, by the end of the Third Quarter Blue Team training was not yet offered on St. Croix.
During the Third Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with any documentation that the Department is in full compliance with this Consent Decree provision. For example, the OIM does not believe that the Department has complied with the required ―beta test.‖ According to ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
Even though the Department has implemented certain aspects of IAPro, the RMS Protocol needs to be fully implemented by, among other things, conducting the required beta test (i.e., an initial full scale test) of the RMS. The

26

That training was not held in October 2012.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 60 of 96
56 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Department must also remedy any outstanding technical issues relating to IAPro and Blue Team, including conducting Blue Team training for St. Croix. Once the Department can rely on its arrest and force records, the VIPD must begin to use ratios, rather than numerical thresholds, as triggers for supervisory review of Officers‘ conduct.
67. Prior to implementation of the new risk management system, the VIPD will continue to use existing databases and resources to the fullest extent possible, to identify patterns of conduct by VIPD officers or groups of officers.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 67 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that since purchasing IAPro, the VIPD has entered Risk Management information dating back to 2009.
OIM Report:
During the Third Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with any documentation that the Department is in full compliance with this Consent Decree provision. For example, the VIPD has never explained the extent to which it relied on existing databases and other resources while the Department works to fully implement the new RMS. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The OIM requests that the VIPD provide information regarding the system, if any, that existed prior to IAPro, and to what extent that system is still operational.
68. Following the initial implementation of the risk management system, and as experience and the availability of new technology may warrant, the VIPD may propose to add, subtract, or modify data tables and fields, modify the list of documents scanned or electronically attached, and add, subtract, or modify standardized reports and queries. The VIPD will submit all such proposals for review and approval by DOJ before implementation.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 61 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 57
Compliance Assessment: N/A
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it submitted a revised draft of the RMS Protocol to the DOJ on September 24, 2012. The DOJ returned the draft to the VIPD on September 26, 2012 with limited comments. The VIPD addressed the DOJ‘s comments and submitted a further revised draft the same day.
OIM Report:
Because the VIPD‘s RMS Protocol was only approved by the DOJ at the beginning of the Fourth Quarter, this provision is not yet applicable.
Recommendations:
Once the RMS Protocol is fully implemented, the VIPD should submit to the DOJ for approval any proposals to add, subtract, or modify data tables and fields, standardized reports and queries, or the list of documents scanned or electronically attached.
69. The VIPD will develop a protocol for conducting audits. The protocol will be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol will establish a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all VIPD zones.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 69 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The Deputy Chief of St. John, the Consent Decree Compliance Manager and the Training Coordinator attended a three-day audit protocol training in Arizona in September. The training was the first in a three-part series. The VIPD plans to hold the next two sessions in the Territory, but must obtain approval through the appropriate governmental channels.
OIM Report:
The VIPD has not finalized and implemented an Audit Protocol for the RMS or other areas of the Consent Decree (e.g., use of force citizen complaints). The VIPD will not be able to ensure that it has substantially complied with the Consent Decree‘s substantive provisions until it finalizes the Audit Protocol. During the Third Quarter, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with any documentation that the Department has finalized and implemented an Audit in

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 62 of 96
58 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
compliance with this Consent Decree provision. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should finalize and implement an Audit Protocol so that the Audit Team has the appropriate tools to become fully functional and to monitor the Department‘s compliance with the Consent Decree. Documentation of VIPD audits is the best way for the Department to demonstrate compliance with each Consent Decree paragraph. In addition, the Department should also provide additional audit-related training (parts two and three of the three-part series referenced above, or some other similarly comprehensive training) to relevant personnel.
70. The VIPD will continue to utilize a disciplinary matrix to take into account an officer's violations of different rules, rather than just repeated violations of the same rule. The VIPD will further revise this matrix to increase the penalties for uses of excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, or dishonesty, to reflect the seriousness of those infractions. The revised disciplinary matrix will provide the VIPD with the discretion to impose any appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes the officer's misconduct exhibits a lack of fitness for duty. This revised matrix will be subject to the review and approval of DOJ.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 70 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it continues to work on the Disciplinary Matrix, and that it submitted a revised draft to the DOJ on November 1, 2012 for approval. The DOJ provided comments on the VIPD‘s revised Disciplinary Matrix during the Fourth Quarter, and the VIPD subsequently submitted a further revised draft on January 18, 2013, which is currently under consideration by the DOJ.
OIM Report:
As previously reported, the DOJ approved the Disciplinary Policy and Matrix, which provides disciplinary guidelines for different types of misconduct. Nevertheless, the VIPD subsequently decided to further revise the ―charge and penalty section‖ of the Disciplinary Matrix; any such revisions will require DOJ approval. The Management and Supervision working group, however, reports that the VIPD continues to work on the Disciplinary Matrix. Because the OIM

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 63 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 59
has observed first-hand that the Department inconsistently applies disciplinary sanctions, the absence of a finalized Disciplinary Matrix is negatively impacting the Department‘s efforts to comply with the Consent Decree.
Recommendations:
The Management and Supervision working group should finalize any revisions to the Disciplinary Matrix and submit it to the DOJ for final approval.
71. VIPD policy will continue to identify clear time periods by which the various steps of a complaint adjudication process should be completed, from complaint receipt to the imposition of discipline, if any. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions will not be granted without the Police Commissioner's written approval and notice to the complainant. In the limited circumstances when an extension is necessary, appropriate tolling provisions will be outlined in the policy.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 71 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that the 50-day statute of limitations set by the Police Union‘s Collective Bargaining Agreement continues to be in effect. Despite VIPD efforts to extend the time, the Union continues to oppose these efforts.
OIM Report:
As an initial matter, the VIPD appears to be confusing the time period in which the Department can initiate administrative charges against an Officer with the timelines set forth in the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy. The Union‘s reported refusal to extend the 50-day statute of limitations has no bearing on the Department‘s ability to comply with internal investigative deadlines. During the Third Quarter, the Police Practices Experts reviewed 5 completed citizen complaint investigations. The Police Practices Experts found that 80% (4 out of 5) of the investigations were completed within the 50-day statute of limitations. The VIPD, however, reports that 67% of the complaints received by the Department during the Third Quarter were not fully investigated and resolved as of December 18, 2012.
Recommendations:
The Management and Supervision working group, together with the Citizen Complaint working group and IAB, should audit and document the Department‘s compliance with the 50-day statute of limitations. As the OIM

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 64 of 96
60 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
has previously cautioned, the Department cannot afford to let complaints of potential misconduct linger in light of this statute of limitations.
72. Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD will not take only nondisciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix indicates the imposition of discipline. In a case where discipline has been imposed on an officer, the VIPD must also consider whether nondisciplinary corrective action is required.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 72 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it continues to work on the Disciplinary Matrix, and is scheduled to submit a revised draft to DOJ on November 1, 2012 for approval.
OIM Report:
In the absence of a final Disciplinary Matrix, the Police Practices Experts continue to observe that the Department inconsistently applies disciplinary sanctions. In addition, there appears to be some disagreement within the Department about whether and when to order remedial training as a possible sanction. For example, during the Third Quarter, an Officer was the subject of a misconduct investigation for alleged harassment. The allegation was not sustained, but the investigation uncovered that the Officer threatened to arrest a citizen without proper cause. In an effort to avoid future liability (e.g., false arrest claims; improper use of force etc.), IAB recommended that the Officer receive remedial training. The Training Division, however, has requested that IAB discontinue its practice of recommending remedial training when the outcome of an investigation determines that an Officer has not violated any Department policies or procedures. The VIPD should finalize its Disciplinary Matrix and the OIM encourages IAB and the Training Division to agree on the appropriate resolution of these investigations.
Recommendations:
The Management and Supervision working group should finalize any revisions to the Disciplinary Matrix and submit it to the DOJ for final approval.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 65 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 61
Training
73. The VIPD will continue to coordinate and review all use of force policy and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy. The VIPD will conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 73 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that its Policy Consultant reviews all use of force policies and lesson plans; however, the VIPD acknowledged that it did not provide any documentation to substantiate this claim. During the Third Quarter, the VIPD held the following training on both Districts: Use of Force, Basic SWAT Certification, Advanced SWAT Certification, Pursuit Driving and Spike Strip instructor training, and in service training. The VIPD also provided the OIM with an updated training schedule dated September 17, 2012.
OIM Report:
As acknowledged by the Department, the VIPD did not provide the OIM with any documentation during the Third Quarter that the Department is in compliance with this Consent Decree provision. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The Department should develop a process for reviewing all use of force policies and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy. This process should include consultation with the VIAG to the extent necessary. The Department should also explain the scope of the Policy Consultant‘s review and whether it includes reviewing for legal adequacy. The VIPD should also conduct at least semi-annual reviews going forward. These reviews should be documented, become part of the training records file for that lesson plan, and be shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM. In addition, now that the VIPD has retained its own counsel, the OIM is hopeful that she will play a role in this process.
74. The Director of Training, either directly or through his/her designee(s), consistent with applicable law and VIPD policy will: a) ensure the quality of all use of force training; b) develop and implement use of force training curricula; c) select and train VIPD officer trainers; d)

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 66 of 96
62 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service training; e) in conjunction with the Chiefs, develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures; f) establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and g) conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 74 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it has not fully implemented the Roll Call Policy because the Department has not selected Training Coordinators in the Zones (who are responsible for overseeing all Roll Call training in a particular Zone). The VIPD explains that this requirement is difficult to comply with because of the limited number of Supervisors in the Department, and in the St. Thomas District in particular.
The Acting Training Director indicated that he would meet with the Police Chiefs on both Districts to discuss possible solutions, but as of the end of the Third Quarter, no meeting had been scheduled.
OIM Report:
The Department did not provide the OIM with any documentation during the Third Quarter that the Department is in compliance with this Consent Decree provision since, as the VIPD acknowledges, it has not selected Training Coordinators. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should develop a procedure to ensure that the Director of Training, in consultation with the VIAG if necessary, is: a) ensuring the quality of all use of force training; b) developing and implementing use of force training curricula; c) selecting and training VIPD officer trainers; d) developing, implementing, approving, and overseeing all in-service training; e) in conjunction with the Chiefs, developing, implementing, approving, and overseeing a patrol division Roll Call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures; f) establishing procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and g) conducting regular needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 67 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 63
Such reviews should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM. The VIPD should ensure that the Department has an adequate number of Supervisors so that the Department can, among other things, fully implement its Roll Call Policy by selecting Training Coordinators in the Zones. Additionally, the Training working group (which has historically not included members from outside the Training Division) should expand its membership to include VIPD personnel from other parts of the VIPD given the vital role that training plays throughout the VIPD.
75. The VIPD will continue to provide training consistent with VIPD policy, law, and proper police practices, and will ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by instructors. The VIPD will make best efforts to train each work shift as a team in their use of force training.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 75 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that instructors are required to submit lesson plans for review and approval before conducting training. During the Third Quarter, the VIPD provided lessons plans to the OIM for Impact Weapon, Electronic Control Weapon Policy, Use of Force Policy, Off-Duty Official Action Policy, Firearms Policy, and OC Spray Policy training.
OIM Report:
A Police Practices Expert reviewed the Lesson Plans provided by the Department and concluded that the lesson plans are deficient and, in many cases, little more than a copy of VIPD policy. That finding calls into question the adequacy of the Department‘s current review process (see ¶¶ 73, 74). Rather, comprehensive and compliant lesson plans should include multiple learning objectives, a section that references any applicable case law, and an explanation about how the training relates to the Consent Decree. Additionally, the lesson plans fail to indicate whether they have been reviewed by the Director of Training, or if necessary, the VIAG. Generally, pre- and postexaminations are also not included with lesson plans, and no exercises or scenarios are included to promote practical learning. Furthermore, there is no evidence that command personnel or training Supervisors audit sessions to determine if instructors follow the prescribed lesson plan and present the subject in a manner consistent with VIPD policy.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 68 of 96
64 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Recommendations:
As we have emphasized in previous reports, the VIPD should continue to develop lesson plans for all training programs in advance of the corresponding training (and in most cases while the policy is being finalized) so they can be vetted appropriately, including review of all lesson plans by the Director of Training and the VIAG, if necessary, without delaying training. The Training Division should work closely with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to arrange further training (in-service, Roll Call, and Commanders Call) on certain policies for which compliance has been problematic, including among others, the Use of Force Policy, Acceptance of Citizen Complaint Policy, and Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Police. The Training Division also should work closely with the Use of Force, Complaint Process, and Management and Supervision working groups to identify areas that require additional training, either through additional in-service training or Roll Call and Commanders Call training, to ensure that VIPD personnel adequately understand their obligations. Moreover, the VIPD should obtain sample lesson plans from other well-respected law enforcement agencies (the Police Practices Experts have previously provided recommendations), and should develop a standardized format for instructors and lesson plan developers to follow.
76. The VIPD shall continue to keep adequate records of lesson plans and other training materials, such that the most current training documents are maintained in a central, commonly accessible file, and are clearly dated.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 76 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that the Training Bureau on both Districts maintains records of all training, lesson plans, instructor certifications, and other training related information.
OIM Report:
During the Third Quarter, the OIM did not review the manner in which the Department maintains its training records. However, as noted in ¶ 75, a Police Practices Expert reviewed lesson plans provided by the VIPD during the Third Quarter. In addition, the OIM intends in future quarters to review how the Department maintains its records, particularly as the Department transitions to storing its training records electronically.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 69 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 65
Recommendations:
As we have emphasized in previous reports, the VIPD should continue to develop lesson plans for all training programs in advance of the corresponding training (and in most cases while the policy is being finalized) so they can be vetted appropriately, including review of all lesson plans by the Director of Training and the VIAG, if necessary, without delaying training. VIPD should demonstrate to the Police Practices Experts during future monitoring trips that the Department maintains adequate records of lesson plans and other training materials, and that the most current training documents are maintained in a central location and clearly dated.
77. The VIPD shall continue to maintain training records regarding every VIPD officer that reliably indicate the training each officer has received. The training records shall, at a minimum, include the course description and duration, curriculum, and instructor for each officer.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 77 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that the Training Bureau on both Districts continues to maintain an electronic database of training records. The VIPD anticipates that the recently installed storage servers will enhance the capacity for storing this information.
OIM Report:
During the Third Quarter, the OIM did not review the Department‘s training records. As reported during the Second Quarter, however, training records on both Districts were incomplete. While monitoring in-service training, the Police Practices Experts frequently observed VIPD personnel failing to attend the training when they were scheduled, arriving late, frequently absenting themselves for long periods during the training session, and leaving early. Until the VIPD establishes better control of officer attendance, the reliability of officer training records will remain suspect. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations:
VIPD should demonstrate to the Police Practices Experts during future monitoring trips that the Department maintains records for every Officer

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 70 of 96 66 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

detailing the training received, including a course description and duration, curriculum, and course instructor for each training.
78. The Training Director will review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure compliance with applicable laws and Virgin Islands Police Department policy. The Training Director will consult with the Attorney General's Office on any additions, changes and/or modifications regarding use of force training or policies to ensure compliance with applicable laws.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 78 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it has abandoned pursuing a memorandum of understanding (―MOU‖) with the VIAG because the VIAG has determined that the mandates are provided for within ¶ 78 and that a separate agreement is not necessary.27
OIM Report:
During the Third Quarter, the Department announced an annual review of its use of force policies. As part of this process, the Acting Chief of the St. Croix District (in his role as the acting leader of the Use of Force working group) asked all Commanders to comment on the policies. The VIPD did not provide any information during the Third Quarter about the Commanders‘ responses and what action, if anything, the Department as taken as a result.
Recommendations:
The Department should explain the process for its annual review of VIPD policies and the extent of the VIAG‘s involvement in the review. The VIPD should document the results of this review and provide them to the OIM during the Fourth Quarter. The VIPD and VIAG should also explain any changes that are made to the Department‘s use of force policies or training as a result of the annual review process described above. Under ¶ 103 of the Consent Decree, the burden is on the Territory and the VIPD to demonstrate compliance.
79. The VIPD will continue to provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on use of force. Such training will include and address the following topics: a) the VIPD 's use of force model,

27

Based on the OIM‘s understanding, the MOU would have created a formal arrangement

for the VIAG to work with the VIPD in this regard.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 71 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 67
as described in this Agreement; b) proper use of force decision-making; c) the VIPD’s use of force reporting requirements; d) the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements; e) examples of scenarios faced by VIPD officers that illustrate proper use of force decision-making; f) interactive exercises that emphasize proper use of force decisionmaking; g) de-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without using force, and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation even when the use of force would be legally justified; h) threat assessment; i) appropriate training on conflict management.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 79 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it conducted training on several use of force related policies, including the Canine Policy, Impact Weapon Policy, and the Firearms Policy during the Third Quarter. The firearms simulator, which the VIPD states it purchased to conduct interactive training scenarios, continued to sit idle because the Department had not finalized a standard operating procedure for the simulator during the Third Quarter.
OIM Report:
The Police Practices Experts observed some of the training conducted by the VIPD during the Third Quarter. In August, a Police Practices Expert observed SWAT training held on St. Thomas. Overall, the training was well done, and incorporated classroom and practical exercises to emphasize the basic tenets of SWAT (i.e., plan, brief, execute, and debrief). The Police Practices Expert was pleased that the instructors addressed several important points, including the importance of mastering the Department‘s use of force policies, keeping current on the law and commonly accepted police practices, and the importance of having a plan and debriefing. The Police Practices Expert, however, noticed and discussed with the instructors that some of the VIPD personnel attending the training either missed the second day of training or left the classroom for prolonged periods. The instructor informed the class that attendance was mandatory in order to receive a certificate of completion. The Police Practices Expert also observed some VIPD personnel did not agree with the instructors technique, but was pleased to hear at least one Sergeant encourage his fellow Officers to remain open-minded and consider the instructors‘ lessons.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 72 of 96
68 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Another Police Practices Expert observed instructor training on the Spike Strip Policy and Vehicle Pursuit Policy held on St. Croix. The Police Practices Expert reported that the classroom portions of the training included information about commonly accepted practices for pursuit driving and the use of spike strips. The instructors devoted considerable time to the VIPD‘s policies and noted areas where the policies would need to be amended due to the nature of Virgin Islands streets and highways. While attending that training, the Police Practices Expert also learned that the Department has no formal criteria for selecting the Officers to receive instructor certification.
Recommendations:
The Training Division should work closely with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to arrange further training (in-service, Roll Call, and Commanders Call) on certain policies for which compliance has been problematic based on the results of post-training examinations, Department audits, and OIM audits. The Training Division also should work closely with the Use of Force, Complaint Process, and Management and Supervision working groups to identify areas that require additional training, either through additional inservice training or Roll Call and Commanders Call training, to ensure that VIPD personnel adequately understand their obligations. In light of the Department‘s limited financial resources, every Officer who attends instructor certification training should intend to serve as an instructor. To date, that has not always been the case. More generally, the Department should also ensure that all instructor candidates have exemplary disciplinary records and performance evaluations. Finally, the OIM recommends that the VIPD develop formal criteria for selecting instructor candidates, including reviewing an Officer‘s disciplinary background and performance evaluations to ensure that appropriate candidates are selected.
80. The VIPD will continue to provide training to all its officers on the VIPD citizen complaint process. The VIPD will develop a protocol for all its officers on appropriate conduct and responses in handling citizens' complaints and will train officers in the protocol.
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 80 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that the Department conducted further in-service training on the citizen complaint process during the Third Quarter. The VIPD provided the OIM with copy of the training lesson plans and post-training examination questions.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 73 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | 69
OIM Report:
The VIPD has issued the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy pursuant to ¶ 42 of the Consent Decree. Despite providing additional training on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy during Officer in-service training in the Second Quarter, the Police Practices Experts saw no improvement in Officer‘s knowledge of the complaint process. While monitoring during the Third quarter, Police Practices Experts questioned Officers about their knowledge of the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and found that 40% (4 out of 10) of Officers on St. Thomas and 36% (4 out of 11) of Officers on St. Croix responded correctly when asked to explain the process for filing a citizen complaint.28 Officers‘ responses on both Districts omitted key aspects of the policy, including: (1) the Officer‘s obligations when a citizen wants to file a complaint; and (2) how citizens will be informed about the outcome of the complaint.
Recommendations:
The VIPD has made significant progress issuing the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizens Policy. However, as the OIM‘s audits make clear, the VIPD must provide Officers with additional training on the complaint process and then conduct and document periodic audits to ensure that VIPD personnel are complying with the relevant policies. The VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate.
81. The VIPD will provide training on appropriate burdens of proof to all supervisors, as well as the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility (to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform, and legally appropriate). The VIPD will also continue to provide training to supervisors on leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training will be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities, and will be made part of annual in-service training.

28

We also note that an eleventh Officer on the St. Thomas District was asked about the

Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy, but the Officer refused to respond.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 74 of 96
70 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Compliance Assessment:
The VIPD has not substantially complied with ¶ 81 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that the preponderance of the evidence standard was reviewed during a two-day training on the Investigating Misconduct and the Citizen Complaint Policy conducted during the Third Quarter. Questions testing Supervisors‘ knowledge were included in post-training examination, but the Compliance Coordinator has not received the results from the Citizen Complaint Process working group leader. The VIPD recognized that ―ongoing training on the preponderance of [the] evidence standard will be beneficial to Supervisors helping them to competently and confidently apply this standard in the investigation of complaints.‖ The Compliance Coordinator has recommended that the Director of Training include preponderance of the evidence training in in-service training schedules in the future.
The Compliance Coordinator‘s request that the VIAG help design test questions on the preponderance of the evidence standard to be used during inservice and Roll Call trainings continued to go unanswered during the Third Quarter.
OIM Report:
While monitoring on both Districts during the Third Quarter, the Police Practices Experts asked Supervisors about their understanding of the preponderance of the evidence standard. Demonstrating improvement over prior quarters, 71% (5 out of 7) of the Supervisors on St. Thomas and 60% (3 out of 5) of Supervisors on St. Croix correctly explained the preponderance of the evidence standard and how it differs from the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. The Complaint Process working group, however, did not provide the OIM with any documentation that it conducted similar audits to assess the proficiency of Supervisors with the preponderance of the evidence standard.
Recommendations:
The Training Division should offer training to Supervisors on the preponderance of the evidence and other responsibilities within 90 days of Supervisors assuming supervisory responsibilities (and on an ongoing basis thereafter). The Director of Training should evaluate post-training examinations to help assess the degree to which Supervisors understand the preponderance of the evidence standard and the lessons conveyed during training. The Director of Training should then schedule follow-up training based on the results of those post-training examinations. In addition, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 75 of 96 Office of the Independent Monitor | 71
demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 76 of 96
72 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Conclusion
While the VIPD continues to make progress in certain areas, particularly in connection with the citizen complaint process, a tremendous amount of work remains. Completing timely and adequate use of force and complaint investigations is paramount for the Department to assess whether VIPD personnel are following Department policies, and for the Department to evaluate the need for further training and, if necessary, discipline personnel who consistently fail to comply with Department policies.
In order to achieve substantial compliance (and demonstrate substantial compliance to the OIM), the Department must (among other things) more rigorously audit whether VIPD personnel are complying with Department policies. This will require the Audit Team to be fully functional and to work with the Training Division, IAB, and the working groups. As we have previously, reported, a robust auditing function is essential to the Department‘s ability to ensure that policies are implemented, that personnel understand and comply with Department policies, and that remedial training or other required action is taken to ensure that VIPD personnel are equipped to carry out Department policies and procedures in their daily policing activities.
Finally, the Police Commissioner should hold every member of the VIPD responsible for doing their part to advance the VIPD‘s Consent Decree compliance efforts. After monitoring the VIPD for almost three years, we are certain that the VIPD will not achieve substantial compliance if the VIPD maintains the status quo.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 77 of 96

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 78 of 96

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 79 of 96 Office of the Independent Monitor | i

Appendix A Summary of Consent Decree Requirements
Below is a summary of the requirements imposed by each substantive section of the Consent Decree. Because these summaries of the substantive requirements significantly lengthen our reports, we include them in this Appendix to provide the reader with context concerning the VIPD‘s progress in implementing the broad range of reforms required under each section of the Consent Decree.
I. Use of Force Policies (CD ¶ 31)
A. Requirements
Under paragraph 31 of the Consent Decree, the VIPD is required to review and revise its use of force policies as necessary to:
Define terms clearly, including establishing a definition of force that is consistent with the definition of force under the Consent Decree;1
Incorporate a use of force model that teaches officers to use, as appropriate, strategies such as disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, or calling in specialized units to assist with a situation;
Advise VIPD officers that, whenever possible, individuals should be allowed to submit voluntarily to arrest before force is used;
Reinforce that the use of excessive force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and potential civil liability;
Ensure that sufficient less lethal force alternatives are available to all VIPD officers; and
Explicitly prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized.2

1

Under the Consent Decree, ―[t]he term ‗force‘ means any physical coercion used

to effect, influence or persuade an individual to comply with an order from an officer.

The term shall not include ordinary, unresisted handcuffing. The term shall include the

use of chemical irritant and the deployment of a canine and/or pointing a firearm at or

in the direction of a human being.‖ CD ¶ 21.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 80 of 96 ii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

This provision requires that the VIPD implement its revised use of force policies immediately after the DOJ has reviewed and approved finalized versions of the policies.
II. Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force (CD ¶¶ 32-41)
A. General Use of Force Events (CD ¶¶ 32-38)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires that the VIPD document in writing all uses of force and develop a use of force reporting form on which officers are required to record each and every type of force used in an incident. The use of force reports must include: (1) a narrative description, prepared by a supervisor, of the events preceding the use of force; (2) a narrative description, prepared by the involved officer, of the event relating to the use of force incident; and, (3) audiotaped statements, as appropriate, from those officers.3
The Consent Decree requires officers to notify their supervisors following any use of force or allegation of excessive force. The supervisor must respond to the scene, examine the person who was subjected to the use of force for injury, interview him or her to determine the extent of any injuries, and ensure that the person receives medical attention, if necessary.
A supervisor must conduct a review and evaluation of each use of force by a VIPD officer. The Consent Decree contains the following requirements relating to these evaluations of uses of force:
The supervisor must prepare a detailed narrative description of the incident that includes all of the facts and circumstances relevant to determining whether or not the involved officers‘ conduct was justified.

2

The Consent Decree defines ―deadly force‖ as ―any use of force likely to cause

death or serious physical injury, including, but not limited to, the discharge of a

firearm.‖ CD ¶ 20.

3

The Consent Decree defines ―supervisor‖ as a ―sworn VIPD employee at the rank

of corporal or above (or anyone acting in those capacities) and non-sworn personnel

with oversight responsibility for other officers.‖ CD ¶ 27.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 81 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | iii
The supervisor must evaluate the grounds for the use of force and determine whether the involved officers‘ actions were consistent with VIPD policy.
To filter out potential bias, reviews of use of force incidents may not be conducted by any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized action that led to a use of force or allegation of excessive force.
Supervisors are required to interview all witnesses of a use of force, as well as all witnesses of any incident in which an injury results from a use of force. Supervisors must ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident, subject to any limitations imposed by any applicable provision of collective bargaining agreements or law.
Supervisors are not permitted to ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that might, for example, suggest legal justifications for the officers‘ conduct.
Supervisors must consider all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence, as appropriate. Supervisors are required to make reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between statements provided by witnesses and make determinations with respect to the credibility of witnesses when feasible. The VIPD is required to train all of its supervisors on methods and factors for evaluating the credibility of a witness.
Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that use of force reports identify every officer who was involved in a use of force incident or was on the scene when the incident occurred. Supervisors must ensure that use of force reports reflect whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided to an injured person, and, if not, whether the person refused medical treatment. Supervisors also must ensure that use of force reports include contemporaneous photographs or video of all injuries resulting from the underlying incident. These images must be taken both before and after any treatment of the injuries, including the cleansing of wounds.
Supervisors are required to evaluate the performance of all officers under their command who use force or were involved in

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 82 of 96 iv| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

an incident that resulted in a subject being injured due to a use of force by an officer.
Finally, the Consent Decree requires a Deputy Chief to review and evaluate every use of force performance review prepared by a VIPD supervisor. The Deputy Chief‘s review must include the identification of any deficiencies in the supervisors‘ reviews and must require supervisors to correct any such deficiencies. The Consent Decree requires the Department to hold supervisors accountable for the quality of their use of force reviews, including subjecting a supervisor to appropriate corrective or disciplinary action in cases where the supervisor failed to conduct a timely and thorough review, or failed to recommend or implement appropriate corrective action with respect to a subject officer.
The VIPD also must investigate all critical firearm discharges.4 These reviews must account for all shots fired and the locations of all officers who discharged their weapons. In connection with the investigation of all critical firearm discharges, the VIPD is required to conduct, as appropriate, ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue and bullet trajectory tests.
B. Specific Force Policies (CD ¶¶ 39-41)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop a Use of Firearms Policy that is consistent with applicable law and current professional standards. This policy must:
Prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition and inform officers that any such use may subject them to disciplinary action;
Establish a single, uniform system for reporting all firearm discharges;
Prohibit officers from obtaining service ammunition from any source other than official VIPD channels;

4

The Consent Decree defines the term ―critical firearm discharge‖ as ―each

discharge of a firearm by a VIPD officer with the exception of range and training

discharges and discharges at animals.‖ CD ¶ 22.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 83 of 96 Office of the Independent Monitor | v

Specify the number of rounds VIPD officers are authorized to carry; and,
Require that all discharges of firearms by officers, including unintentional discharges, whether on duty or off-duty at the time of the discharge, are reported and investigated.
The VIPD also must develop a revised policy regarding officers‘ offduty conduct that:
Provides that, absent exigent circumstances, off-duty officers must notify the VIPD or the relevant local law enforcement agency before taking police action; and
Requires that an officer who responds to an incident while offduty must submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests if it appears that the officer had consumed alcohol or was otherwise impaired at the time of the incident.
Finally, the VIPD is required to implement a policy that provides for an intermediate force device that falls between the use of chemical spray and the use of a firearm on the use of force continuum. This intermediate force device must be one that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The VIPD must incorporate the use of this intermediate force device into its use of force continuum and train officers in the device‘s use on an annual basis.
III. Citizen Complaint Process (CD ¶¶ 42-58)
A. Public Information (CD ¶¶ 42-43) & Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints (CD ¶¶ 44-45)

1.

Requirements

The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop and implement a program to inform members of the public that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any VIPD officer. The Consent Decree contains the following requirements with respect to this public information program:

The VIPD must develop and distribute complaint forms, fact sheets, informational posters, and public service announcements that describe its citizen complaint process.

The VIPD must make complaint forms and informational materials available at government facilities, including VIPD

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 84 of 96 vi| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

stations, substations, mobile substations, and libraries. These forms and materials also must be available on the Internet and, upon request, with community groups and at community centers.
Each VIPD station, substation, and mobile substation must permanently post a placard that describes the complaint process and includes relevant contact information, including telephone numbers. These placards must be displayed in English, Spanish, and, where necessary in light of the local community, in French or French Patois.
VIPD officers are required to carry English, Spanish, French, and French Patois5 versions of complaint forms and informational brochures in their vehicles at all times while on duty.
If a citizen objects to an officer‘s conduct, the officer is required to inform the citizen of his or her right to make a complaint.
Officers are prohibited from discouraging any person from making a complaint concerning an officer‘s conduct.
The Consent Decree imposes the following requirements relating to the availability of means by which members of the public may lodge complaints against VIPD officers and the tracking of such complaints:
The VIPD must be able to receive complaints filed in writing or orally, in person or by mail, and by telephone (or TDD), facsimile, or electronic mail.
The duty officer at the front desk of each District station shall be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints. At the intake stage, an officer taking a complaint is permitted to describe facts that relate to a complainant‘s demeanor and physical conditions but may not express

5

The OIM notes that paragraph 43 of the Consent Decree does not expressly

require VIPD officers to carry French language complaint forms and informational

brochures in addition to French Patois. However, in light of the third sentence in

paragraph 43 (which requires French language placards describing the complaint

process), the OIM believes that this was an inadvertent omission. For future printings

of brochures and other similar promotional information, the OIM suggests that the

VIPD create versions in English, Spanish, French, and French Patois to satisfy the

intent of the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 85 of 96 Office of the Independent Monitor | vii

opinions regarding the complainant‘s mental competency or veracity.

Upon receipt, the VIPD is required to assign each complaint a unique identifier number, which must be provided to the complainant.

The VIPD must track each complaint according to the type of misconduct alleged in the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, and improper search).

Copies of all allegations of misconduct against a VIPD officer that are filed with the Zone Commands shall be referred to the IAB within five business days.

B. Investigation of Complaints (CD ¶¶ 46-58)

1.

Requirements

The Consent Decree establishes numerous specific requirements relating to the investigation of complaints against VIPD officers, including the following:

Complaints must be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. The VIPD is required to develop and implement appropriate training regarding application of the preponderance of the evidence standard in internal investigations of allegations of officer misconduct.

The VIPD must explicitly prohibit an officer from being involved in the investigation of a complaint or incident if the officer used force during the underlying incident, was involved in conduct that led to the injury of a person during the incident, or authorized the conduct that led to the reported incident.

The VIPD must investigate every citizen complaint and the resolution of each complaint shall be documented in writing.

The VIPD must develop a clear policy and procedure regarding the intake of complaints, including anonymous and confidential complaints, against VIPD officers.

The Department must implement a centralized system for numbering and tracking all complaints.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 86 of 96
viii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
IAB is responsible for determining whether each individual investigation of a complaint will be assigned to a Zone, retained by IAB, or referred for possible criminal investigation.
If IAB refers a complaint to one of the Zones for investigation, the Zone must immediately forward to IAB copies of all documents, findings, and recommendations so that IAB is able to track and monitor the investigation.
The Police Commissioner must be notified of all complaints alleging excessive force or violation of a person‘s Constitutional rights within twenty-four hours of the VIPD‘s receipt of the complaint.
The VIPD also is required to develop a single policy governing the investigation of misconduct complaints, regardless of whether the investigation of such complaints is conducted by IAB or a Zone command. This policy must:
Provide guidance concerning factors for investigators to consider in evaluating the credibility of the complainant and other witnesses, examining and interrogating accused officers and other witnesses, identifying potential misconduct that is not specifically referred to in the complaint, and applying the preponderance of the evidence standard. The VIPD also must train all officers who perform internal investigations on these issues.
Require that VIPD investigators ensure that all officers present at the scene of the underlying incident provide a statement and that all interviews be recorded, as appropriate, on audio or video.
Require that investigation findings include conclusions regarding whether:
 The police action was in compliance with policy, training, and legal standards, regardless of whether the complainant suffered harm;
 The incident involved misconduct by any officer;
 The use of different tactics could have, or should have, been employed;

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 87 of 96 Office of the Independent Monitor | ix

 The underlying incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling, or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and
 The incident suggests that the VIPD should revise its policy, training, or tactics.
Establish that each allegation investigated must be resolved by a finding of either ―unfounded,‖ ―sustained,‖ ―not sustained,‖ or ―exonerated.‖6
Provide guidance to all investigators regarding procedures for handling allegations of potential criminal misconduct, including the referral of such allegations to the Virgin Islands Attorney General‘s Office or other appropriate agency for possible criminal prosecution. The policy must establish the entity or individual responsible for making the determination as to whether a matter should be investigated criminally. The policy also must require the completion of the VIPD‘s administrative investigations of potentially criminal misconduct, regardless of the initiation or outcome of any criminal proceedings.
Require that all relevant police activity, including each use of force, be investigated, even if the activity or force was not specifically complained about.
Require that investigations evaluate any searches or seizures that occurred during the underlying incident.
Prohibit investigators from closing an investigation solely because a complaint is withdrawn, the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of an injury, or the complainant will not provide additional statements or written statements. The policy shall require that, under such circumstances, investigators must continue the investigation as necessary to determine whether the allegations

6

Under the Consent Decree, a finding of ―unfounded‖ means that there are

insufficient facts establishing that the alleged incident actually occurred. A finding of

―sustained‖ means that there is sufficient evidence to determine that the alleged

incident occurred and that the officer‘s actions were improper. A finding of ―not

sustained‖ means that there is insufficient evidence that the alleged misconduct

occurred. Finally, a finding of ―exonerated‖ means that the alleged conduct occurred

but that the conduct did not violate VIPD policies, procedures, or training. Each of

these findings must be based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. CD ¶ 57.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 88 of 96
x| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
can be resolved based on available information, evidence, and investigative techniques.
Prohibit investigators from considering the fact that a complainant pleaded guilty to, or was found guilty of, an offense as evidence of whether or not an officer used a type of force or as a justification for the investigator to close the investigation.
The VIPD must keep complainants periodically informed of the status of the investigation of their complaints. Upon the completion of each investigation, the VIPD must notify the complainant of the outcome of the investigation, including an appropriate statement regarding whether any disciplinary action or non-disciplinary corrective action was taken against any officer.
Finally, the Consent Decree requires that unit commanders evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command in order to identify potential problems or training needs. Unit commanders must report any such issues to the appropriate VIPD entity in the form of a recommendation that appropriate action in response to the identified issues be taken.
IV. Management and Supervision (CD ¶¶ 59-72)
A. Risk Management System (CD ¶¶ 59-68)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop and implement a Risk Management System (―RMS‖) that includes a computerized relational database or a paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for the supervision and management of VIPD personnel. The VIPD is required to use this data regularly to promote respect for civil rights and the employment of best police practices, manage risks, and potential liability for the Department, and evaluate the performance of VIPD officers and personnel across all ranks, units, and shifts.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 89 of 96 Office of the Independent Monitor | xi

The Consent Decree specifically requires the VIPD to collect and record the following information in its new RMS:
All uses of force;
Canine bite ratios;7
The number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers;
All injuries to prisoners;
All instances in which a VIPD officer used force and the subject was charged with resisting arrest, assault on a police officer, disorderly conduct, or obstruction of official or police business;
All critical firearm discharges, whether they took place on duty or off-duty;
All complaints against officers and the dispositions of those complaints;
All criminal proceedings, civil or administrative claims, and civil lawsuits resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel;
All vehicle pursuits;
All incidents involving the pointing of a firearm;
All disciplinary action taken against VIPD officers; and
For incidents included in the database, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (e.g., the officer‘s name, badge number, shift, and supervisor) and member of the public (including race and ethnicity or national origin, if such information is available).
The VIPD has the option either to purchase the RMS ―off the shelf‖ and customize the system to VIPD‘s requirements or to develop and

7

A canine bite ratio relates to apprehensions in which a canine unit participated.

It is the ratio of incidents that involved the canine biting or otherwise coming into

physical contact with the suspect compared to the overall number of such

apprehensions in which a canine unit participated.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 90 of 96 xii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

implement the RMS pursuant to a contracting schedule set forth in the Consent Decree.8
Within 120 days of the effective date of the Consent Decree, the VIPD is required to prepare a protocol for the use of the RMS, which must be submitted to DOJ for review and approval. Any proposed modifications to the RMS protocol also must be submitted to DOJ for review and approval prior to the implementation of the proposed modifications. The RMS protocol must contain:
Provisions regarding data storage, data retrieval, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation, and audit;
Requirements that the automated system be able to analyze data according to the following criteria:
 The number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit;
 The average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and
 The identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit.
Requirements relating to the generation of reports on a monthly basis that describe data contained in the RMS and identify patterns of conduct by individual officers and units;
Requirements that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors initiate appropriate interventions with individual officers, supervisors, and units based on activity and pattern assessments derived from the information contained in the RMS and that the VIPD has the following intervention options available:
 Discussions among Deputy Chiefs, managers, supervisors, and officers;
 Counseling;
 Training; and,

8

See CD ¶ 66.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 91 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | xiii
 Documented action plans and strategies designed to modify officer conduct and activity.
A requirement that all interventions be documented in writing and entered into the RMS;
A provision that actions taken as a result of information derived from the RMS be based on all relevant and appropriate information—including the nature of the officer‘s assignment, crime trends, and crime problems—and not solely on the number or percentage of incidents in any category of information recorded in the RMS;
A requirement that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors promptly review the RMS records of all officers who transfer into their sections or units;
A requirement that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors be evaluated based on their ability to use RMS to enhance the effectiveness of their units and to reduce risks associated with officer conduct;
Provisions that IAB shall manage and administer the RMS and that IAB shall conduct quarterly audits of RMS to ensure compliance with the RMS protocol; and
A requirement that appropriate managers conduct regular reviews, at least quarterly, of relevant RMS information to evaluate officer performance across the Virgin Islands. The purpose of such reviews is to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all VIPD units in order to identify significant patterns or series of incidents.
Within 120 days of the implementation of the RMS (or later with the agreement of DOJ), the VIPD must prepare, for the DOJ‘s review and approval, a Data Input Plan for including appropriate fields and values for new and historical data entered into the RMS.
The Data Input Plan must identify the data to be included in the RMS and the means for inputting the data, the specific fields of information to be included in the RMS, the historical time periods for which information will be inputted into the system, deadlines for inputting data, and the persons responsible for the input of data.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 92 of 96
xiv| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
The Data Input Plan must provide for the input of historical data that is up to date and complete into the RMS.
Once the RMS is operational, the VIPD is required to enter information into the RMS in a timely, accurate, and complete manner and to maintain the RMS data in a secure and confidential manner.
The VIPD must maintain all personally identifiable information about individual officers that is contained in RMS for at least five years. The VIPD shall maintain information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis in the RMS indefinitely.
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD, even prior to the implementation of the RMS, to use existing databases and resources to the fullest extent possible to identify patterns of conduct by individual VIPD officers or groups of officers.
Following the initial implementation of the RMS, the VIPD may propose to add, subtract, or modify data tables and fields in the system, modify the types of documents entered into the RMS, or modify the standardized reports generated by the RMS. The VIPD is required to submit all such proposals to the DOJ for review and approval prior to implementing the proposed changes.
B. Oversight (CD ¶ 69)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop a protocol for conducting audits within the RMS, which must be followed by the VIPD personnel responsible for conducting audits. The protocol must establish a regular and fixed audit schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency and cover all VIPD Zones.
C. Discipline (CD ¶¶ 70-72)
1. Requirements
The VIPD is required to use a disciplinary matrix to take into account a subject officer‘s violations of various rules, as opposed to considering only repeated violations of the same rule. The VIPD must revise its disciplinary matrix to increase penalties for uses of excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, and dishonesty. The revised disciplinary matrix, which must be reviewed and approved by DOJ, is required to provide the VIPD with the discretion to impose any

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 93 of 96
Office of the Independent Monitor | xv
appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes an officer‘s misconduct reflects a lack of fitness for duty.
Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD is not permitted to take mere non-disciplinary corrective action against an officer in cases in which the revised disciplinary matrix indicates that the imposition of discipline is appropriate.
In cases in which disciplinary action is imposed on an officer, the VIPD is required to also consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action is necessary.
The VIPD‘s policy must identify clear time periods by which each step—from the receipt of a complaint through the imposition of discipline, if any—of the complaint adjudication process should be completed. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions of these deadlines must not be granted without the Police Commissioner‘s written approval and notice to the complainant. The policy must outline appropriate tolling provisions in the limited circumstances when an extension of these deadlines is necessary.
V. Training (CD ¶¶ 73-81)
A. Management Oversight (CD ¶¶ 73-77)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to provide training to its officers that is consistent with VIPD policy, the law, and proper police practices. Accordingly, the Consent Decree requires that:
The VIPD review all use of force policies and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy;
 After completing its initial review of its force-related policies and training programs, the VIPD must conduct regular reviews of its use of force training program at least semi-annually.
The VIPD must ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by training instructors; and,
The VIPD must make best efforts to train each work shift as a team in its use of force training.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 94 of 96
xvi| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Under the Consent Decree, the VIPD‘s Director of Training, either directly or through his or her designees, is responsible for:
Ensuring the quality of all use of force training;
Developing and implementing use of force training curricula;
Selecting and training VIPD officer instructors;
Developing, implementing, approving, and overseeing all inservice training;
In conjunction with the District Chiefs, developing, implementing, approving, and overseeing a protocol for patrol division roll calls that is designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in law, policies, and procedures;
Establishing procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and
Conducting regular training needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
The VIPD must keep complete and accurate records of force-related lesson plans and other training materials. These lesson plans must be maintained in a central, commonly accessible file and must be clearly dated.
The VIPD also must maintain training records for every VIPD officer. These records must reliably reflect the training that each officer has received. These records must include, at a minimum, the course description, duration, curriculum, and instructor for each training program in which each individual officer participated.
B. Curriculum (CD ¶¶ 78-81)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD‘s Director of Training to review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure that the training program complies with applicable laws and VIPD policy. Moreover, the Director of Training must consult with the Virgin Island Attorney General‘s Office concerning any additions, changes, or modifications regarding use of force training or policies to ensure compliance with applicable laws.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 95 of 96 Office of the Independent Monitor | xvii
The VIPD must provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on the use of force. This use of force training must address the following topics:
The VIPD‘s use of force model;
Proper use of force decision-making;
The VIPD‘s use of force reporting requirements;
The Fourth Amendment and other Constitutional requirements;
Examples of scenarios faced by VIPD officers that illustrate proper use of force decision-making;
De-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without using force;
Instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a suspect, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying an arrest may be appropriate responses to a situation even when the use of force would be legally justified;
Threat assessment; and
Appropriate training regarding conflict management.
The VIPD also is required to provide training to all officers regarding the citizen complaint process. The VIPD must develop a protocol, to be used by all VIPD officers, that sets forth an appropriate process for handling and responding to complaints by members of the public. The VIPD must train officers regarding this protocol.
The VIPD also is required to train all supervisors with respect to appropriate burdens of proof in conducting misconduct investigations. This training also must include a discussion of the factors investigators should consider in evaluating complainant or witness credibility.
Finally, the VIPD must provide training to all supervisors regarding leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices.
This training must be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of the officer‘s assumption of

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 64-1 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 96 of 96 xviii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

supervisory responsibilities. This training also must be made a part of the annual in-service training of supervisors.

IV.

Monitoring, Reporting, and Implementation

(CD ¶¶ 82-102)

1. Requirements

The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to appoint a full-time Compliance Coordinator to serve as a liaison among the Virgin Islands Attorney General‘s Office, VIPD, the OIM, and DOJ. The Compliance Coordinator‘s responsibilities include:

Coordinating the VIPD‘s compliance and implementation activity relating to the Consent Decree;

Facilitating the provision of data and documents and access to VIPD employees and materials to the Monitor and DOJ as needed;

Ensuring the proper maintenance of relevant documents and records relating to the Consent Decree; and

Assisting the Police Commissioner and his designees in assigning compliance-related tasks to appropriate VIPD personnel.

In addition to fulfilling these functions, the VIPD must file with the Monitor and the Virgin Islands Attorney General‘s Office, with a copy to DOJ, quarterly status reports describing the steps taken during the reporting period to comply with each provision of the Consent Decree.

Finally, the Virgin Islands and the VIPD are required to implement the provisions of the Consent Decree ―as soon as reasonably practicable‖ and, in any event, no later than 150 days after the March 23, 2009 effective date of the Consent Decree.

8802911

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 1 of 106
Second Quarterly Report of 2013 of the
Independent Monitor for the
Virgin Islands Police Department
William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel Independent Monitors
Office of the Independent Monitor Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
One New York Plaza New York, NY 10004
212.859.8000 http://www.policemonitor.org
November 6, 2013

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 2 of 106

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 3 of 106
Independent Monitoring Team
Independent Monitors William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
Fried Frank Monitoring Team Elizabeth P. Kozlowski Joshua D. Roth
Police Practices Coordinator Chief Charles A. Gruber Elgin (Illinois) Police Department (retired)
Police Practices Experts Superintendent Ann Marie Doherty Boston (Massachusetts) Police Department (retired) Chief Robert L. Stewart Ormond Beach (Florida) Police Department (retired)

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 4 of 106 Office of the Independent Monitor |
Table of Contents Executive Summary………………………………………………………. 5 Introduction…………………………………………………………………. 7 Compliance Assessment………………………………………………… 15
Use of Force………………………………………………………….. 15 Citizen Complaint Process………………………………………. 32 Management and Supervision………………………………….. 51 Training………………………………………………………………...70 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………86 Appendix A Summary of Consent Decree Requirements……….. i

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 5 of 106 Office of the Independent Monitor | 5
Executive Summary

This is the Second Quarterly Report of 2013 from the Office of the Independent Monitor (the “OIM” or the “Monitor”) for the United States Virgin Islands Police Department (the “VIPD” or the “Department”), covering the quarter ending on June 30, 2013.1
In the Second Quarter of 2013, the OIM’s Police Practices Experts conducted one week-long monitoring trip to the United States Virgin Islands (the “Territory”). During this trip, Police Practices Experts spent time meeting with and providing technical assistance to VIPD personnel, observing Consent Decree related training, and reviewing closed investigation files and other police records. The assessments contained in this Report are primarily based on the Police Practices Experts’ observations and the Department’s Quarterly Status Report, dated July 5, 2013 (“VIPD Report”). In addition, there were further communications and updates, telephonically and electronically, between the VIPD and the Police Practices Experts during the Second Quarter, as well as periodic telephone conferences between the VIPD, the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”), the Police Practices Experts, and the Monitors to discuss the VIPD’s efforts towards substantial compliance with the Consent Decree. While the OIM takes the VIPD Report and other information provided by the VIPD into consideration, the compliance assessments contained in this report are made independently by the OIM.
Last quarter, the OIM began assessing the VIPD’s compliance with the Consent Decree in 3-phases—Phase 1: Policy; Phase 2: Training; Phase 3: Consistent Application. Phase 1 assesses whether the VIPD has issued policies reflecting the Consent Decree requirements. Phase 2 assesses whether the VIPD has provided initial and ongoing training (e.g., annual in-service training, Roll and Commanders Call training) on these policies. Phase 3 assesses whether the VIPD demonstrates consistent application of the Department’s policies in its everyday policing activities. Under this 3-phase evaluation, the VIPD achieved substantial compliance with ¶ 42 for the first time during the First Quarter of 2013.
Beginning this quarter and based on extensive discussions with and input from the VIPD, the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office (“VIAG”), and the DOJ, the OIM modified its assessment criteria for the Consent Decree paragraphs that only require the Department to develop a policy or protocol. Under this approach, the VIPD has achieved substantial compliance with ¶¶ 31, 39, 40, 47, 50, 52, 53, 62, 64, and 70 because it has adopted relevant

1

This Report references a number of events that occurred after June 30, 2013 to provide

a current assessment of the VIPD’s compliance status.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 6 of 106
6 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
policies or protocols. Because the Consent Decree requires the VIPD to “implement . . . all provisions of this Agreement that involve the continuation of current VIPD policies, procedures, and practices[,]” the OIM will evaluate the Department’s consistent application of its policies and protocols (Phase 3, described above) under ¶¶ 100 and 101 of the Consent Decree.2 In addition, the Department’s obligation to provide training for its policies and protocols is addressed in connection with specific training requirements throughout the Consent Decree and ¶ 75.3
While the VIPD continues to make progress in certain areas, work remains, particularly with respect to the Department’s use, reporting, and investigation of force. The Department should conduct further training to emphasize the requirements of its revised use of force policies, which lie at the heart of the Consent Decree. In addition, to achieve substantial compliance with the entire Consent Decree (and demonstrate substantial compliance to the OIM), the Department must (among other things) put in place a rigorous audit process to determine whether VIPD personnel are complying with the Department’s policies and to memorialize the VIPD’s progress towards substantial compliance. This will require the audit unit to be fully functional and to work with the Training Division, the Internal Affairs Bureau, and the working groups to ensure: that policies are implemented; that personnel understand and comply with Department policies; and that remedial training or discipline is imposed on VIPD personnel who fail to consistently comply with the Department’s policies. The VIPD’s audit unit (which has existed in name only for more than a year), must make faster progress or should be held accountable for its failure to do so.

2

Paragraph 100 of the Consent Decree requires that “the Territory of the Virgin Islands

and the VIPD shall implement each and every provision of this Agreement as that term defined

in Paragraph 30 of this Agreement.”

Paragraph 101 of the Consent Decree requires that “the VIPD shall implement

immediately all provisions of this Agreement that involve the continuation of current VIPD

policies, procedures, and practices. The remaining provisions shall be implemented either by

the specified implementation date or, for those provisions that have no specified

implementation date, as soon as is reasonably practicable and no later than 150 days after this

Agreement’s effective date.”

3

Paragraph 75 of the Consent Decree requires that “the VIPD will continue to provide

training consistent with VIPD policy, law, and proper police practices, and will ensure that only

mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by instructors. The VIPD will make

best efforts to train each work shift as a team in their use of force training.”

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 7 of 106 Office of the Independent Monitor | 7

Introduction

This is the Second Quarterly Report of 2013 from the Office of the Independent Monitor (the “OIM” or the “Monitor”) for the United States Virgin Islands Police Department (the “VIPD” or the “Department”), covering the quarter ending on June 30, 2013.
The OIM was established in January 2010 to monitor compliance by the United States Virgin Islands (the “Territory”) and the VIPD with the Consent Decree entered by the United States District Court for the Virgin Islands (the “Court”) on March 23, 2009. The Monitor is required by the Consent Decree to “issue quarterly written, public reports detailing the Territory’s compliance with and implementation of each substantive provision” of the Consent Decree.4
The Consent Decree reflects the agreement between the Territory, the VIPD, and the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) (collectively, the “Parties”) to resolve a lawsuit brought by the United States alleging that the Territory and the VIPD violated 42 U.S.C. § 14141 by engaging “in a pattern or practice of excessive force by Officers of the Virgin Islands Police Department and by the failure to adequately train, supervise, investigate, and discipline Officers.”5
The Parties entered into the Consent Decree “to promote police integrity and prevent conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.”6 The 104 paragraph Consent Decree contains a broad range of substantive requirements for reform in areas such as: (1) revising the VIPD’s force-related policies; (2) training Officers to properly use force in accordance with constitutional requirements, VIPD policy, and existing best practices in policing; (3) reporting and investigating use of force events; (4) documenting and investigating complaints alleging Officer misconduct; (5) developing systems for managing and supervising Officers; and (6) disciplining Officers found to have engaged in misconduct.
On October 1, 2010, the Court—charged with enforcing the VIPD’s obligations under the Consent Decree—ordered the Parties to jointly propose a timetable by which the VIPD would substantially comply with each substantive provision in the Consent Decree. The Parties subsequently filed a timetable on

4

CD ¶ 96. This Quarterly Report, along with the OIM’s prior reports, is available on the

internet at http://www.policemonitor.org/VI/VIindex.html.

5

CD ¶ 6; see also Complaint, United States v. The Territory of the Virgin Islands, No. 3:08-

CV-00158-CVG-GWB (D.V.I. 2008).

6

CD ¶ 3.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 8 of 106
8 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
November 24, 2010 that set forth specific dates by which the VIPD would substantially comply with each substantive provision in the Consent Decree (the “Consent Decree Timetable”). The Consent Decree Timetable also created interim deadlines for the VIPD to submit force-related policies to the DOJ for approval. The VIPD successfully met nearly every policy submission deadline. However, by the end of the Third Quarter of 2011, the VIPD had missed all of the remaining deadlines for substantial compliance established by the Courtordered Consent Decree Timetable (deadlines that the VIPD proposed and committed to meeting). For example, under the Consent Decree Timetable, the VIPD was required to substantially comply with Consent Decree ¶¶ 32-58, 70, and 72 by May 31, 2011, ¶¶ 60, 61, and 73-81 by June 30, 2011, and ¶¶ 49, 59, and 63-66 by September 15, 2011. To date, the VIPD has complied with ¶¶ 31, 39, 40, 42, 47, 50, 52, 53, 62, 70 and non-substantive provisions ¶¶ 8286, 88, and 98.
In January 2011, to encourage compliance within the timeframe of the Consent Decree Timetable, the then-Police Commissioner convened a Consent Decree Summit on St. Thomas on January 3 and 4, 2011 (the “Summit”).7 At the Summit, the then-Police Commissioner appointed senior VIPD personnel to lead, and ultimately be held accountable for, different aspects of the Consent Decree—Use of Force (Chief of the St. Croix District),8 Citizen Complaint Process (Chief of the St. Thomas District),9 Management and Supervision (Deputy Chief of St. Thomas), and Training (Director of Training). The Police Commissioner explained that each working group leader was responsible for: (1) designating a “point person” and recruiting other working group members; (2) drafting an action plan; (3) interacting with other VIPD personnel on interrelated Consent Decree issues; and (4) monitoring the working group’s progress by attending and participating in as many meetings as schedules permit, but no less than twice a month.10

7

The OIM discussed the Summit in detail in the Fourth Quarterly Report of 2010 and the

First Quarterly Report of 2011. For more information about the Summit, including objectives

and participants, see the Consent Decree Summit Addendum at the end of those Reports.

8

Following on-duty injuries sustained by the Chief of the St. Croix District during the

Third Quarter of 2012, the Deputy Chief of St. Croix assumed responsibility as Acting Chief of

the St. Croix District and Acting Leader of the Use of Force working group. The Acting Chief

appointed a Captain as his point person, and she has recruited new members and commenced

regular meetings of the working group.

9

The Citizen Complaint Process working group is now led by the Deputy Chief of St.

John.

10

Memorandum from the Police Commissioner to various VIPD personnel, titled “Meeting

Current Standards of Policing,” dated January 19, 2011. The OIM’s Police Practices Experts

also provided the working group leaders with a memorandum outlining their respective

responsibilities. During the Second Quarter of 2013, the Police Practices experts regularly

exchanged emails and telephone calls with their counterparts and met in person during the

quarter’s monitoring trip.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 9 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 9
Last quarter, the OIM began assessing the VIPD’s compliance with the Consent Decree in 3-phases—Phase 1: Policy; Phase 2: Training; Phase 3: Consistent Application. Phase 1 assesses whether the VIPD has issued policies reflecting the Consent Decree requirements. Phase 2 assesses whether the VIPD has provided initial and ongoing training (e.g., annual in-service training, Roll and Commanders Call training) on these policies. Phase 3 assesses whether the VIPD demonstrates consistent application of the Department’s policies in its everyday policing activities. Certain phases may not be applicable to all Consent Decree requirements. For example, the provisions relating to training (¶¶ 75-79) primarily concern the training process, rather than training on a particular policy. Therefore, Phase 1 will not be applicable to those provisions. Moreover, where Phase 1 is inapplicable because there is no required policy, Phase 2 will focus on steps towards execution, including training. As previously reported, the VIPD achieved substantial compliance with ¶ 42 of the Consent Decree during the First Quarter of 2013.
Beginning this quarter and based on extensive discussions with and input from the VIPD, the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office (“VIAG”), and the DOJ, the OIM modified its assessment criteria for the Consent Decree paragraphs that only require the Department to develop a policy or protocol. Under this approach, the VIPD has achieved substantial compliance with ¶¶ 31, 39, 40, 47, 50, 52, 53, 62, 64, and 70 because it has adopted relevant policies or protocols. Because the Consent Decree requires the VIPD to “implement . . . all provisions of this Agreement that involve the continuation of current VIPD policies, procedures, and practices[,]” the OIM will evaluate the Department’s consistent application of its policies and protocols (Phase 3, described above) under ¶¶ 100 and 101 of the Consent Decree. In addition, the Department’s obligation to provide training for the policies and protocols required by ¶¶ 31, 39, 40, 47, 50, 52, 53, 62, 64 and 70 will be assessed in connection with the specific training requirements that we identified throughout the Consent Decree and ¶ 75.
Finally, during the Third Quarter of 2013, the Parties filed a joint motion with the Court to extend the Consent Decree’s October 31, 2013 substantial compliance deadline for another two years. On October 1, 2013, after exhaustive consultation with the OIM, the Parties submitted a revised action plan to the Court outlining the remaining steps that the Department must take to achieve substantial compliance. Court approval remains pending, but a hearing is scheduled for November 18, 2013 in St. Thomas.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 10 of 106 10 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

Status of Substantial Compliance

Consent Decree ¶
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Phase 1 Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied

Phase 2 N/A Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied
N/A N/A Satisfied

Phase 3 N/A
Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied
N/A N/A Not Satisfied

Compliance Status
Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 11 of 106 Office of the Independent Monitor | 11

Consent Decree ¶
42 43
44
45
46 47 48
49 50 51 52 53

Phase 1 Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied

Phase 2 N/A
Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied
N/A Satisfied Satisfied N/A Satisfied N/A N/A

Phase 3 N/A
Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied
N/A Not Satisfied Not Satisfied
N/A Not Satisfied
N/A N/A

Compliance Status
Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 12 of 106 12 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

Consent Decree ¶
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

Phase 1 Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied

Phase 2 Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied N/A Satisfied N/A

Phase 3 Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied
N/A Not Satisfied
N/A

Compliance Status
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 13 of 106 Office of the Independent Monitor | 13

Consent Decree ¶
65
66 67 68 69 70 71
72
73
74
75
76

Phase 1 Satisfied Satisfied
N/A N/A Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied N/A N/A N/A N/A

Phase 2 Satisfied Satisfied
N/A N/A Not Satisfied N/A Satisfied Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied

Phase 3 Not Satisfied Not Satisfied
N/A N/A Not Satisfied N/A Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied

Compliance Status
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
N/A
N/A
Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 14 of 106 14 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

Consent Decree ¶
77
78
79
80
81

Phase 1 N/A N/A N/A
Satisfied Satisfied

Phase 2 Satisfied Satisfied Not Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied

Phase 3 Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied

Compliance Status
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 15 of 106 Office of the Independent Monitor | 15

Compliance Assessment

This section of the Report describes the VIPD’s compliance efforts with respect to each of the substantive provisions of the Consent Decree,11 as well as monitoring activities by the OIM’s Police Practices Experts during the quarter. The organization of this section of the Report parallels the organization of the Consent Decree. Specifically, we provide a status and assessment discussion that describes and analyzes the VIPD’s progress toward achieving substantial compliance with the Consent Decree’s requirements.12 We include recommendations to assist the VIPD in achieving full and timely implementation of the Consent Decree’s requirements.13

Use of Force Policies

Joint Action Plan Requirements

Joint Action Plan Requirements By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system) and periodically test proficiency with the policies. By November 30, 2012, ensure that the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office, the Training Working Group, and the Use of Force Working Group review all use of force policies.

Status Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department has such a tracking system.
Not satisfied. The Use of Force working group reported during the First Quarter of 2013 that it planned to review one use of force policy every two weeks. The working group repeatedly said that it would provide the OIM with completed review forms, but the OIM never received any. Later in the quarter, the Department determined that a review protocol was required to establish a uniform procedure for reviewing policies before it could proceed further. The VIPD reports that it drafted a Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”) to “facilitate a systematic review process

11

A summary of the Consent Decree requirements is excerpted at Appendix A. A copy of

the full text of the Consent Decree is available at:

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/VIPD_CD_03-23-09.pdf.

12

The Consent Decree provides that “[t]he Monitor shall issue quarterly written, public

reports detailing the Territory of the Virgin Islands’ compliance with and implementation of

each substantive provision of [the] Agreement.” CD ¶ 96.

13

CD ¶ 85.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 16 of 106 16 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

for the annual review of all department policies, and particularly use of force and other force related polices…” The SOP was submitted to the Policies and Procedures Committee (the “Committee”) during the First Quarter of 2013 for its review, but it had not been approved by the end of the Third Quarter of 2013.

By November 30, 2012, conduct Use of Force reviews on a quarterly basis.

Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department is systematically conducting such reviews.

By November 30, 2012, VIPD will provide DOJ with an action plan for achieving sufficient numbers of supervisors or outlining how it intends to use existing supervisors to implement the polices and this action plan. The plan will include an implementation date subject to the agreement of the parties.

Satisfied, but additional work needed. On December 31, 2012, the DOJ provided comments on the VIPD’s action plan. Among other things, the DOJ sought clarification on what, if anything, the VIPD plans to do if there is a lack of funding for new Supervisors. Recognizing the Department’s fiscal constraints, the VIPD should address that possibility and plan accordingly.

By November 30, 2012, conduct inspections of personnel with report on a quarterly basis.

Not satisfied. Inspection training took place for the St. Croix District on March 19 and 20, 2013. Documentation for inspections conducted in the St. Croix District following training was provided to the OIM during the Second Quarter of 2013. The VIPD has not provided similar documentation for the St. Thomas/St. John District.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 17 of 106 Office of the Independent Monitor | 17

By January 31, 2013, competencybased training of officers and supervisors on remaining policies. 3.8 Off-Duty Policy 3.9 Vehicle Pursuit Policy 3.10 Spike Strip 3.12 Tactical Operations 3.13 Sniper Operations

Not satisfied. The VIPD has provided training on the Off-Duty Policy and Sniper Operations and train-thetrainer training on the Vehicle Pursuit Policy and Spike Strip. The VIPD provided in-service training on additional policies during the Second Quarter of 2013. The VIPD has not provided the OIM with a report about the number of Officers and Supervisors that have been trained on these policies.

Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic inservice and Roll Call/Commanders Call training. By January 31, 2013, incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy.

Not satisfied. Although the VIPD has provided the OIM with attendance sheets and brief descriptions of Roll Call and Commanders Call training, the OIM needs more detailed information about the subject matter being covered. Likewise, the OIM cannot determine whether the VIPD has adequately incorporated competency-based training on policies into the Police Academy because the VIPD has not provided the OIM with a full set of lesson plans and related training materials.

By January 31, 2013, execute any contract(s) necessary to train supervisors or others responsible for conducting ballistic or crime scene analyses. By March 31, 2013, conduct the training.

Not satisfied. The VIPD has a contract with an outside vendor to analyze ballistics, but there is currently a backlog. Additionally, the VIPD has not provided any documentation that it has trained VIPD personnel on ballistics or crime scene analysis. As of January 30, 2013 (the most recent information provided by the VIPD), ballistics information from three cases, including a police involved shooting from 2011, are outstanding.

By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to

Not Satisfied. The VIPD continued to work on its audit tools during the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 18 of 106 18 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of 1As and arrest reports). By June 30, 2013, develop and implement a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to report uses of force or otherwise fail to follow the policy and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training. By June 30, 2013, ensure that audits audit the timeliness of completion of use of force investigations.

Second and Third Quarters of 2013.
Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department has implemented such a process.
Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that it is conducting such audits.

By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop and implement a process for identifying supervisors who neglect their responsibilities to investigate as required by policy and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of firearm discharge reporting).

Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department has implemented such a process.
Not Satisfied. The VIPD continued to work on its audit tools during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013.

31. The VIPD will review and revise its use of force policies as necessary to: a) define terms clearly; b) define force as that term is defined in this Agreement; c) incorporate a use of force model that teaches disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements or calling in specialized units as appropriate responses to a situation; d) advise that, whenever possible, individuals should be allowed to submit to arrest before force is used; e) reinforce that the use of excessive force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and/or civil liability; f) ensure that sufficient less lethal alternatives are available to all patrol officers; and g) explicitly prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized. Once the DOJ has reviewed and approved these policies, the VIPD shall immediately implement any revisions.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 31 of the Consent Decree. Because ¶ 31 of the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 19 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 19
Consent Decree only requires the Department to develop a policy, Phase 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the VIPD is in substantial compliance with ¶ 31 of the Consent Decree.
32. The VIPD will require all uses of force to be documented in writing. The use of force report form will indicate each and every type of force that was used, and require the evaluation of each type of force. Use of force reports will include a narrative description of the events preceding the use of force, written by a supervisor or by the designated investigative unit. Use of force reports also will include the officer(s)’ narrative description of events and the officer(s)’ statement. Except in cases of use of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, the officer’s statement shall be audio- or videotaped.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 32 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 32 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it conducted in-service training from June 3-29, 2013 in the St. Thomas/St. John District and from June 10-July 6, 2013 in the St. Croix District. Among other things, the in-service training covered the reporting and investigation of force under the Reporting, Investigation, and Review of Use of Force Policy. The Reporting, Investigation, and Review of Use of Force Policy replaced the Reportable Use of Force Policy and categorizes use of force investigations into four levels based on the level of force used and the injuries sustained. In an effort to familiarize VIPD Officers with the Reporting, Investigation, and Review of Use of Force Policy, the VIPD created and posted in various locations within each Zone and Substation notices explaining the four levels of force.
The Use of Force working group reports that it is currently auditing the use of force reporting process in both Districts. As previously reported, the VIPD's audit involves collecting Arrest Reports and Form 1As (from the Records Bureau and NCIC in both District) to identify unreported uses of force, as well as Supervisors who fail to investigate force. The Use of Force working group initially expected to complete its audit by May 2013, but was not able to do so. According to the VIPD, completing this audit, as well as subsequent audits, will help the Department evaluate the extent of its compliance with the Consent Decree. The IAB also generated reports during the Second Quarter of 2013

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 20 of 106
20 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
(which were disseminated throughout the Department) on a monthly and quarterly basis to monitor the status of use of force investigations.
OIM Report:
The VIPD has issued the Use of Force Policy, the Reportable Use of Force Policy and the Reporting, Investigating and Review of Use of Force Policy in partial satisfaction of ¶ 32 of the Consent Decree.
To evaluate the Department’s use of force reporting practices, the OIM’s Police Practices Experts reviewed a total of 3 completed use of force investigation files from the St. Thomas/St. John and St. Croix Districts during the Second Quarter of 2013. Throughout the Report, certain statistics may be calculated from a total number of less than 3 because: (1) the Police Practices Experts were unable to draw certain conclusions based on the information included in the investigative files; (2) a Consent Decree requirement was not applicable to all investigations, in which case we used the total number of applicable investigations; or (3) the particular requirement was not assessed during the Second Quarter of 2013 by the Police Practices Experts.14
Based on that review, the Police Practices Experts concluded that VIPD personnel reported uses of force in RRRs in 1 out of 3 of the closed investigations reviewed during the Second Quarter of 2013; Supervisors described the events preceding the use of force and evaluated the appropriateness of each type of force used in 1 out of 2 of the investigation files; 1 out of 1 of the investigation files included the Officer’s description of events; the RRRs in 1 out of 2 of the investigation files indicated the type of force used; audiotaped statements were taken in 2 out of 3 of the investigations; and 3 out of 3 of the investigations were completed within the timeline required under Department policy.
Recommendations:
The full and timely reporting of force is a cornerstone requirement of the Consent Decree. The Use of Force working group should continue to audit Arrest Reports and Form 1As to determine the extent to which force is being reported across the Districts. Based on those audits, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to report the use of force. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work with the Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, the IAB, and the Training Division to provide remedial training or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions, as

14

During the Second Quarter of 2013, the VIPD provided the Police Practices Experts with

only three closed use of force investigations for review. The VIPD and the Police Practices

Experts are collaborating to allow remote access to IAPro and Blue Team, which will provide

the Police Practices Experts with real-time access to closed investigations.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 21 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 21
necessary. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
According to a February 20, 2013 memorandum from the Consent Decree Manager to the Police Commissioner, the Department’s audit was supposed to be completed in two to four weeks. The OIM learned during the Third Quarter of 2013 that the VIPD did not create a report for this audit because its results were inconclusive, and that further auditing is planned.
33. Officers shall notify their supervisors following any use of force [or]15 upon the receipt of an allegation of excessive force. Except in uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, supervisors will respond to the scene, examine the subject for injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain, and ensure that the subject received needed medical attention.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 33 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 33 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that the Reporting, Investigation, and Review of Use of Force Policy requires Supervisors to only respond to the scene of comparatively “more serious” uses of force (as opposed to responding to all uses of force, which was the original requirement under the Consent Decree). The VIPD acknowledges that its "next step" is to monitor the VIPD's compliance with the Reporting, Investigation, and Review of Use of Force Policy. To that end, the VIPD reports that the Use of Force working group (in addition to the audit unit) is expected to conduct inspections and/or audits relating to the Reporting, Investigation, and Review of Use of Force Policy.
OIM Report:
The Police Practices Experts reviewed 3 completed use of force investigation files during the Second Quarter of 2013 to evaluate the Department’s use of force reporting practices. Among other things, that review showed that Officers timely notified Supervisors following a use of force in

15

During the First Quarter of 2013 the Parties jointly filed a motion to correct or amend

the Court’s Order, dated December 13, 2012, by inserting “or” into the first sentence of ¶ 33 of

the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 22 of 106
22 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
1 out of 3 of the investigations, and that Supervisors responded to the scene and conducted an investigation in 1 out of 3 of the investigations.
Supervisors still are not notified uniformly of potential uses of force. During the Second Quarter of 2013, the Police Practices Experts reviewed an investigation of a citizen complaint alleging excessive force in which an off-duty Officer witnessed a traffic violation and stopped the vehicle. The driver purportedly called 911 complaining that the off-duty Officer pushed him, but the Virgin Islands Territorial Emergency Management Agency (“VITEMA”) never notified the VIPD and, as a result, a Supervisor never arrived at the scene to investigate. Because a Supervisor never arrived at the scene, a full use of force investigation, including interviewing the only witness, was not completed.16
Recommendations:
The Use of Force working group should audit whether Officers are notifying their Supervisors following any use of force or allegation of excessive use of force. The Use of Force working group should also audit, among other things required by the Consent Decree, whether Supervisors are responding to the scene of a use of force in a timely manner, examining the subject for injury, interviewing the subject for complaints of pain, and ensuring that the subject receives needed medical attention. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
The VIPD should work with VITEMA to develop a procedure in which VITEMA notifies the VIPD when a citizen calls 911 to lodge a complaint against an Officer. Many aspects of the VIPD’s compliance efforts would benefit from greater inter-agency cooperation with VITEMA.
34. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, will review, evaluate, and document each use of force, and will complete the narrative description section of the use of force report. The narrative description will include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer’s conduct. As part of this review, the supervisor or designated investigating officer/unit will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officer’s actions were within VIPD policy. An officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized conduct leading to the use of force or allegation of excessive force, or who was present during the incident, will not be eligible to review or investigate the incident.

16

During the IAB’s investigation, the involved off-duty Officer denied pushing the driver.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 23 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 23
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 34 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 34 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that Supervisors continue to review and document each use of force in compliance with ¶ 34.
OIM Report:
Based on the Police Practices Experts’ review of completed use of force investigations during the Second Quarter of 2013, we concluded that Supervisors included a narrative describing the facts and circumstances that justified or failed to justify the Officer’s conduct in 1 out of 1 of the investigations. In 1 out of 1 of the completed use of force investigations Supervisors evaluated the basis for the use of force; in 1 out of 2 of the investigations, Supervisors determined whether the Officer’s actions were within VIPD policy; and 2 out of 3 of the investigations were conducted by Supervisors who were not directly involved in the use of force incident.
Recommendations:
The Use of Force working group should audit whether Supervisors are conducting adequate use of force investigations. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM. The Use of Force working group should also audit Form 1As and Arrest Reports to determine the extent to which force is being reported across the Districts. Based on these audits, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to report uses of force. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work in concert with the Chiefs, the IAB and the Training Division to provide remedial training, or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions, as necessary. The Use of Force working group’s audits should also include a review of investigations by Supervisors or Commanders whose force reviews have previously failed to meet the requirements of ¶ 34.
35. The parties agree that it is improper interview procedure during use of force investigations to ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer’s conduct when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. In each review/investigation, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 24 of 106
24 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
and make credibility determinations, if feasible. The VIPD will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. The VIPD will train all of its supervisors and officers assigned to conduct use of force investigations in conducting use of force investigations, including in the factors to consider when evaluating credibility.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 35 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 35 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
During the Second Quarter of 2013, the VIPD conducted in-service training on the Reporting, Investigation, and Review of Use of Force Policy. The VIPD reports that it reinforces training on the preponderance of the evidence standard through Roll Call and Commander’s Call training.
OIM Report:
The OIM did not assess the VIPD’s compliance with ¶ 35 of the Consent Decree during the Second Quarter of 2013.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should require Supervisors to identify the universe of relevant evidence and document what each piece means to the case under review. We also recommend that the VIPD provide refresher training to Supervisors on making credibility determinations and drawing inferences from those determinations. It is also critical for the VIPD to follow-up with witnesses who may not initially be available because Supervisors cannot effectively evaluate uses of force without reviewing all of the relevant evidence.
The Use of Force working group should audit use of force investigations to determine the extent to which Supervisors comply with the requirements of ¶ 35 of the Consent Decree. Based on these audits, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work in concert with the Chiefs, the IAB, and the Training Division to provide remedial training, or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions, as necessary.
36. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall conduct an investigation of all uses of force or injury resulting from a use

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 25 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 25
of force by any officer under their command. This requirement does not apply to uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ. In an investigation, supervisors or designated investigating officers or units, shall interview all witnesses to a use of force or an injury resulting from a use of force. Consistent with the requirements of the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable law, VIPD supervisors or designated investigating officers or units shall ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all use of force reports for all levels of force identify all officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports for all levels of force indicate whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided, and whether the subject refused medical treatment. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports include contemporaneous photographs or videotapes taken of all injuries at the earliest practicable opportunity, both before and after any treatment, including cleansing of wounds.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 36 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 36 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that Supervisors continue to review and document each use of force, including any resulting injury, in compliance with ¶ 36. The VIPD also reports that the IAB continues to review all completed use of force investigations and return any deficient investigations for correction.
OIM Report:
Based on the Police Practices Experts’ review of completed use of force investigations during the Second Quarter of 2013, we concluded that Officers who witnessed a use of force provided statements in 2 out of 3 completed use of force investigations. Officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred were identified in 2 out of 3 of the investigations. In all of the applicable investigations (2 out of 2) where injuries were sustained, the Supervisor described the injuries. In addition, in 2 out of 2 of the investigations where an Officer or citizen was injured, the investigation file contained photographs of the injuries.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 26 of 106
26 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Recommendations:
The VIPD should audit compliance with its current investigative procedures to respond more effectively to uses of force, particularly where Officers or citizens are injured. Failing to obtain critical evidence, including photos of injuries, can hamper investigations and is a departure from generally accepted police practices.
The Use of Force working group should also audit investigations to determine the extent to which Supervisors are complying with the requirements of ¶ 36. Based on these audits, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work in concert with the Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, the IAB and the Training Division to provide remedial training, or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions, as necessary. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
37. All investigations into use of force shall be reviewed by the Officer’s Commander and/or Director, or by a Commander and/or Director in the designated investigative unit, who shall identify any deficiencies in those reviews, and shall require supervisors, or designated investigative officers or units, to correct any and all deficiencies. Supervisors, and designated investigative officers or units, will be held accountable for the quality of their reviews. Appropriate non-disciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary action will be taken when a supervisor, or designated investigative officer or unit, fails to conduct a timely and thorough review, or neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action, or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action. As provided by VIPD policy and approved by DOJ, designated command staff shall further review the Commander and/or Director’s reviews according to the level of force involved.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 37 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 37 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
During the Second Quarter of 2013, the VIPD conducted in-service training on the Reporting, Investigation, and Review of Use of Force Policy. The VIPD reports that it reinforces training on the preponderance of the evidence standard through Roll Call and Commanders Call training.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 27 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 27
The VIPD plans to audit the Department’s compliance with the Reporting, Investigation, and Review of Use of Force Policy, but reports that it must first complete audit training. The VIPD has contracted with a vendor to provide audit training during the Fourth Quarter of 2013.
OIM Report:
All investigations (3 out of 3) reviewed by the Police Practices Experts during the Second Quarter of 2013 were complete. A “complete” investigation file generally consists of the following (to the extent applicable): Form 1A; Arrest Report; completed RRR; video or audio statements from witnesses; photos of injuries, weapons, etc.; the Supervisor’s investigative report with an analysis of the facts, evidence identified, and findings; evidence that the Department’s chain of command reviewed and approved the completed investigation file; and a disposition letter. Additionally, all use of force investigations reviewed during the Second Quarter of 2013 were completed within the required timeline.
In 3 out of 3 of the investigations, a Deputy Chief reviewed the investigative report and supporting documents, and concurred with the investigative findings, and in 1 out of 3 of the investigation files, underlying problems and training needs were identified.
Based on deficiencies in the investigations, including a lack of detail about various aspects of the use of force, the Police Practices Experts could not assess whether: Deputy Chiefs identified deficiencies in investigations; corrective action was taken against a Supervisor who failed to conduct a timely and thorough review; a Zone or Unit Commander reviewed the Supervisor’s completed investigation report and concurred with the Supervisor’s findings.
Recommendations:
The Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs need to hold Supervisors and Commanders strictly accountable for the quality and timelines of use of force investigations. The VIPD’s efforts to implement a tracking form for Supervisors to follow the progress of the use of force investigations that are assigned to them is a step in the right direction. The VIPD should keep the OIM updated about its experience using the new tracking form.
The Use of Force working group should audit investigations to determine the extent to which Supervisors are complying with the requirements of ¶ 37. In particular, the Use of Force working group should audit whether Supervisors are conducting adequate use of force investigations, and whether the Chiefs/Deputy Chiefs are reviewing investigations, identifying deficiencies, and forwarding closed cases to the IAB and Training Division (for review and archiving). Based on these audits, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply. Once those individuals

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 28 of 106
28 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
are identified, the working group should work in concert with the Chiefs, the IAB, and the Training Division to provide remedial training, or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions, as necessary. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
VIPD personnel should also strive to include as much factual detail in their reports and investigative records as possible. Providing greater factual detail will make it easier for the OIM to evaluate the VIPD’s compliance with the Consent Decree’s requirements, and for the VIPD to conduct adequate audits examining the propriety of uses of force and related investigations.
38. The VIPD will investigate all critical firearm discharges. The VIPD will ensure that the investigation accounts for all shots and locations of all officers who discharged their firearms. The VIPD will conduct ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 38 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 38 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that even though there were no critical firearms discharges on either District during the Second Quarter of 2013, the IAB continues to investigate critical firearms discharges as they occur.
OIM Report:
During the Second Quarter of 2013, investigations into at least three critical firearms discharges, including a critical firearms discharge from an Officer involved shooting that took place in 2011, remained outstanding due to lack of ballistics analysis. According to the VIPD, there is a contract with an outside provider for such analysis. Unfortunately, there is a significant backlog that is preventing the Department from completing investigations of critical firearms discharges (a key component of the Consent Decree) on a timely basis.
Recommendation:
The VIPD must fully investigate all critical firearms discharges. This includes, as stated in the Consent Decree, “ballistic or crime analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate.” The VIPD’s current system of relying on a single outside vendor for ballistics

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 29 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 29
analysis is not working. The VIPD should identify additional outside resources and consider bolstering its in-house capabilities.
Once the VIPD clears the current backlog of investigations, the VIPD should provide the OIM with documentation that it is investigating all critical firearms discharges as required by ¶ 38 of the Consent Decree.
39. VIPD shall complete development of a Use of Firearms policy that complies with applicable law and current professional standards. The policy shall prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition and shall inform officers that any such use may subject them to disciplinary action. The policy shall establish a single, uniform reporting system for all firearms discharges. The policy shall prohibit officers from obtaining service ammunition from any source except through official VIPD channels, and shall specify the number of rounds VIPD authorizes its officers to carry. The policy will continue to require that all discharges of firearms by officers on- or off-duty, including unintentional discharges, be reported and investigated.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued the Firearms Policy. Because ¶ 39 of the Consent Decree only requires the Department to develop a policy, Phase 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the VIPD is in substantial compliance with ¶ 39 of the Consent Decree.
40. The VIPD shall revise its policies regarding off-duty officers taking police action to: a) provide that off-duty officers shall notify on-duty VIPD or local law enforcement officers before taking police action, absent exigent circumstances, so that they may respond with appropriate personnel and resources to handle the problem; b) provide that, if it appears the officer has consumed alcohol or is otherwise impaired, the officer shall submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued the Off-Duty Official Action Policy. Because ¶ 40 of the Consent Decree only requires the Department to develop a policy, Phase 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the VIPD is in substantial compliance with ¶ 40 of the Consent Decree.
41. The VIPD shall continue to provide an intermediate force device, which is between chemical spray and firearms on the force continuum, that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The VIPD shall continue its policy regarding the intermediate force device, incorporate

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 30 of 106
30 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
the intermediate force device into the force continuum and train all officers in its use on an annual basis.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 41 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 41 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it has issued the Electronic Control Weapon (“ECW”) policy as required under ¶ 41 of the Consent Decree. The VIPD has purchased TASERs in accord with the policy, and issued those TASERs to some Officers. The VIPD further reports that it has provided training on the ECW Policy, including proper techniques for using a TASER. In addition, the VIPD has provided supervisory training on how to conduct inspections of Department issued devices, including TASERs. An inspection was conducted on the St. Croix District, but a similar inspection is pending on the St. Thomas/St. John District.
OIM Report:
The OIM did not assess the VIPD’s compliance with ¶ 41 of the Consent Decree during the Second Quarter of 2013.
Recommendations:
The Use of Force working group should continue to work with the Training Division to ensure that training programs are held on the ECW Policy on an on-going basis so that all Officers will ultimately be trained and authorized to use TASERs in lieu of more lethal force tools. The Use of Force working group should also work with the Director of Training to evaluate posttraining examinations to help assess the degree to which VIPD personnel understand the policies and the lessons conveyed during training. The Use of Force working group and Director of Training should then schedule follow-up training (continuing in-service or Roll Call or Commanders Call training) based on the results of those post-training examinations. In addition, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate.
The Use of Force working group should also provide the OIM with documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of the policy or that the Department has fully implemented the policy. Additionally,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 31 of 106 Office of the Independent Monitor | 31
the Use of Force working group should provide documentation to the OIM showing the extent to which VIPD personnel are trained to use and equipped with TASERs.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 32 of 106 32 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

Citizen Complaint Process

Joint Action Plan Requirements

Joint Action Plan Requirements By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system) and periodically test proficiency with the policies. By November 30, 2012, offer competency-based training to Officers and Supervisors.

Status Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department has such a tracking system.
Not satisfied. The VIPD provided inservice training during the Second Quarter of 2013. The VIPD has not provided the OIM with a report about the number of Officers and Supervisors that have been trained on the policies.

By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system) and periodically test Supervisors’ knowledge of the preponderance of the evidence standard. By November 30, 2012, offer competency-based training of all investigators.

Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department has such a tracking system.
Not satisfied. The VIPD provided inservice training during the Second Quarter of 2013. The VIPD has not provided the OIM with a report about the number of investigators that have been trained on the policies.

On November 30, 2012, commence quarterly review of files in IAU and Zones to ensure compliance.

Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department has conducted these reviews.

By November 30, 2012, monthly review of files to determine whether complainants are being notified and implementation of timelines for notification and sample notification letter. By December 31, 2012, implement tracking system to document 5-day requirement.

Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department has conducted these reviews.
Not satisfied. Although the VIPD has reported that complaints are referred to IAB within the required 5-day

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 33 of 106 Office of the Independent Monitor | 33

period because IAB retrieves complaints from drop-boxes located in each Zone, the VIPD has not provided any documentation demonstrating that the Department has such a tracking system.

By December 31, 2012, implement a tracking system for complaints referred to a Zone and a tracking system for notifying the Police Commissioner of complaints alleging excessive use of force. By January 31, 2013, offer refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and Roll Call/Commanders Call training. Incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy.

Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department has such a tracking system.
Not satisfied. The VIPD provided inservice training during the Second Quarter of 2013. The VIPD has not provided the OIM with a report about the number of Officers and Supervisors that have been trained on the policies.

By January 31, 2013, execute any contract(s) necessary to train Supervisors or others responsible for conducting ballistic or crime scene analyses. By January 31, 2013, all statements will be recorded. After January 31, 2013, bi-monthly review to ensure statements are being recorded.

Not satisfied. The VIPD has not reported that the Department has executed any contracts for such training.
Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department has implemented such a review.

By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of citizen complaint investigation files). Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, create a periodic report that analyzes patterns of violations of VIPD policy. Using the information gathered in the report, evaluate areas

Not Satisfied. The VIPD continued to work on its audit tools during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013.
Not Satisfied. The VIPD continued to analyze patterns of violations of VIPD policy during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013, but the VIPD did not provide the OIM with

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 34 of 106 34 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

for policy modification or appropriate documentation that such information

remedial action (e.g., training).

is being used as required.

By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop a process for identifying Supervisors who are not using the preponderance of the evidence standard and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training.

Not Satisfied. The VIPD continued to develop a process for identifying Supervisors who are not using the preponderance of the evidence standard during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013.

By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop a process for identifying supervisors who neglect their responsibilities to investigate as required by policy and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training. By June 30, 2013, monthly review of IAU files to ensure compliance.

Not Satisfied. The VIPD continued to develop a process for identifying Supervisors who neglect their responsibilities to investigate during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013.
Not Satisfied. The VIPD continued to work on its audit tools during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013.

By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, audit timeliness of completion of citizen complaint investigations.

Not Satisfied. The VIPD continued to work on its audit tools during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013.

42. The VIPD will develop and implement a program to inform persons that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any officer. This program will include distribution of complaint forms, fact sheets, informational posters, and public service announcements that describe the citizen complaint process.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has developed and implemented a program to inform citizens that they may file a complaint/compliment regarding the performance of an Officer. Because ¶ 42 only requires the Department to develop a program, Phases 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the Department is in substantial compliance with ¶ 42.
43. The VIPD will make complaint forms and informational materials available at government properties such as VIPD district stations, substations, mobile substations, libraries, the Internet, and, upon request, to community groups and community centers. At each VIPD district

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 35 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 35
station, substation, and mobile substation, the VIPD will permanently post a placard describing the complaint process and include the relevant phone numbers. These placards shall be displayed in both English and Spanish, and where deemed necessary, in French or French Patois, to account for diversity in the VI population. The VIPD will require all officers to carry informational brochures and complaint forms, in English and Spanish, and where deemed necessary, in French or French Patois, in their vehicles at all times while on duty. If a citizen objects to an officer’s conduct, that officer will inform the citizen of his or her right to make a complaint. Officers will not discourage any person from making a complaint.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies pertaining to the citizen complaint process and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 43.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD continues to promote the Department’s citizen complaint/compliment process through fact sheets, complaint/compliment forms and hotline, informational posters, and public service announcements. As previously reported, the complaint form has been revised for complainants to indicate whether an Officer has discouraged them from filing a complaint. The VIPD is assessing whether to use public service announcements to inform citizens that they can contact the Department if an Officer refuses to take or discourages a citizen from making a complaint. The Department also continues to provide the OIM with documentation of inspections at the Zones and other locations to ensure that adequate supplies of the complaint process materials are available at locations required by the Consent Decree.
During the Second Quarter of 2013, the Chief of the St. Croix District directed all Commanders to document bi-weekly inspections to ensure that complaint/compliment materials are available at designated locations, including in all vehicles. He further ordered that Commanders inspect Department issued defense tools such as ammunition, O.C. Spray, TASERs and firearms of all sworn personnel. A similar memorandum was previously disseminated to Commanders in the St. Thomas/St. John District.
OIM Report:
The VIPD made additional progress towards compliance with ¶ 43 during the Second Quarter of 2013. The VIPD provided the OIM with documentation showing that complaint forms and informational materials were available at

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 36 of 106
36 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
VIPD offices and other government properties. Commanders also continued to submit forms documenting the inspection of Department issued weapons.
Since the Department has revised its complaint form to make it easier for complainants to indicate whether they were informed of their right to make a complaint or discouraged from doing so, the OIM expects that the VIPD will document audits assessing this requirement and submit such audits to the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should continue to audit whether complaint forms and related informational materials are available at all required locations. The VIPD should also audit whether Officers are informing citizens of their right to file a complaint and that Officers are not discouraging citizens from doing so; this should include a review of the revised complaint form. The VIPD should then provide documentation of these audits to the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM. Through the Department’s information campaign, the VIPD should also inform citizens that they may contact the Department if an Officer refuses to take their complaint or discourages them from filing a complaint. The VIPD should also ensure that any complaints against Officers are addressed appropriately and promptly.
44. Complaints may be filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile or electronic mail. The duty officer at the front desk of each district station will be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints, which persons may file at any district station. Complaint intake officers may describe facts that bear upon a complainant’s demeanor and physical condition but may not express opinions regarding his/her mental competency or veracity. Each complaint will be resolved in writing. Upon receipt, each complaint will be assigned a unique identifier, which will be provided to the complainant. Each complaint will be tracked according to the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, improper search, etc.).
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies pertaining to the citizen complaint process and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 44.
VIPD Report:
During the Second Quarter of 2013, the VIPD reports that the IAB received a copy of the VITEMA 911 CAD log, which logs complaints and assigns each complaint a number. When complaints are made at the Zones, the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 37 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 37
Supervisor taking the complaint advises VITEMA of the complaint and receives a complaint number. The complainant is then provided a copy of the complaint form, with the corresponding complaint number, before leaving the Zone. According to the VIPD, the complaint is then forwarded to IAB within five business days as required under ¶ 45 and is entered into IAPro. The VIPD plans to ensure that all complaints are accounted for by comparing the VITEMA log to the cases entered into IAPro.
The VIPD also reports that the IAB continues to resolve complaints in writing, including complaints investigated at the Zone. The VIPD provided the OIM with sample letters that update complainants on the status and disposition of the investigations into their complaints. The VIPD, however, has not provided documentation that these letters have in fact been used by the VIPD.
OIM Report:
The DOJ approved the Acceptance of Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. The policy reflects the requirements in ¶ 44 of the Consent Decree. The OIM learned during the First Quarter of 2013 that Commanders are not always helping citizens complete the citizen complaint form. Senior VIPD personnel (like all Officers) are required under the Acceptance of Citizen Complaint Policy “to assist any person who wishes to file a citizen’s complaint.” According to the VIPD, Commanders are unclear about their responsibilities under the Acceptance of Citizen Complaint Policy and merely refer the complainant to the IAB. The VIPD did not provide an update to the OIM on steps taken to resolve this issue during the Second Quarter of 2013. The VIPD has indicated, however, that it plans to develop a tracking system by January 31, 2014 to ensure that all personnel are trained on the citizen complaint policies. The VIPD must also develop a process for auditing such that once a complaint receives a VITEMA number, it is forwarded to the IAB within the timeframe allotted under Department policy.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should continue to conduct audits to determine whether the required VIPD personnel are trained on the Department’s policies, whether all complaints are being resolved in writing, and whether complaint numbers are being provided to complainants. The VIPD should then provide documentation relating to those audits to the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM. The VIPD should continue to offer Commanders Call training to all Commanders on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaint Policy, and document such training and provide the results of examinations administered after training to the OIM. In addition, the VIPD should audit complaint forms to ensure that complaint intake Officers are not expressing their opinions regarding a complainant’s mental competency or veracity on the complaint forms. The VIPD should also

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 38 of 106
38 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
finalize a tracking system for ensuring that all sworn personnel are trained on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy.
45. Copies of all allegations of misconduct against the VIPD filed with the Zone Commands will be referred to Internal Affairs Unit (“IAU”) within five business days.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies pertaining to the citizen complaint policies and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 45.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it has used log books in the Zones on both Districts since 2010 to document all uses of force and citizen complaints filed at Zones. The VIPD also notes that this manual process was in place prior to the installation of IAPro and Blue Team. According to the VIPD, the Citizen Complaint Process working group audits the log books to ensure that a complaint was forwarded to IAB within five business days. These inspections, however, cannot effectively determine whether all complaints are forwarded within the required time since many complaints are made using the complaint drop boxes, in which case no complaint number is assigned until the complaint is retrieved by the IAB.
The VIPD reports that Blue Team is capable of recording complaint information, but that Officers have only used it a few times for this purpose. According to the Department, if a citizen complaint is entered into Blue Team, IAB can access the complaint from IAPro in real time, thus satisfying the 5-day requirement.
OIM Report:
The DOJ approved the Acceptance of Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. The policy reflects the requirements in ¶ 45 of the Consent Decree. The VIPD has reported to the Police Practices Experts that complaints are referred to the IAB within the required 5-day period because IAB personnel retrieve complaints from drop-boxes located in each Zone on a daily basis. However, the VIPD has not provided any documentation showing that all complaints initiated in the Zones are in fact retrieved on a daily basis.
Recommendations:
VIPD needs to develop a process for auditing whether copies of all allegations of misconduct are referred to the IAB within 5 business days. This

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 39 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 39
may include accessing information from VITEMA to ensure all complaints are forwarded. The Department should then provide documentation relating to those audits to the OIM.
46. Complaints will be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, for which the Territory will develop and implement appropriate training.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 46.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD conducted preponderance of the evidence training for Supervisors during in-service and Commanders Call training held during the Second Quarter of 2013. The VIPD administered a post-training examination on the preponderance of the evidence standard developed, which was developed by the VIAG, to 18 Supervisors in the St. Thomas/St. John District. The VIPD reports that 11 out of the 18 Supervisors (61%) passed the examination, while 7 out of 18 (39%) failed the exam.
In another meeting of Supervisors on the St. Thomas/St. John District, the leader of the Citizen Complaint Process working group administered a fourquestion examination to 27 Supervisors on the preponderance of the evidence standard, case dispositions, and types of evidence. The VIPD reports that 19 out of 27 (70%) Supervisors passed, while 8 out of 27 (30%) of Supervisors failed. The VIPD reports that a similar examination will be administered on the St. Croix District.
OIM Report:
The VIPD has provided initial training on the preponderance of evidence standard. During the Second Quarter of 2013, the VIPD provided the OIM with documentation that Supervisors were tested on the preponderance of the evidence standard. According to the VIPD, a total of 45 Supervisors were tested on the preponderance of the evidence standard with a 66% passage rate (30 out of 45). The VIPD has not provided the OIM with any documentation demonstrating that the failing Supervisors have been retrained and retested, or, if necessary, disciplined.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 40 of 106
40 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Recommendations:
We were disappointed that such a high percentage of Supervisors failed the VIPD’s competency test. The VIPD should provide additional training to those Supervisors and then re-test their knowledge of the preponderance of the evidence standard using different test questions. In addition, the Training Division should re-examine its training relating to the preponderance of the evidence standard. The fact that so many Supervisors failed the Department’s competency test strongly suggests that the underlying training was inadequate. Further, the VIPD must establish a mechanism to audit compliance with the preponderance of the evidence standard. Documentation of the examinations and the audits should be forwarded to the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
47. The VIPD will explicitly prohibit from investigating an incident any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to the injury to a person, or who authorized the conduct that led to these reportable incidents.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. Because ¶ 47 only requires the Department to develop a policy, Phases 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the Department has achieved substantial compliance with ¶ 47.
48. The VIPD will investigate every citizen complaint. The VIPD will establish a clear policy and procedure regarding the intake of any complaint, including anonymous and confidential complaints, against a VIPD officer. This policy and these procedures will include instructions to an officer for taking a complaint and prompt delivery to a supervisor.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 48.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD continues to receive complaints through a variety of methods, including via email and drop-boxes at the Zones. The Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy dictates that the IAB remain the official clearing house for all complaints received, by either assigning complaints to the Zones for investigation or investigating the complaint directly.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 41 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 41
The IAB produces IAPro reports on a weekly, monthly, and quarterly basis listing completed and outstanding use of force and citizen complaint investigations. These reports are provided to all Supervisors, Commanders, Chiefs, and Deputy Chiefs in both Districts. The Citizen Complaint Process working group reports that it is initiating a process to ensure that the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs are adhering to these timeframes, and holding their subordinates accountable for completing investigations in a timely manner.
The VIPD reports that it conducted in-service, Roll Call and Commanders Call training on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy during the Second Quarter.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy on August 2, 2011. The IAB has conducted in-service and Roll Call and Commanders Call training addressing common mistakes made by Supervisors in citizen complaint investigations. The Police Practices Experts will continue to assess the quality of investigations completed in the Zones in subsequent quarters.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should develop a process to audit whether complaints are being adequately investigated within the allotted time period. We are hopeful that the Citizen Complaint Process working group’s initiative will be helpful in this regard. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM. The OIM will monitor the progress of this process.
49. The VIPD will institute a centralized numbering and tracking system for all complaints and each complaint will receive a tracking number as quickly as possible. The IAU will be designated as the primary and centralized agency to determine whether the investigation will be assigned to zone (one of the seven zones located throughout the Virgin Islands), retained by the IAU, or referred for possible criminal investigation. If the IAU refers a complaint to a zone, copies of all documents, findings, and recommendations should be immediately forwarded to the IAU for tracking and monitoring. For complaints alleging the excessive use of force or violation of a person’s constitutional rights, the Police Commissioner should be notified no less than twentyfour hours after receipt of a complaint.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 42 of 106
42 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 49.
VIPD Report:
During the Second Quarter of 2013, the VIPD reports that the IAB received a copy of the VITEMA 911 CAD log, which logs complaints and assigns each complaint a number. When complaints are made at the Zones, the Supervisor taking the complaint advises VITEMA of the complaint and receives a complaint number. The complainant is then provided a copy of the complaint form, with the corresponding complaint number, before leaving the Zone. According to the VIPD, the complaint is then forwarded to IAB within five business days as required under ¶ 45 and is entered into IAPro. The VIPD plans to ensure that all complaints are accounted for by comparing the VITEMA log to the cases entered into IAPro.
The IAB continues to decide whether investigations will be assigned to a Zone, retained by IAB, or referred for possible criminal investigation. Once complaints investigated at the Zone are returned to IAB, IAB will review the investigations and complete disposition letter, including any disciplinary actions, and send the letter to the complainant. In addition, IAB will review the investigations for any deficiencies, and will send a “Return Investigation Form” to the investigating Supervisor in outlining any deficiencies and informing the Supervisor that the case will remain open until the deficiencies are corrected.
The VIPD reports that the Commissioner is notified within twenty four hours of allegations of excessive force or violations of a person’s constitutional rights. The VIPD further notes that this notification is documented on the IAB investigative check sheet, which is part of the investigative case file.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy on August 2, 2011. That policy reflects the requirements of ¶ 49 of the Consent Decree. The VIPD currently relies on VITEMA to assign tracking numbers for each complaint. The VIPD should ensure that each complaint (once assigned a complaint number by VITEMA) is forwarded to the IAB for investigation or referral to the Zones. The VIPD recently created a form to document when the Police Commissioner is notified about complaints pertaining to excessive use of force or violations of constitutional rights. This documentation will be monitored by the OIM in coming quarters.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should develop a process for auditing whether the Department has complied with the requirements of ¶ 49 of the Consent Decree. All audits

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 43 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 43
should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
50. The VIPD will adopt a single policy concerning the investigation of misconduct complaints, regardless of whether the investigation is conducted by the IAU or a zone.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. Because ¶ 50 only requires the Department to develop a policy, Phases 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the Department has achieved substantial compliance with ¶ 50.
51. The VIPD will establish policies and procedures and train all of its investigators on the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility; examination and interrogation of accused officers and other witnesses; identifying misconduct even if it is not specifically named in the complaint; and using the preponderance of the evidence standard as the appropriate burden of proof. VIPD investigators will ensure that all officers on the scene of an incident provide a statement regarding the incident. The policy will require that all interviews be mechanically recorded using an audio or video tape.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 51.
VIPD Report:
During the Second Quarter of 2013, the VIPD held in-service and Roll Call and Commanders Call training for Supervisors on the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy. IAB Supervisors from both Districts also attended training on Supervision, Leadership and Officer Discipline conducted by the Public Agency Training Council during the Second Quarter of 2013.
The VIPD acknowledges that it must conduct audits to ensure the Department’s compliance with the requirements of ¶ 51, but noted that the audit unit must complete audit training before it will be fully capable of conducting such audits.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 44 of 106
44 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. That policy reflects the requirements of ¶ 51 of the Consent Decree. The VIPD has provided initial training on the preponderance of evidence standard, but the VIPD has not provided documentation reflecting that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of ¶ 51.
Recommendations:
As previously recommended, the Citizen Complaint Process working group should continue to test whether VIPD personnel adequately understand the citizen complaint process. The VIPD should provide VIPD personnel with additional training on the citizen complaint process and then conduct and document periodic audits to ensure that VIPD personnel are complying with the relevant policies. The VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training as appropriate.
Specifically, the VIPD should also audit whether investigators correctly: 1) evaluate complainant or witness credibility; 2) examine and interrogate accused Officers and other witnesses; and 3) identify misconduct. The audits should also evaluate whether VIPD investigators take statements from all Officers on the scene of an incident. Based on its audits, the VIPD should identify any trends or areas for improvement. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
52. The policy will require that the investigative findings include whether: 1) the police action was in compliance with policy, training and legal standards, regardless of whether the complainant suffered harm; 2) the incident involved misconduct by any officer; 3) the use of different tactics should or could have been employed; 4) the incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and 5) the incident suggests that the VIPD should revise its policies, training, or tactics.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. Because ¶ 52 only requires the Department to develop a policy, Phases 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the Department has achieved substantial compliance with ¶ 52.
53. The policy will provide clear guidance to all investigators regarding the procedures for handling criminal misconduct allegations, referring them to the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office or other appropriate agency for possible criminal prosecution, and the entity or individual who

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 45 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 45
should make the determination of whether the complaint should be investigated criminally. The policy shall continue to require the completion of an administrative investigation, irrespective of the initiation or outcome of criminal proceedings.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. Because ¶ 53 only requires the Department to develop a policy, Phases 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the Department has achieved substantial compliance with ¶ 53.
54. In each investigation, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. There will be no automatic preference for an officer's statement over a non-officer's statement, nor will the VIPD completely disregard a witness' statement merely because the witness has some connection to the complainant. The VIPD will make efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 54.
VIPD Report:
During the Second Quarter of 2013, the VIPD held in-service, and Roll Call and Commanders Call training for Supervisors on the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. The VIPD acknowledges that it must conduct audits to ensure the Department’s compliance with the requirements of ¶ 54, but noted that the audit unit must complete audit training before it will be fully capable of conducting such audits.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. That policy reflects the requirements of ¶ 54 of the Consent Decree. The Department has conducted initial training on this policy, and conducted in-service training during the Second Quarter of 2013. However, the VIPD has not provided documentation (e.g., lesson plans) for this training, post-training examination results, or a schedule of remedial training for Supervisors who failed the proficiency examination.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 46 of 106
46 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Recommendations:
The VIPD should develop a process to audit whether VIPD personnel consider all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible, in all investigations. Audits should also evaluate whether preference is given to an Officer's statement over a non-Officer's, and whether the VIPD makes efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. Based on its audits, the Citizen Complaint Process working group should identify any trends or areas for improvement. All audits should be documented and shared with the OIM.
55. During an investigation, all relevant police activity, including each use of force (i.e., not just the type of force complained about) will continue to be investigated. The investigation will also evaluate any searches or seizures that occurred during the incident. The VIPD will not close an investigation simply because the complaint is withdrawn or the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of injury or the complainant will not provide additional statements or written statements; rather, the investigating agency will continue its investigation as necessary to determine whether the original allegation(s) can be resolved based on the information, evidence, and investigatory procedures and techniques available. In each investigation, the fact that a complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense will not be considered as evidence of whether a VIPD officer used or did not use a type of force, nor will it justify discontinuing the investigation.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 55.
VIPD Report:
During the Second Quarter of 2013, the VIPD held in-service, and Roll Call and Commanders Call training for Supervisors on the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. The VIPD reports that it must conduct audits to ensure the Department’s compliance with the requirements of ¶ 55, but noted that the audit unit must complete audit training before it will be fully capable of conducting such audits.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 47 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 47
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. That policy reflects the requirements of ¶ 55 of the Consent Decree. The Department has conducted initial training on this policy and on-going in-service training, but it has not provided documentation demonstrating that Supervisors are proficient in the requirements of the policy.
Recommendations:
The Citizen Complaint Process working group should develop a process for auditing whether VIPD personnel comply with ¶ 55 of the Consent Decree. The VIPD should also develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
56. The complainant will be periodically kept informed regarding the status of the investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, the complainant will be notified of its outcome, including an appropriate statement regarding whether any non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action was taken.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 56.
VIPD Report:
The IAB continues to decide whether investigations will be assigned to a Zone, retained by IAB, or referred for possible criminal investigation. Once complaints investigated at the Zone are returned to IAB, IAB will review the investigations and complete disposition letter, including any disciplinary actions, and send the letter to the complainant. In addition, IAB will review the investigations for any deficiencies, and will send a “Return Investigation Form” to the investigating Supervisor in outlining any deficiencies and informing the Supervisor that the case will remain open until the deficiencies are corrected.
The Zones are considering whether to adopt the Complaint Investigation Review Check Sheet used by the IAB to track whether complainants are periodically informed about the status of their complaint.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 48 of 106
48 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
OIM Report:
During the Second Quarter of 2013, the IAB provided the OIM with templates of the letters that it uses to inform complainants about the status and final result of a complaint. In addition, in the completed citizen complaint investigation alleging excessive force reviewed by the Police Practices Experts during the Second Quarter of 2013, the complainant was periodically informed of the status of the investigations, and was notified about the outcome of the investigation. Notwithstanding this positive development, the VIPD should audit whether complainants are being kept periodically informed of the status of the investigation, and notified about the outcome of the investigation in all instances.
Recommendations:
The Citizen Complaint Process working group should continue to audit whether VIPD personnel adequately understand and comply with the complaint process. The Citizen Complaint Process working group also should evaluate whether complainants are kept informed about the status of their complaints and notified about the outcome. Based on its audits, the Citizen Complaint Process working group should identify any trends or areas for improvement, and develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply with these requirements, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
57. Each allegation in an investigation will be resolved by making one of the following dispositions: a) “Unfounded,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that no facts to support that the incident complained of actually occurred; b) “Sustained,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person's allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the incident occurred and the actions of the officer were improper; c) “Not Sustained,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred; and d) “Exonerated,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate VIPD policies, procedures, or training.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 49 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 49
discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 57.
VIPD Report:
The IAB continues to decide whether investigations will be assigned to a Zone, retained by IAB, or referred for possible criminal investigation. Once complaints investigated at the Zone are returned to IAB, IAB will review the investigations and complete disposition letter, including any disciplinary actions, and send the letter to the complainant. In addition, IAB will review the investigations for any deficiencies, and will send a “Return Investigation Form” to the investigating Supervisor in outlining any deficiencies and informing the Supervisor that the case will remain open until the deficiencies are corrected.
The VIPD reports that it must conduct audits to ensure the Department’s compliance with the requirements of ¶ 57, but noted that the audit unit must complete audit training before it will be fully capable of conducting such audits. During the Second Quarter of 2013, the leader of the Citizen Complaint Process working group audited 7 investigations from Zone A and the Traffic Bureau and noted that the investigations were not completed within the timeframe required under Department policy.
The leader of the Citizen Complaint Process working group also administered a four-question examination to 27 Supervisors on the preponderance of the evidence standard, case dispositions, and types of evidence. The VIPD reports that 19 out of 27 (70%) Supervisors passed, while 8 out of 27 (30%) of Supervisors failed. The VIPD reports that a similar examination will be administered on the St. Croix District.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued its Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. Among other things, that policy requires the Department to resolve all allegations with one of four findings: “unfounded;” “sustained;” “not sustained;” or “exonerated.” Through their review of investigations, the Police Practices Experts have observed that investigations are increasingly resolved with one of the four required findings. Nevertheless, in certain instances, Department personnel continue to use other dispositions (e.g., “not guilty”) when evaluating complaint allegations. As such, the requirements of this provision should continue to be reinforced through ongoing in-service and Commanders Call training. The OIM learned that it initiated scenario-based training in which Supervisors must identify the correct disposition for an investigation.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 50 of 106
50 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Recommendations:
As previously recommended, the Department should develop a process for auditing whether VIPD personnel comply with ¶ 57. The VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply with these requirements, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM. The VIPD should also provide further training to reinforce the meaning of and differences between the four disposition findings.
58. Unit commanders will evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command to identify underlying problems and training needs. Any such problems or needs will be relayed in the form of a recommendation to the appropriate VIPD entity.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 58.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it has not collected any documentation for the Second Quarter of 2013 reflecting that Commanders in both Districts reviewed investigations to identify underlying problems or training needs. The IAB has requested that the Training Division offer remedial training on the requirements of ¶ 58. In addition, the leader of the Citizen Complaint working group indicated that she will audit closed citizen complaint investigations to determine whether Commanders are complying with the requirements of ¶ 58.
OIM Report:
During the First Quarter of 2013, the Police Practices Experts reviewed 3 completed use of force investigations. Unit commanders identified underlying problems and training needs in 1 out of 3 of the completed use of force investigations. There was no evidence in any of the completed investigation files that these problems or needs were relayed to the appropriate VIPD entity, or that any recommended corrective action was taken.
Recommendations:
The Department should develop a process for auditing whether VIPD personnel comply with ¶ 58. Unit Commanders must evaluate investigations to identify underlying problems and training needs. Commanders must then

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 51 of 106 Office of the Independent Monitor | 51

relay any problems or needs to the appropriate VIPD entity. The VIPD should also develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply with requirements and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.

Management and Supervision

Joint Action Plan Requirements

Joint Action Plan Requirements Revisions to Disciplinary [Matrix] will be forwarded to DOJ by November 1, 2012.
Beginning on November 30, 2012, at least once per month, the Deputy Chief during Commanders Call, will address Decree compliance issues, including timely completion of use of force reports. Beginning on November 30, 2012, working group members will conduct regular reviews, but no less frequently than weekly, to ensure that all Blue Team programs are installed on all Zone Command computers and are also fully functioning. By November 30, 2012, VIPD will provide DOJ with an action plan for achieving sufficient numbers of staff to input current and historic data or outlining how it intends to use existing staff to accomplish this task. The plan will include an implementation date subject to the agreement of the parties. Working group members will conduct bi-monthly reviews commencing November 30, 2012 to ensure compliance with A through K [of Consent Decree ¶ 60]. Quarterly review commencing

Status Satisfied. The VIPD did not comply with the Joint Action Plan’s November 1, 2012 deadline, but submitted a revised version of the Disciplinary Matrix to the DOJ on January 18, 2013. Not Satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation demonstrating compliance with this requirement.
Not Satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation demonstrating compliance with this requirement.
Satisfied, but additional work needed. On November 30, 2012, the VIPD submitted to the DOJ a Management and Supervision Action Plan. On December 31, 2012, the DOJ provided comments and requested clarification on certain points. Discussions are ongoing.
Not Satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation demonstrating compliance with this requirement.
Not Satisfied. The VIPD did not

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 52 of 106 52 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

November 30, 2012 will be conducted to ensure compliance [with Consent Decree ¶ 65]. Working group members will conduct bi-monthly reviews commencing November 30, 2012 to ensure compliance with a through g [of Consent Decree ¶ 66]. VIPD will maintain documentation of how it identified and addressed patterns of officer conduct based on existing databases and resources and provide this documentation on a quarterly basis to the Monitor, starting in the 3rd quarter of 2012. Finalize Audit Protocol and submit to DOJ by November 30, 2012.
Blue Team technical issues will be resolved, training will be ongoing, and all districts will receive a round of training by January 31, 2013.
Competency-based training of all staff by Feb. 15, 2013 and ongoing documented refresher training through in-services and Roll Call/Commanders Call. Auditors to attend training re: conducting audits by April 30, 2013.

provide the OIM with documentation demonstrating compliance with this requirement. Not Satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation demonstrating compliance with this requirement.
Not Applicable. Because the Department appears to be relying solely on IAPro for risk management, this requirement is no longer applicable.
Satisfied. The VIPD submitted a draft version of the Audit and Inspection Policy to the DOJ for review on November 30, 2012. The VIPD issued the Audit and Inspection Policy on September 1, 2013. Satisfied, but additional work needed. The VIPD provided the OIM with documentation regarding Blue Team training on the St. Thomas/St. John District during the First Quarter of 2013, but did not provide similar documentation for the St. Croix District until the Second Quarter of 2013. In addition, a significant number of VIPD personnel missed scheduled Blue Team training during the First Quarter of 2013. Not Satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation demonstrating compliance with this requirement.
Not Satisfied. Two members of the audit unit have received some audit training (part one of three); however, the remainder of the audit unit member have not received any training. Audit Training is scheduled to take place in the Third Quarter of

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 53 of 106 Office of the Independent Monitor | 53

By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. This ensures periodic quality checks on data entered. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training. Train staff regarding Audit Protocol by June 30, 2013.
Audit will commence by June 30, 2013.
By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies, including (but not limited to) review for inclusion of written Police Commissioner extension approval in investigatory files. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

2013. Not Satisfied. The VIPD continued to work on its audit tools during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013.
Not Satisfied. The VIPD finalized the Audit and Inspection Policy in September 2013, but has not yet provided training for the policy. The Audit Training that is scheduled for the Third Quarter of 2013 will cover the Audit and Inspection Policy (according to the lesson plan for the training). Not Satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation demonstrating compliance with this requirement. While the VIPD attempted to conduct use of force audits during the First and Second Quarters of 2013, those efforts were not successful. Not Satisfied. The VIPD continued to work on its audit tools during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013.

59. The VIPD will develop and implement a risk management system to include a new computerized relational database or paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for supervision and management of the VIPD. Priority will be given to the VIPD obtaining any established program and system. The VIPD will regularly use this data to promote civil rights and best police practices; to

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 54 of 106 54 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 59 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 59 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
In an effort to comply with ¶ 59 of the Consent Decree, the VIPD purchased and installed IAPro software, along with its companion program Blue Team, in both Districts. IAPro will serve as the VIPD’s Risk Management System (“RMS”). VIPD personnel will use Blue Team to enter use of force information, among other things, into the RMS. As previously reported, the VIPD also purchased and installed large capacity servers in both Districts to support the RMS.
The Department’s operation of the RMS is guided by the DOJ-approved RMS Protocol. Pursuant to the RMS Protocol, the VIPD reports that it has entered data from 95% of use of force and citizen complaint investigations (going back to 2009) into the RMS. The VIPD also reports that it collects and enters data from a variety of sources into the RMS on an ongoing basis.
The RMS is an important component of the Department’s Early Intervention Program (“EIP”), which is designed to identify potentially problematic behavior by VIPD personnel at an early and remediable point. With respect to the EIP, the VIPD reports that it has put in place an EIP Manager in the St. Thomas/St. John District and an EIP Coordinator in the St. Croix District. The EIP Manager and EIP Coordinator are responsible for all aspects of the EIP, including the collection and entering of data from various units within the VIPD. During the First Quarter of 2013, the EIP Manager and EIP Coordinator provided training on the EIP in their respective Districts.
The VIPD also reports that the IAB continues to disseminate weekly, monthly, and quarterly reports on all uses of force and citizen complains to the Police Commissioner, Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, Managers, Commanders and Supervisors.17 The Commissioner, Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, and the Human Resources Bureau Director also have access to IAPro to monitor the status of

17

At the OIM’s request, the IAB forwarded monthly reports about use of force and citizen

complaint investigations to the OIM.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 55 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 55
use of force and citizen complaint investigations. The Department’s Management and Information Systems Unit (“MIS”) is working to provide Supervisors and others in the chain of command with access to IAPro as well; the IAB currently emails information about uses of force and citizen complaints to individuals who do not have access to IAPro.
Pursuant to the EIP Policy, Supervisors, Deputy Chiefs and Managers are required to regularly review reports from IAPro. According to the VIPD, that review process is not being well documented. To address that problem, the Compliance Coordinator developed a form (“RMS Data Review”) to help document the review process. The Policy Committee is reviewing a separate form (“EIP Action Plan”) to document intervention steps taken by Supervisors. The VIPD reports that the Department’s managers have failed to review EIP reports and to initiate interventions.18 The Department attributes that failure to training delays. Training was not provided to all Supervisors until the end of the Second Quarter of 2013.
Additionally, the VIPD reports that the Deputy Chief for St. Thomas (who also is the Chairperson of the Management and Supervision working group) meets with Supervisors and Commander on Mondays and Thursdays of each week to discuss various aspects of the Consent Decree. At those meetings, the Deputy Chief also highlights use of force and citizen complaint investigations that need to be completed. Finally, the Management and Supervision working group met multiple times during the Second Quarter of 2013.
OIM Report:
As previously reported, the Department has made substantial progress towards implementing IAPro. Unfortunately, IAPro continues to experience some technological issues. While limited technological issues may be unavoidable, the Department should put measures in place to ensure continual access to Blue Team territory-wide. Moreover, to the extent that outages occur for IAPro or Blue Team, the VIPD should document the duration and steps taken to restore operations.
The Joint Action Plan requires members of the Management and Supervision working group to “conduct regular reviews . . . to ensure that all Blue Team programs are installed on all Zone Command computers and are also fully functioning.” The Chair of the Management and Supervision working group initiated a process during the First Quarter of 2013 for MIS and the Zones to submit biweekly reports documenting the required reviews. During the Third Quarter of 2013, the VIPD provided documentation confirming the functionality of Blue Team at certain VIPD facilities on St. Thomas.

18

The VIPD reports that the EIP Manager has initiated some interventions in the St.

Thomas/St. John District.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 56 of 106
56 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
During the First Quarter of 2013, the VIPD provided the OIM with records for Blue Team and EIP training that took place in the St. Thomas/St. John District; the VIPD provided the same training in the St. Croix District during the Second Quarter of 2013. The records for the training conducted on St. Thomas contained, for the first time, a breakdown of the personnel who attended the training and those who did not. The OIM has been asking for that information for several quarters. The VIPD also provided the OIM with a list of Officers who failed to attend an earlier round of Blue Team training in March 2012. Based on a memorandum from the Deputy Chief of Police for St. Thomas to all Commanders, Supervisors, and Bureau Heads in the St. Thomas/St. John District, we understand that 39 Officers failed to attend that training. Given the size of the VIPD, that rate of absenteeism is inexcusable. The VIPD reports that those individuals will be sent for training, but the OIM has not received training records from them.
The OIM’s Police Practices Experts reviewed the PowerPoint presentation referenced above and concluded that it was a good introduction to the concepts of the Department’s EIP. Nevertheless, the VIPD should proceed with a more comprehensive EIP training as soon as possible. During the Third Quarter of 2013, VIPD personnel expressed concern that the EIP training did not adequately address the “nuts and bolts” of how to document and initiate interventions. In response to those concerns, the OIM provided the VIPD with some additional resources by email.
Recommendations:
Even though the Department has implemented certain aspects of IAPro, the RMS Protocol needs to be fully implemented by, among other things, providing on-going training on the Department’s EIP and conducting the required beta test (i.e., an initial full scale test) of the RMS. The VIPD should also use the Blue Team and EIP training records described above as a model for how to present training records to the OIM going forward.
As previously requested, the VIPD should also provide the OIM with more information about the 39 Officers who failed to attend Blue Team training in March 2012. For example, we would like to know why each Officer failed to attend the training and what, if any, corrective action and/or discipline the Department imposed in response (aside from scheduling follow up training during the First Quarter of 2013). Going forward, the VIPD should provide that type of information in connection with all training. Finally, based on discussions between the OIM and VIPD personnel, there appears to be some uncertainty regarding aspects of the EIP. In addition to providing further training to key personnel, the Department should consider compiling a resource guide or manual with detailed instructions relating to the application of the EIP.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 57 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 57
60. The new risk management system will collect and record the following information: a) all uses of force; b) canine bite ratios; c) the number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers; d) all injuries to prisoners; e) all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with “resisting arrest,” “assault on a police officer,” “disorderly conduct,” or “obstruction of official business;” f) all critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty; g) all complaints (and their dispositions); h) all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the Territory and its officers, or agents, resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel; i) all vehicle pursuits; j) all incidents involving the pointing of a firearm (if any such reporting is required); and k) all disciplinary action taken against officers.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 60 of the Consent Decree and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 60 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
On April 30, 2013, the leader of the Management and Supervision working group submitted a memorandum to the Police Commissioner requesting that a protocol be established for the VIAG to notify the VIPD of all court proceedings (criminal and civil) relating to VIPD operations or personnel; requesting that the Virgin Islands Territorial Emergency Management Agency (“VITEMA”) provide the VIPD with data about vehicle pursuits involving VIPD personnel; and attaching a memorandum, dated April 30, 2013, addressed to the Acting Director of the Training Bureau requesting that he provide information to the IAB regarding the number of canisters of OC Spray used by VIPD personnel.
The VIPD also reports that it revised the Canine Policy during the Second Quarter of 2013 to capture information about canine deployments, which is necessary to calculate canine bite ratios (i.e., the ratio of canine deployments to canine bites). According to the VIPD, the EIP Coordinator has received data for all canine deployments in June 2013 from the Commander of the Canine Unit in the St. Croix District. The VIPD expects to receive similar information for the St. Thomas/St. John District.
OIM Report:
The VIPD’s Data Input Plan requires the Department to collect the information required by ¶ 60 of the Consent Decree. The Management and

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 58 of 106
58 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Supervision working group reported at the end of the Fourth Quarter of 2012 that it was creating forms, drafting procedures, and developing a system to verify the accuracy of the data collected under subparagraphs a through k. The OIM has not seen any documentation relating to those efforts.
During the First Quarter of 2013, the OIM learned that the VIPD continued to have problems accessing information from outside of the VIPD. For example, the VIPD appears to have limited access to information from the VIAG regarding court proceedings (criminal and civil) involving VIPD personnel and from VITEMA regarding vehicle pursuits. The VIPD’s Data Input Plan requires that such information be collected and entered into the RMS.
The OIM learned during the Second Quarter of 2013 that a Department audit of the RMS revealed that additional data sources were not being collected as required by the Data Input Plan. Specifically, the VIPD was not collecting information about canine bite ratios or about the number of canisters of O.C. Spray being used by VIPD personnel. The VIPD recognizes these deficiencies and appears to be taking steps (as described above) to correct them. Moreover, the fact that an internal VIPD audit identified these deficiencies underscores the important role that the audit unit should play in helping the VIPD achieve and maintain substantial compliance.
Finally, the VIPD reports that it held training on the Data Input Plan on June 24-25, 2013 in the St. Thomas/St. John District and on June 26-27, 2013 in the St. Croix District. The VIPD provided training on the Department’s RMS Protocol and EIP at the same time. The training was led by LD Consulting, an outside vendor. The VIPD has not provided the OIM with documentation for that training.
Recommendations:
Even though the Department has implemented certain aspects of IAPro, the RMS Protocol needs to be fully implemented by, among other things, collecting all of the information required by the Data Input Plan. To the extent that the VIAG has access to any of the required information, it should establish a protocol to share that information. The VIPD should also provide the OIM with documentation regarding its efforts to collect all of the information required by the Data Input Plan, including the Police Commissioner’s response, if any, to the April 30, 2013 memorandum from the leader of the Management and Supervision working group. Once the VIPD comes into compliance with the Data Input Plan, the Department should generate quarterly IAPro reports demonstrating that data from paragraphs a through k are captured in the Department’s RMS. The Department should also provide the OIM with a report for the training that it held on the Data Input Plan, the RMS Protocol, and the EIP near the end of the Second Quarter of 2013.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 59 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 59
61. The new risk management system will include, for the incidents included in the database, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (e.g., name, badge number, shift and supervisor) and civilian (e.g., race, ethnicity or national origin, if available).
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 61 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 61 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it continues to enter appropriate identifying information for VIPD personnel and civilians for all incidents into IAPro. The VIPD has provided the OIM with “screen shots” from IAPro purporting to confirm that such information is being entered into IAPro.
The VIPD also reports that it continues to require all VIPD personnel to include their assigned Personal Designator Number (“PDN”) on all Department reports. In the St. Thomas/St. John District, the Chief has assigned an Officer to review arrest reports on a monthly basis to verify compliance with this requirement. The leader of the Management and Supervision working group sent a memorandum, dated April 30, 2013, to the Chief of the St. Croix District recommending that he designate an Officer for that purpose as well.
OIM Report:
To help track VIPD personnel (who may change job functions, names, etc.), the Police Commissioner issued a directive during the Fourth Quarter of 2011 ordering that a PDN be assigned to all sworn personnel, including designated civilian personnel with assignments as agents, auxiliaries, and forensic technicians. The PDN is a four digit number assigned by VITEMA. Officers are required to use their PDNs (which they keep for their entire career) on all police reports, rather than their badge numbers as was the previous practice. The OIM will review VIPD audits regarding compliance with ¶ 61 of the Consent Decree in subsequent quarters.
Recommendations:
The Department should audit whether Officers are using the PDNs on all police reports. These audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM. In addition, the VIPD should provide the OIM with quarterly IAPro reports demonstrating that appropriate

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 60 of 106
60 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
identifying information for each involved Officer and civilian is captured by the Department’s RMS, and a list of the PDNs assigned to all VIPD personnel.
62. Within 120 days of the implementation of the new risk management system, or later with the agreement of DOJ, the VIPD will prepare, for the review and approval of DOJ, a plan for including appropriate fields and values of new and historical data into the risk management system (the "Data Input Plan"). The Data Input Plan will identify the data to be included and the means for inputting such data (direct entry or otherwise), the specific fields of information to be included, the past time periods for which information is to be included, the deadlines for inputting the data, and the responsibility for the input of the data. The Data Input Plan will include historical data that is up-to-date and complete in the risk management system. The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final review and approval within 30 days after it is presented for approval.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued the Data Input Plan in compliance with ¶ 62 of the Consent Decree. Because ¶ 62 of the Consent Decree only requires the Department to develop a policy, Phase 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the VIPD is in substantial compliance with ¶ 62 of the Consent Decree.
63. The VIPD will, within 120 days, prepare for the review and approval of DOJ, and thereafter implement, a protocol for using the risk management system. The VIPD will submit for the review and approval of DOJ all proposed modifications to the protocol prior to implementing such modifications.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 63 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 63 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
As referenced above, the VIPD provided initial training on the RMS Protocol and EIP during the First Quarter of 2013, and follow up training during the Second Quarter of 2013.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 61 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 61
OIM Report:
After several years of work, the DOJ approved the Department’s RMS Protocol on October 2, 2012. As previously reported, the RMS Protocol provides various thresholds that trigger supervisory review. For example, if an Officer receives more than X number of complaints within Y period of time, IAPro will alert the Officer’s Supervisor (and other appropriate personnel) to the potential issue and need for review. When reporting arrest and use of force data, the Consent Decree requires that the VIPD use ratios based on the conduct of VIPD personnel (the total number of arrests where force was used divided by the total number of arrests) to identify potentially problematic behavior. The VIPD is not currently capable of providing these ratios because its arrest records are not uniform or reliable. The VIPD has been working to consolidate all of its arrest records in a single database for several quarters. Although the VIPD appears to be close to finalizing that database, it has not yet done so. The Parties agree that the Department will not be in compliance with the Consent Decree until it implements a ratio-based RMS Protocol. Nevertheless, the VIPD has raised concerns, including during the Third Quarter of 2013, about whether a ratio-based RMS Protocol is appropriate for the VIPD in light of the Department’s relatively small size.
Recommendations:
Once the Department can rely on its arrest records, the VIPD must begin to use ratios, rather than numerical thresholds, as triggers for supervisory review of Officers’ conduct. To the extent that the VIPD believes that a ratiobased RMS Protocol is inappropriate (a view that it has previously expressed), it should explain its rationale to the DOJ. The OIM’s Police Practices Experts are available to share their views and experience in this regard. The VIPD should also provide the OIM with audits documenting the Department’s compliance with ¶ 63 of the Consent Decree.
64. The protocol for using the risk management system will include the following provisions and elements: a) The protocol is comprised of the following components: data storage, data retrieval, reporting, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation and audit; b) The protocol will require the automated system to analyze the data according to the following criteria: (i) number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; (ii) average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and (iii) identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; c) The protocol will require the system to generate reports on a monthly basis describing the data and data analysis and identifying individual and unit patterns; d) The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors will review, on a regular

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 62 of 106
62 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
basis but not less than quarterly, system reports, and will evaluate individual officer, supervisor, and unit activity; e) The protocol will require that VIM deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors initiate intervention for individual officers, supervisors and for units based on appropriate activity and pattern assessment of the information contained in the risk management system; f) The protocol will require that intervention options include discussion by deputy chiefs, managers, supervisors, and officers; counseling; training; and supervised, monitored, and documented action plans and strategies designed to modify activity. All interventions will be documented in writing and entered into the automated system (appropriate intervention options will be employed based on the evaluation described in subsection (e) above); g) The protocol will specify that actions taken as a result of information from the risk management system be based on all relevant and appropriate information, including the nature of the officer’s assignment, crime trends and crime problems, and not solely on the number or percentages of incidents in any category of information recorded in the risk management system; h) The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors will promptly review the risk management system records of all officers recently transferred to their sections and units; i) The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors be evaluated on their ability to use the risk management system to enhance effectiveness and reduce risk; (j) The protocol will require that the system be managed and administered by the Internal Affairs Unit of the VIPD. The IAU of the VIPD will conduct quarterly audits of the system to ensure action is taken according to the process described above; k) The protocol will require regular reviews, at no less than quarterly intervals, by appropriate managers of all relevant risk management system information to evaluate officer performance territory-wide, and to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all VIPD units in order to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued the RMS Protocol in compliance with ¶ 64 of the Consent Decree. Because ¶ 64 of the Consent Decree only requires the Department to develop a policy Phases 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the VIPD is in substantial compliance with ¶ 64 of the Consent Decree.
65. The VIPD will maintain all personally identifiable information about an officer included in the risk management system during the officer’s employment with the VIPD for at least five years. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis will be maintained indefinitely in the risk management system. On an ongoing basis, the VIPD will enter information into the risk management system in a timely, accurate, and

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 63 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 63
complete manner, and maintain the data in a secure and confidential manner.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 65 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 65 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it continues to enter data into IAPro in a timely, accurate, and complete manner, and that such information is secure and confidential. With respect to data retention for former VIPD personnel, the VIPD reports that it has not deleted any such data. Additionally, to prevent data from being inadvertently deleted, IAPro allows the VIPD to prohibit data for specific incidents from being purged or deleted.
During the Second Quarter of 2013, the VIPD continued with its efforts to hire data analysts to help facilitate the Department’s RMS. For budgetary reasons, the VIPD initially attempted to identify suitable candidate who were already employed by the VIPD. While two such individuals were identified (one in each District), the VIPD changed course and decided to search for suitable candidates from other Virgin Islands government agencies instead. Those individuals would then be “lent” to the VIPD on a temporary basis. That search is ongoing.
OIM Report:
The OIM did not assess the VIPD’s compliance with ¶ 65 of the Consent Decree during the Second Quarter of 2013.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should explain whether, and under what circumstances, it is utilizing the IAPro feature that allows the VIPD to prohibit data for specific incidents from being purged or deleted. With limited exceptions for clerical errors, the Department should not delete any records from IAPro. Moreover, to the extent that the VIPD needs to delete data from IAPro, the process should be documented and approved by the Director of the IAB.
The VIPD should also provide the OIM with an update about its efforts to hire/borrow data analysts. However the VIPD chooses to staff those positions, it is crucial that the VIPD staff those positions. The VIPD will not be able to adequately monitor its EIP without additional help.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 64 of 106
64 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
66. The new risk management system will be purchased off the shelf and customized by VIPD. Alternatively, the new risk management system may be developed and implemented according to the following schedule: a) Within 150 days of the effective date of this Agreement, subject to the review and approval of DOJ, the VIPD will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP); b) Within 270 days of the issuance of the RFP, or later with the agreement of DOJ, the VIPD will select the contractor to create the risk management system; c) Within 150 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the VIPD will submit the protocol for using the risk management system to DOJ for review and approval. The VIPD will share drafts of this document with DOJ and the Monitor (a position described in Section VII) to allow DOJ and the Monitor to become familiar with the document as it develops and to provide informal comments on it. The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final approval within 30 days after it is presented for review and approval; d) Within 14 months of selecting the contractor, the VIPD will have ready for testing a beta version of the risk management system consisting of (i) server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the VIPD's existing automated systems; (ii) necessary data base software installed and configured; (iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and (iv) the use of force information system completed, including historic data. DOJ and the Monitor will have the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version using use of force data and test data created specifically for purposes of checking the risk management system; e) The risk management system computer program and computer hardware will be operational and fully implemented within 20 months of the selection of the risk management system contractor.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 66 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 66 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
As reported in connection with ¶ 59 of the Consent Decree, the VIPD purchased and installed IAPro software, along with its companion program Blue Team, in both Districts, and received DOJ approval for its RMS Protocol.
The VIPD also reports that it continues to work on an arrest database to consolidate its arrest records and permit the Department to calculated use of force rations. For example, MIS met with various VIPD units on June 17, 21,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 65 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 65
and 28, 2013 to discuss the configuration of the database. Additionally, the VIPD has proposed various revisions to the Department’s arrest report to capture additional information. Once the new arrest report is finalized, the VIPD plans to introduce the new report and explain any changes through Roll Call and Commanders Call training.
OIM Report:
The OIM has requested information relating to any beta testing (i.e., an initial full scale test) that is planned or has been completed for the Department’s RMS. While some VIPD personnel have asserted that the required beta test has been completed, the VIPD has not responded to our requests for documentation. As such, absent more information the OIM stands by its position that the VIPD has not completed a beta test for the RMS.
Recommendations:
Even though the Department has implemented certain aspects of IAPro, the RMS Protocol needs to be fully implemented by, among other things, conducting the required beta test of the RMS. The VIPD should also respond to the OIM’s request for information about the Department’s planned or completed beta tests.
67. Prior to implementation of the new risk management system, the VIPD will continue to use existing databases and resources to the fullest extent possible, to identify patterns of conduct by VIPD officers or groups of officers.
Compliance Assessment:
Because the Department appears to rely on IAPro for risk management, this requirement is no longer applicable.
68. Following the initial implementation of the risk management system, and as experience and the availability of new technology may warrant, the VIPD may propose to add, subtract, or modify data tables and fields, modify the list of documents scanned or electronically attached, and add, subtract, or modify standardized reports and queries. The VIPD will submit all such proposals for review and approval by DOJ before implementation.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 66 of 106 66 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

Compliance Assessment:
Because the Department has not yet fully implemented its RMS, this requirement is not yet applicable.
69. The VIPD will develop a protocol for conducting audits. The protocol will be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol will establish a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all VIPD zones.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 69 of the Consent Decree, but it has not achieved Phase 2 or 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 69 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it finalized the Audit Policy during the Second Quarter of 2013 and submitted it to the Police Commissioner for his review and approval. Once the Audit Policy is approved by the Police Commissioner, it will be disseminated throughout the Department.
The VIPD also reports that audit training will be provided by Marine Tactical and Global, an outside vendor. According to the VIPD, the Governor approved the contract during the Second Quarter of 2013 and forwarded it to the Department of Property and Procurement (“P&P”) for final review. Unfortunately, the contract was delayed at P&P because certain documents were missing. The contract was ultimately executed in the Third Quarter of 2013 and training was held on October 14-25, 2013. According to the VIPD, the delay interfered with the Department’s ability to comply with the Joint Action Plan’s requirement that audit training be completed by June 30, 2013.
Finally, during the First Quarter of 2012, the VIPD reported that the IAB submitted an audit request to the audit unit relating to completed citizen complaint and use of force investigations. The audit unit has not provided the Compliance Coordinator with any work product in response to that request.
OIM Report:
As required by the Joint Action Plan, the VIPD submitted a final Audit and Inspection Policy to the DOJ for review on November 30, 2012.19 After

19

The Consent Decree does not require the DOJ to approve the Department’s Audit and

Inspection Policy.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 67 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 67
several rounds of revisions, the VIPD issued its Audit and Inspection Policy in the Third Quarter of 2013.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should implement its Audit and Inspection Policy so that the audit unit has the tools to become fully functional and to monitor the Department’s compliance with the Consent Decree. Documentation of VIPD audits is the best way for the Department to demonstrate compliance with each Consent Decree paragraph. The VIPD should provide the OIM documentation relating to the audit training.
Unfortunately, the audit unit has been largely inactive since it was created. The VIPD has repeatedly pointed to training delays to excuse the audit unit’s lack of progress, but that will no longer suffice. Once the members of the audit unit complete audit training, the OIM expects them to promptly develop a specific and concrete action plan specifying long-term goals, interim deadlines, and assigning tasks to specified individuals. The VIPD should provide the OIM with documentation relating to all audits, including any remedial or corrective actions taken based on audit findings.
The VIPD should consider appointing VIPD personnel to the audit unit on a full time basis. Because of the overlap between the Consent Decree and the audit unit, the Consent Decree Coordinator and Consent Decree Manager are well positioned to take leadership roles in the audit unit. The OIM is also hopeful that the Police Commissioner and Assistant Police Commissioner will take active and direct roles in the leadership and supervision of the audit unit. To that end, the VIPD should provide documentation showing that the Police Commissioner met, at least quarterly, with the Department’s management to review all RMS data and identify significant patterns of misconduct.
70. The VIPD will continue to utilize a disciplinary matrix to take into account an officer’s violations of different rules, rather than just repeated violations of the same rule. The VIPD will further revise this matrix to increase the penalties for uses of excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, or dishonesty, to reflect the seriousness of those infractions. The revised disciplinary matrix will provide the VIPD with the discretion to impose any appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes the officer’s misconduct exhibits a lack of fitness for duty. This revised matrix will be subject to the review and approval of DOJ.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued the Disciplinary Matrix in compliance with ¶ 70 of the Consent Decree. Because ¶ 70 of the Consent Decree only requires the Department to develop a

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 68 of 106
68 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
policy, Phases 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the VIPD is in substantial compliance with ¶ 70 of the Consent Decree.
71. VIPD policy will continue to identify clear time periods by which the various steps of a complaint adjudication process should be completed, from complaint receipt to the imposition of discipline, if any. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions will not be granted without the Police Commissioner's written approval and notice to the complainant. In the limited circumstances when an extension is necessary, appropriate tolling provisions will be outlined in the policy.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 71 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 71 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that extending the statute of limitations for instituting disciplinary actions from 50 to 90 days is “an unresolved matter” because the Department’s contracts with the Police Benevolent Association and the Law Enforcement Supervisors Union (the unions that represent VIPD Officers and Supervisors, respectively) would have to be amended.
The VIPD also reports that time limits relating to the complaint adjudication process and the granting of extensions are outlined in the citizen complaint policies.
OIM Report:
As an initial matter and as the OIM previously reported, the VIPD appears to be confusing the time period in which the Department can initiate administrative charges against an Officer with the timelines set forth in the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy. The unions’ reported refusal to extend the 50-day statute of limitations has no bearing on the Department’s ability to comply with internal investigative deadlines. In addition, while the Department’s policies set deadlines for various steps in the complaint adjudication process, the VIPD sometimes fails to comply with those deadlines. However, in 3 out of 3 investigations reviewed by the Police Practices Experts during the Second Quarter of 2013, the VIPD complied with the required timeframe.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 69 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 69
Recommendations:
The Management and Supervision working group, together with the Citizen Complaint Process working group and IAB, should audit and document Department personnel’s compliance with the relevant time periods. The VIPD should also hold Officers accountable for violating deadlines concerning the adjudication of investigations. The VIPD should provide the OIM with quarterly IAPro reports reflecting the status of all pending citizen complaint investigations so we can monitor the Department’s compliance with the required deadlines on a regular basis.
72. Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD will not take only nondisciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix indicates the imposition of discipline. In a case where discipline has been imposed on an officer, the VIPD must also consider whether nondisciplinary corrective action is required.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 72 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 72 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it exchanged draft versions of the Disciplinary Matrix with the DOJ during the Second Quarter of 2013.
OIM Report:
The OIM did not assess the VIPD’s compliance with ¶ 72 of the Consent Decree during the Second Quarter of 2013.
Recommendations:
The Management and Supervision should promptly implement the Disciplinary Matrix by providing corresponding training. In order to help the OIM evaluate the Department’s compliance with ¶ 72 of the Consent Decree, it should provide the OIM with documentation from disciplinary hearings, including the charges, findings, and any discipline and/or non-disciplinary corrective action that was taken.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 70 of 106 70 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

Training

Joint Action Plan Requirements

Joint Action Plan Requirements By November 30, 2012, finalize Audit Protocol and submit to the DOJ and the Monitors’ subject matter experts.

Status Satisfied. On November 30, 2012, the VIPD submitted a final Audit and Inspection Policy to the DOJ for review. That policy was signed by the Police Commissioner during the Third Quarter of 2013.

By November 30, 2012, the Director of Training will develop and implement a tracking system to track training attendance and shall periodically test for proficiency on the policies.

Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with a report documenting that the Department has such a tracking system or periodically tests for proficiency with policies.

By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system).
By November 30, 2012, and on an ongoing basis, provide Monitors’ subject matter experts with training curricula and schedules at least 15 days in advance of training, but preferably 30 days in advance.

Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department has such a tracking system.
Not satisfied. As the OIM has previously requested, and as is required by the Joint Action Plan, the VIPD must provide the OIM with training schedules, lesson plans, and curricula, without prompting, from the OIM.

By November 30, 2012, and on an ongoing basis, VIPD shall consult with VIAG to ensure that all use of force training and use of force policies are in compliance with applicable laws and VIPD policy.

Not satisfied. The VIPD reported during the First and Second Quarters of 2013 that the Training and Use of Force working groups are developing a protocol for cooperation between the VIPD’s Training Director and the VIAG. The VIPD continued working on such a protocol during the Third Quarter of 2013.

By January 31, 2013, provide competency-based training of officers and supervisors on remaining policies.

Not satisfied. The VIPD provided inservice training during the Second Quarter of 2013. The VIPD has not provided the OIM with a report about the number of Officers and

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 71 of 106 Office of the Independent Monitor | 71

Supervisors that have been trained on the Department’s policies.

By January 31, 2013, provide ongoing refresher training on policies through documented, periodic inservice and Roll Call training. Incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy.

Not satisfied. Although the VIPD has provided the OIM with attendance sheets and brief descriptions of Roll Call and Commanders Call training, the OIM needs more detailed information about the subject matter being covered.

By January 31, 2013, provide competency-based training of supervisors on remaining policies (i.e. Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy).

Not satisfied. The VIPD provided inservice training during the Second Quarter of 2013. The VIPD has not provided the OIM with a report about the number of Supervisors that have been trained on the Department’s policy.

By April 30, 2013, auditors will attend outside training regarding conducting audits.
By June 30, 2013, VIPD will implement systems to ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.
By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.
By June 30, 2013, Train staff regarding Audit Protocol.

Not satisfied. The VIPD expects to provide audit training in the Fourth Quarter of 2013. Not satisfied. The VIPD continued to work on its audit tools during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013.
Not satisfied. The VIPD continued to work on its audit tools during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013.
Not satisfied. The VIPD expects to provide audit training in the Fourth Quarter of 2013.

73. The VIPD will continue to coordinate and review all use of force policy and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 72 of 106
72 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
applicable law and VIPD policy. The VIPD will conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually.
Compliance Assessment:
Phase 1 is inapplicable to this Consent Decree requirement. The Department has not achieved Phase 2 or Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 73 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD’s Policy Committee continued to review the Critical Policy Review standard operating procedures (“SOP”) that will guide the Department’s review of use of force policies as required by the Consent Decree. The SOP is intended to formalize the VIPD’s and VIAG’s collaborative review of Department policies, and includes a form to document these reviews. A similar form to document use of force policy reviews and use of force training materials was previously submitted by the Compliance Coordinator to the Policy Committee, but review of those forms was never completed. Once the SOP and corresponding forms are approved by the Policy Committee, the Planning and Research Bureau will assign a tracking number to the forms, and the Police Commissioner will review and provide final approval.
OIM Report:
The VIPD first reported during the Third Quarter of 2012 that it would periodically review its use of force policies in consultation with the VIAG. The Use of Force working group reported during the First Quarter of 2013 that it planned to review one use of force policy every two weeks. The working group repeatedly said it would provide the OIM with completed review forms, but it did not. Later in the quarter, the Department determined that a review protocol was required to establish a uniform procedure for reviewing policies before it could proceed further. The VIPD drafted the SOP to facilitate a systematic annual review of all department policies, and particularly use of force and other force related policies. The SOP was submitted to the Committee during the First Quarter of 2013 for its review, but the VIPD reports that the SOP has not yet been approved. This is unacceptable. The VIPD has not explained why it has delayed finalizing these fundamental and basic guidelines. Although the OIM has observed greater ad hoc involvement by the VIAG in the development of lesson plans and policy review, the VIPD has not demonstrated that there is a process for VIAG review that is systematic and documented.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 73 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 73
Recommendations:
The OIM suggests that members of the VIPD’s command staff review the VIPD’s progress towards approving the SOP. Since implementing a protocol for reviewing use of force policies and training is a standard police practice, the OIM’s Police Practices Experts, all former command officers, agree that such a lengthy approval process is unacceptable. The VIPD must provide documentation to the OIM demonstrating that the VIPD has coordinated and reviewed all use of force policies at least annually, and that the Training Division has reviewed all training at least semi-annually.
74. The Director of Training, either directly or through his/her designee(s), consistent with applicable law and VIPD policy will: a) ensure the quality of all use of force training; b) develop and implement use of force training curricula; c) select and train VIPD officer trainers; d) develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service training; e) in conjunction with the Chiefs, develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures; f) establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and g) conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
Compliance Assessment:
Phase 1 is inapplicable to this Consent Decree requirement. The Department has not achieved Phase 2 or Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not in substantial compliance with ¶ 74 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that the Training Division, in consultation with the VIAG, continues to review the quality of use of force training through periodic reviews of use of force lesson plans. For example, the lesson plans for inservice training were forwarded to the VIAG for review and returned to the Training Director for his final review and approval. The VIPD reports that the VIPD’s legal counsel will review training materials before providing them to the VIAG in the future.
The VIPD also reports that the Training Division maintains training records, including attendance rosters, instructor evaluations, instructor certifications, and post-training examination results. In addition, evaluations completed after training are stored at the Training Academy on both Districts, and are reviewed by the Training Director or his Designee to improve training.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 74 of 106
74 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
The VIPD reports that it continues to develop its own internal training capacity through instructor training on Department policies. To ensure that Officers selected as potential trainers have a strong work ethic and good character, the Training Division is developing a set of criteria upon which to base its instructor selection process. Once finalized, the VIPD will provide the criteria to the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
The Department continues to conduct Roll Call training in both Districts. Documentation of Roll Call training is submitted to the Office of the Police Chiefs and the Training Division. The Use of Force working group and the Training working group are developing a formal training schedule for Roll Call and Commanders Call training on both Districts.
According to the VIPD, it is unable to fully implement the Roll Call Policy because there are not enough Supervisors in the Department to fulfill certain roles required under the policy. The VIPD reports that the Police Commissioner has allocated funds in the Department’s 2014 budget request, which would allow the Department to administer the Supervisor examination promote Supervisors.
OIM Report:
Progress in achieving substantial compliance with ¶ 74 continues to be slow.
74 a) The VIPD previously reported that the Director of Training reviews evaluations completed by Supervisors and Officers at the conclusion of training. Ensuring the quality of use of force training, however, requires more than just reviewing student evaluations. The Director of Training must elicit feedback from instructors and the Training working group, aggregate and file all reviews and comments received, and implement any improvements prior to in-service and other training. The VIPD must document that it includes the VIAG in its systematic evaluation of use of force training. While the OIM is aware that the VIPD completes evaluation forms following each training, the VIPD has not demonstrated that it analyzes the comments received or reports any significant conclusions (e.g., need to revise course material) from those evaluations.
74 b) The VIPD reports that the Department developed use of force training curricula in March of 2011. That curricula must be reviewed for possible revisions in light of intervening legal developments or the Department’s identification of particular deficiencies. The VIPD has not reported that it has undertaken this type of review. Under the Consent Decree, the Department must conduct the review at least semi-annually.
74 c) The VIPD has conducted several instructor development training classes since the inception of the Consent Decree. The OIM requested a roster

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 75 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 75
of certified trainers and the courses they will instruct. The Training Director, however, indicated that he would provide a list of instructors only for Consent Decree related training. The VIPD’s obligation to provide this information to the OIM is not limited to only instructors for Consent Decree related training. Accordingly, the OIM expects that the Director of Training will provide the requested information during the next quarter.
During the First Quarter of 2013, the OIM requested that the Training Division provide any materials related to the firearms qualification course held during the First Quarter of 2013. The Department provided the OIM with the lesson plans for this class during the Second Quarter of 2013. The Department, however, has not provided the OIM with the requested attendance information, including an explanation of the discipline imposed, if any, on any Supervisors who failed to attend. Without this information, the OIM cannot assess whether the VIPD has trained the required personnel as required to achieve substantial compliance with the Consent Decree.
74 d) The VIPD has satisfied this requirement.
74 e) The Training Division has updated its records to reflect recent Roll Call training in both Districts. The OIM commends the Training Division for reinforcing Consent Decree related training, but systematic implementation of Roll Call training and the recording of these trainings are required to achieve substantial compliance. The VIPD reports that it has not fully implemented the Roll Call Policy because of a shortage of Supervisors in both Districts. This provision also requires the Training Director to coordinate with the Chiefs in both Districts in conducting and developing Roll Call and Commanders Call training. The VIPD has not demonstrated to the OIM that the Training Director is coordinating with the Chiefs in developing Roll Call Training. The Department’s training function would benefit from close coordination between the Department’s management on this and other training requirements, however, the OIM has observed little coordination or communication in this area.
74 f) The VIPD reported to the OIM that it has created a “Training Division Course Evaluation” form to evaluate all training. The Department, however, has not provided the Police Practices Experts with completed forms or any report summarizing the Department’s analysis of these evaluations.
74 g) During the First and Second Quarters of 2013, the VIPD reported that it continues to maintain training folders for Officers, which include questionnaires that Officers complete after attending training to assess their understanding of the material presented. The VIPD, however, has not developed a process for reviewing and analyzing this information. A proper review process must analyze this information, in concert with other training data, so that the VIPD (and the OIM) can determine where improvements in

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 76 of 106
76 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
training are required. In addition, the VIPD has limited any review of these evaluations to staff in the Training Division. The Department would benefit from including Supervisors and other managers and trainers in this review process.
Recommendations:
The VIPD must submit audits to the OIM demonstrating Department compliance with subparagraphs a through g of ¶ 74 of the Consent Decree.
75. The VIPD will continue to provide training consistent with VIPD policy, law, and proper police practices, and will ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by instructors. The VIPD will make best efforts to train each work shift as a team in their use of force training.
Compliance Assessment:
Phase 1 is inapplicable to this Consent Decree requirement. The Department has achieved Phase 2 compliance because it has provided training on Department policies, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. As referenced in the Introduction, the Department’s obligation to provide training for the policies and protocols required by ¶¶ 31, 39, 40, 47, 50, 52, 53, 62, 64, and 70 will be assessed in connection with the specific training requirements that are identified throughout the Consent Decree, including ¶ 75. Therefore, the Department is not in substantial compliance with ¶ 75 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
In an effort to build the Department’s internal training capacity, VIPD personnel from each District have attended and completed use of force instructor training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. Additional personnel will be selected to attend this training in order to certify a significant number of use of force instructors in each District.
To ensure that lesson plans for use of force training are consistent with applicable law, VIPD policy, and generally accepted police practices, instructor developed lesson plans are submitted to the Training Director and the VIAG for review in advance of training. The VIPD reports that, as part of the Training Director’s review, he ensures that only mandated objectives and approved lessons are utilized.
OIM Report:
The VIPD has made progress reinforcing initial training on Department policies through Roll Call and Commanders Call Training. The Training

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 77 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 77
Division, however, has no oversight over the process and record keeping is not yet systematic. The VIPD reports that it provided the OIM with lesson plans for in-service training. In particular, the VIPD provided lesson plans for Spike Strip, Vehicle Pursuit, and Sniper Operation and Tactical Operation training. The VIPD has not yet provided the OIM with the remaining lesson plans from in-service training held during the Second Quarter of 2013. In addition, as previously reported, the VIPD has yet to provide the OIM with the roster of certified instructors as requested. (See ¶ 74(c)).
Recommendations:
The OIM continues to recommend that the Training Division work in concert with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to arrange further training (inservice, Roll Call, and Commanders Call) on certain policies where compliance has been problematic, including among others, the Use of Force Policy, Acceptance of Citizen Complaint Policy, and Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Police. The Training Division also should work closely with the Use of Force, Complaint Process, and Management and Supervision working groups to identify areas that require additional training, either through additional in-service training or Roll Call and Commanders Call training, to ensure that VIPD personnel adequately understand their obligations. Lesson plans for all training programs should be vetted and approved by Department management and the VIAG in advance of training.
76. The VIPD shall continue to keep adequate records of lesson plans and other training materials, such that the most current training documents are maintained in a central, commonly accessible file, and are clearly dated.
Compliance Assessment:
Phase 1 is inapplicable to this Consent Decree requirement. The Department has achieved Phase 2 compliance because the VIPD currently maintains training records, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not in substantial compliance with ¶ 76 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The Training Division maintains a training database in each District, which stores lesson plans, attendance rosters, instructor certifications, and records of trainings completed by each Officer. Because of limitations with the Department’s current database, the Use of Force working group is working to overhaul the database in order store more information that is required by the Consent Decree. The Training Division is also in the process of procuring more sophisticated software to maintain all training records. This software will track

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 78 of 106
78 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
and manage all training records for sworn and civilian personnel. The software will also enable the VIPD to conduct on-line training.
OIM Report:
The Police Practices Experts have observed that paper copies of most lesson plans, training records, and instructor certifications are stored in folders in both Districts. From a practical perspective, automated training files would allow the Department to more easily produce reports and maintain the records in a “central, commonly accessible file” as required by the Consent Decree. The OIM has shared its reservations about the Department’s capabilities for producing reliable training data from its current database.
The VIPD has indicated for almost a year its intent to acquire software capable of producing the kind of information required by the Consent Decree in a format that would substantiate compliance. This area of compliance is languishing behind other areas of the Consent Decree and has failed to demonstrate much advancement toward substantial compliance. The OIM expects that, even after new software is purchased, additional effort and resources will need to be devoted to installation and data transfer.
Under the Joint Action Plan, the VIPD is required to provide “training curricula and schedules at least 15 days in advance of training, but preferably 30 days in advance.” The Training Division, however, often provides notice of any upcoming Consent Decree training with only 15 days notice. This practice makes it difficult for the OIM to make proper arrangements to monitor training. It is in the VIPD’s best interest to provide as much notice as possible so that the OIM can make travel arrangements, and have the opportunity to evaluate the VIPD’s progress towards substantial compliance with ¶ 76.
Recommendations:
The VIPD must finalize plans to purchase a new database to maintain training records. A manual record keeping system does not allow the Training Division to manage training records in an efficient and effective manner that enables the VIPD to generate reports sufficient to assess the VIPD’s compliance with the Consent Decree’s training requirements. This capability is fundamental to modern policing.
Until the Department establishes a new computerized system to maintain training records, the OIM urges the VIPD to document (i) sworn personnel who satisfactorily complete training; (ii) sworn personnel who fail to attend training; and (iii) dispositions against sworn personnel who fail to attend training. With the exception of a report reflecting this information for Blue Team training in the St. Thomas/St. John District, the VIPD has not provided the OIM with this information for other Consent Decree related training.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 79 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 79
77. The VIPD shall continue to maintain training records regarding every VIPD officer that reliably indicate the training each officer has received. The training records shall, at a minimum, include the course description and duration, curriculum, and instructor for each officer.
Compliance Assessment:
Phase 1 is inapplicable to this Consent Decree requirement. The Department has achieved Phase 2 compliance since the VIPD reports that it maintains training records, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not in substantial compliance with ¶ 77 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The Training Division maintains a training database in each District, which stores lesson plans, attendance rosters, instructor certifications, and training completed by each Officer. Because of limitations with the Department’s current database, the Use of Force working group is working to overhaul the database in order to store additional information as required by the Consent Decree. The Training Division is also in the process of procuring more sophisticated software to maintain all training records. This software will track and manage all training records for sworn and civilian personnel. The software will also enable the VIPD to conduct on-line training.
OIM Report:
The VIPD’s current system for maintaining training records does not capture the course description, length of training, curricula, or instructor information. While the VIPD may be able to cobble together that information from different sources, it is not readily accessible.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should finalize plans to purchase a new database to maintain training records. A manual record keeping system does not allow the Training Division to fully manage training records efficiently or generate reports sufficient to assess the VIPD’s compliance with the Consent Decree’s training requirements. This capability is fundamental to modern policing. Until a new database is purchased and functioning, the VIPD should manually provide reports confirming compliance with the requirements of ¶ 77.
78. The Training Director will review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure compliance with applicable laws and Virgin Islands Police Department policy. The Training Director will consult with the Attorney General’s Office on any additions, changes

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 80 of 106
80 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
and/or modifications regarding use of force training or policies to ensure compliance with applicable laws.
Compliance Assessment:
Phase 1 is inapplicable to this Consent Decree requirement. The Department has achieved Phase 2 compliance since the VIPD reports that the Training Director reviews all training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not in substantial compliance with ¶ 78 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that the Training Bureau continues to consult with the VIPD to ensure the quality of use of force training through periodic reviews of use of force lesson plans. For example, the lesson plans for in-service training were forwarded to the VIAG for review and returned to the Training Director for his final review and approval. Similarly, the VIPD reports that during the First Quarter of 2013 the Use of Force and Firearms Policies were forwarded to the VIAG for review. Once the Department approves and implements the Critical Policy Review (SOP), a standardized form will be utilized to document the review of use of force policies and trainings.
OIM Report:
During the Second Quarter of 2013, the Department did not make any progress towards achieving substantial compliance with this Consent Decree provision. The SOP was submitted to the Committee during the First Quarter of 2013 for its review, but the VIPD reports that the SOP has not yet been approved.
Recommendations:
The OIM suggests that a member of the VIPD’s command staff review the VIPD’s progress towards approving the SOP. Since implementing a protocol for reviewing use of force policies and training is a standard police practice, the OIM’s Police Practices Experts, all former command officers, agree that such a drawn out approval process is unacceptable.
Maintaining a viable Training working group is critical and long overdue. The Training Director must work with Department management in order for the Department’s training capacity to grow. Up to this point, the Training working group has functioned independently but should work cooperatively with other working groups when appropriate to achieve substantial compliance with the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 81 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 81
79. The VIPD will continue to provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on use of force. Such training will include and address the following topics: a) the VIPD’s use of force model, as described in this Agreement; b) proper use of force decision making; c) the VIPD’s use of force reporting requirements; d) the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements; e) examples of scenarios faced by VIPD officers that illustrate proper use of force decision-making; f) interactive exercises that emphasize proper use of force decisionmaking; g) de-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without using force, and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest maybe the appropriate response to a situation even when the use of force would be legally justified; h) threat assessment; i) appropriate training on conflict management.
Compliance Assessment:
Phase 1 is inapplicable to this Consent Decree requirement. The Department has not achieved Phase 2 or Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not in substantial compliance with ¶ 79 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it continues to provide annual in-service trainings in both Districts to Officers, Supervisors, and managers on an on-going basis. Lesson plans are submitted to the VIAG for review and approved by the Training Director.
Annual in-service use of force training included instruction on the use of force model, use of force reporting requirements, the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional rights, and training of use of force policies, including Firearms, Reporting Investigation and Review of Use of Force, Sniper, Tactical Operations, Vehicle Pursuit, Electronic Control Weapon, Arrest, Impact Weapons, Canine Operations, and O.C. Spray.
VIPD reports that it began using scenario-based use of force software, including two firearms simulators, in November 2012. The VIPD previously reported that instructors received training on how to use the simulators and that an SOP was developed and approved by the Training Director.
The Training Division maintains a training database in each District, which stores lesson plans, attendance rosters, instructor certifications, and records of trainings completed by each Officer. Because of limitations with the Department’s current database, the Use of Force working group is working to overhaul the database in order to store additional information as required by

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 82 of 106
82 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
the Consent Decree. The Training Division is also in the process of procuring more sophisticated software to maintain all training records. This software will track and manage all training records for sworn and civilian personnel. The software will also enable the VIPD to conduct on-line training.
OIM Report:
As of the end of the Second Quarter of 2013, the VIPD has provided the OIM with few lesson plans or other materials from annual in-service training.
a) The VIPD has developed a use of force model as required under the Consent Decree. However, the VIPD has not provided the OIM with any lesson plans demonstrating how the use of force model will be reinforced during inservice training.
b) The VIPD has not provided the OIM with any lesson plans relating to training on proper use of force decision making. In addition, the OIM has not received any lesson plans addressing how the training lab will be used during in-service training. See also 79 f) supra.
c) The VIPD has improved its use of force reporting since the inception of the Consent Decree. The VIPD conducted its own audit and discovered issues with uniform reporting and accountability. The next step is to implement the Audit Protocol.
d) Although topics including the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements have been addressed in previous training provided by the Department, the OIM did not monitor in-service training during the Second Quarter of 2013.
e) The Police Practices Experts have observed that the VIPD has started to incorporate scenario-based training. This is a positive development since much of the training previously observed by the Police Practices Experts was merely a recitation of the policy.
f) The Department has not utilized the training lab with great frequency. The OIM expected to see a plan integrating simulators into recruit and inservice training. The VIPD has reported to the OIM that the training lab was used in November and that the SRT team on the St. Thomas/St. John District received introductory training. The Department, however, has not provided the OIM with documentation of that training.
g) As of the Second Quarter of 2013, the OIM was not aware of any specific training on de-escalation techniques, including encouraging Officers to make arrests without using force, or instructing on disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest. The OIM expected that these

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 83 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 83
topics would be covered during in-service training, but has yet to see any lesson plans from the VIPD.
h) The VIPD has not provided the OIM with a training schedule or lesson plans for threat assessment training.
i) The VIPD has not provided the OIM with a training schedule or lesson plans that focus on conflict management.
Recommendations:
We previously recommended that the Training Division work closely with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to arrange further training (in-service, Roll Call, and Commanders Call) on certain policies for which compliance has been problematic based on the results of post-training examinations, Department audits, and OIM audits. The Training Division also should work closely with the Use of Force, Citizen Complaint Process, and Management and Supervision working groups to identify areas that require additional training, either through additional in-service training or Roll Call and Commanders Call training, to ensure that VIPD personnel adequately understand their obligations. The VIPD has not provided the OIM with any indication that the Training Division has formalized or documented its relationship with the Chiefs on both Districts to coordinate Roll Call training.
80. The VIPD will continue to provide training to all its officers on the VIPD citizen complaint process. The VIPD will develop a protocol for all its officers on appropriate conduct and responses in handling citizens’ complaints and will train officers in the protocol.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies consistent with the citizen complaint process requirements of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 80 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
During the Second Quarter of 2013, the VIPD conducted in-service training on the following policies: Spike Strip, Sniper Operation, Firearms, Reporting Investigation and Review Use of Force, Tactical Operation, O.C. Spray, Arrest, Acceptance of Citizen Complaints, Vehicle Pursuit, Canine Operation, and Impact Weapon and Electronic Control Weapon. In addition to in-service training, the VIPD reports that Roll Call and Commanders Call training on the citizen complaint process and other Consent Decree related topics is ongoing.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 84 of 106
84 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
OIM Report:
The Department has increased the number of Roll Call and Commanders Call trainings dedicated to the citizen complaint process. Records for Roll Call and Commanders Call training, like all Department training, should document which Officers attended training, which Officers did not attend, and what efforts the Department has undertaken to train any “no shows.” The Training Division, in coordination with the Chiefs from both Districts, must ensure that Roll Call and Commanders Call training is implemented and documented systematically. The VIPD has not provided the OIM comprehensive files on these trainings.
Recommendations:
The VIPD has made significant progress issuing the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizens Policy. The VIPD should continue to provide Officers and Supervisors with additional training on the complaint process and then conduct and document periodic audits to ensure that VIPD personnel are complying with the relevant policies. The VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate. The Training Division also should document training and testing in connection with Roll Call and Commanders Call training.
81. The VIPD will provide training on appropriate burdens of proof to all supervisors, as well as the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility (to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform, and legally appropriate). The VIPD will also continue to provide training to supervisors on leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training will be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities, and will be made part of annual in-service training.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies consistent the requirements of ¶ 81 and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 81 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it previously has provided training to Supervisors within 90 days of being promoted, but that the training was last held in 2012.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 85 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | 85
During the Second Quarter of 2012, training for Supervisors on the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy was held during inservice training.
OIM Report:
Although the VIPD is conducting training, administering post-training examinations, and recording attendance at training, the VIPD does not routinely provide the OIM with all lesson plans, curricula, instructor information, and other training materials for training held during the quarter. At this point in the Consent Decree, there is no reason for any delay in sharing records or providing insufficient training records.
Recommendations:
Maintaining a viable Training working group will help the Training Division achieve compliance with the requirements of ¶ 81. The Training Division should work with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to conduct Commanders Call training on the preponderance of the evidence standard, document such training and attendance by Supervisors, and record the results of any examinations administered following training. Additionally, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply with Department policy. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work with the Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, IAB, and the Training Division to provide remedial training or other corrective action. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
100. The Territory of the Virgin Islands and the VIPD shall implement each and every provision of this Agreement as that term defined in Paragraph 30 of this Agreement.
101. The VIPD shall implement immediately all provisions of this Agreement that involve the continuation of current VIPD policies, procedures, and practices. The remaining provisions shall be implemented either by the specified implementation date or, for those provisions that have no specified implementation date, as soon as is reasonably practicable and no later than 150 days after this Agreement’s effective date.
OIM Report:
The OIM has not achieved substantial compliance with the implementation requirement of ¶¶ 100 and 101 because, among other things, the Department has not provided documentation demonstrating that VIPD personnel are proficient with the Department’s policies. In addition, the Department’s audit unit is not fully functioning to assess the VIPD’s

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 86 of 106
86 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
compliance with Department policies as required under the Consent Decree. In the next quarterly report, the OIM will evaluate compliance with ¶¶ 31, 39, 40, 47, 50, 52, 53, 62, 64, and 70 and will provide a more detailed analysis of the steps that the VIPD has taken towards implementing each applicable provision of the Consent Decree.
Conclusion
While the VIPD continues to make progress in certain areas, work remains, particularly with respect to the Department’s use, reporting, and investigation of force. The Department should conduct further training to emphasize the requirements of its revised use of force policies, which lie at the heart of the Consent Decree. In addition, to achieve substantial compliance with the entire Consent Decree (and demonstrate substantial compliance to the OIM), the Department must (among other things) put in place a rigorous audit process to determine whether VIPD personnel are complying with the Department’s policies, and to memorialize the VIPD’s progress towards substantial compliance. This will require the audit unit to be fully functional and to work with the Training Division, the IAB, and the working groups to ensure that policies are implemented, that personnel understand and comply with Department policies, and that remedial training or other required action is taken to ensure that VIPD personnel are equipped to carry out Department policies and procedures in their daily policing activities. The VIPD’s audit unit (which has existed in name only for more than a year), must make progress or should be held accountable for its failure to do so.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 87 of 106

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 88 of 106

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 89 of 106 Office of the Independent Monitor | i

Appendix A Summary of Consent Decree Requirements
Below is a summary of the requirements imposed by each substantive section of the Consent Decree. Because these summaries of the substantive requirements significantly lengthen our reports, we include them in this Appendix to provide the reader with context concerning the VIPD’s progress in implementing the broad range of reforms required under each section of the Consent Decree.
I. Use of Force Policies (CD ¶ 31)
A. Requirements
Under paragraph 31 of the Consent Decree, the VIPD is required to review and revise its use of force policies as necessary to:
x Define terms clearly, including establishing a definition of force that is consistent with the definition of force under the Consent Decree;1
x Incorporate a use of force model that teaches officers to use, as appropriate, strategies such as disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, or calling in specialized units to assist with a situation;
x Advise VIPD officers that, whenever possible, individuals should be allowed to submit voluntarily to arrest before force is used;
x Reinforce that the use of excessive force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and potential civil liability;
x Ensure that sufficient less lethal force alternatives are available to all VIPD officers; and
x Explicitly prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized.2

1

Under the Consent Decree, “[t]he term ‘force’ means any physical coercion used

to effect, influence or persuade an individual to comply with an order from an officer.

The term shall not include ordinary, unresisted handcuffing. The term shall include the

use of chemical irritant and the deployment of a canine and/or pointing a firearm at or

in the direction of a human being.” CD ¶ 21.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 90 of 106 ii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

This provision requires that the VIPD implement its revised use of force policies immediately after the DOJ has reviewed and approved finalized versions of the policies.
II. Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force (CD ¶¶ 32-41)
A. General Use of Force Events (CD ¶¶ 32-38)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires that the VIPD document in writing all uses of force and develop a use of force reporting form on which officers are required to record each and every type of force used in an incident. The use of force reports must include: (1) a narrative description, prepared by a supervisor, of the events preceding the use of force; (2) a narrative description, prepared by the involved officer, of the event relating to the use of force incident; and, (3) audiotaped statements, as appropriate, from those officers.3
The Consent Decree requires officers to notify their supervisors following any use of force or allegation of excessive force. The supervisor must respond to the scene, examine the person who was subjected to the use of force for injury, interview him or her to determine the extent of any injuries, and ensure that the person receives medical attention, if necessary.
A supervisor must conduct a review and evaluation of each use of force by a VIPD officer. The Consent Decree contains the following requirements relating to these evaluations of uses of force:
x The supervisor must prepare a detailed narrative description of the incident that includes all of the facts and circumstances relevant to determining whether or not the involved officers’ conduct was justified.

2

The Consent Decree defines “deadly force” as “any use of force likely to cause

death or serious physical injury, including, but not limited to, the discharge of a

firearm.” CD ¶ 20.

3

The Consent Decree defines “supervisor” as a “sworn VIPD employee at the rank

of corporal or above (or anyone acting in those capacities) and non-sworn personnel

with oversight responsibility for other officers.” CD ¶ 27.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 91 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | iii
x The supervisor must evaluate the grounds for the use of force and determine whether the involved officers’ actions were consistent with VIPD policy.
x To filter out potential bias, reviews of use of force incidents may not be conducted by any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized action that led to a use of force or allegation of excessive force.
x Supervisors are required to interview all witnesses of a use of force, as well as all witnesses of any incident in which an injury results from a use of force. Supervisors must ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident, subject to any limitations imposed by any applicable provision of collective bargaining agreements or law.
x Supervisors are not permitted to ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that might, for example, suggest legal justifications for the officers’ conduct.
x Supervisors must consider all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence, as appropriate. Supervisors are required to make reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between statements provided by witnesses and make determinations with respect to the credibility of witnesses when feasible. The VIPD is required to train all of its supervisors on methods and factors for evaluating the credibility of a witness.
x Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that use of force reports identify every officer who was involved in a use of force incident or was on the scene when the incident occurred. Supervisors must ensure that use of force reports reflect whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided to an injured person, and, if not, whether the person refused medical treatment. Supervisors also must ensure that use of force reports include contemporaneous photographs or video of all injuries resulting from the underlying incident. These images must be taken both before and after any treatment of the injuries, including the cleansing of wounds.
x Supervisors are required to evaluate the performance of all officers under their command who use force or were involved in

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 92 of 106 iv| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

an incident that resulted in a subject being injured due to a use of force by an officer.

x Finally, the Consent Decree requires a Deputy Chief to review and evaluate every use of force performance review prepared by a VIPD supervisor. The Deputy Chief’s review must include the identification of any deficiencies in the supervisors’ reviews and must require supervisors to correct any such deficiencies. The Consent Decree requires the Department to hold supervisors accountable for the quality of their use of force reviews, including subjecting a supervisor to appropriate corrective or disciplinary action in cases where the supervisor failed to conduct a timely and thorough review, or failed to recommend or implement appropriate corrective action with respect to a subject officer.

The VIPD also must investigate all critical firearm discharges.4 These reviews must account for all shots fired and the locations of all officers who discharged their weapons. In connection with the investigation of all critical firearm discharges, the VIPD is required to conduct, as appropriate, ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue and bullet trajectory tests.

B. Specific Force Policies (CD ¶¶ 39-41)

1.

Requirements

The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop a Use of Firearms Policy that is consistent with applicable law and current professional standards. This policy must:

x Prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition and inform officers that any such use may subject them to disciplinary action;

x Establish a single, uniform system for reporting all firearm discharges;

x Prohibit officers from obtaining service ammunition from any source other than official VIPD channels;

4

The Consent Decree defines the term “critical firearm discharge” as “each

discharge of a firearm by a VIPD officer with the exception of range and training

discharges and discharges at animals.” CD ¶ 22.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 93 of 106 Office of the Independent Monitor | v

x Specify the number of rounds VIPD officers are authorized to carry; and,
x Require that all discharges of firearms by officers, including unintentional discharges, whether on duty or off-duty at the time of the discharge, are reported and investigated.
The VIPD also must develop a revised policy regarding officers’ offduty conduct that:
x Provides that, absent exigent circumstances, off-duty officers must notify the VIPD or the relevant local law enforcement agency before taking police action; and
x Requires that an officer who responds to an incident while offduty must submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests if it appears that the officer had consumed alcohol or was otherwise impaired at the time of the incident.
Finally, the VIPD is required to implement a policy that provides for an intermediate force device that falls between the use of chemical spray and the use of a firearm on the use of force continuum. This intermediate force device must be one that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The VIPD must incorporate the use of this intermediate force device into its use of force continuum and train officers in the device’s use on an annual basis.
III. Citizen Complaint Process (CD ¶¶ 42-58)
A. Public Information (CD ¶¶ 42-43) & Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints (CD ¶¶ 44-45)

1.

Requirements

The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop and implement a program to inform members of the public that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any VIPD officer. The Consent Decree contains the following requirements with respect to this public information program:

x The VIPD must develop and distribute complaint forms, fact sheets, informational posters, and public service announcements that describe its citizen complaint process.

x The VIPD must make complaint forms and informational materials available at government facilities, including VIPD

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 94 of 106 vi| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

stations, substations, mobile substations, and libraries. These forms and materials also must be available on the Internet and, upon request, with community groups and at community centers.
x Each VIPD station, substation, and mobile substation must permanently post a placard that describes the complaint process and includes relevant contact information, including telephone numbers. These placards must be displayed in English, Spanish, and, where necessary in light of the local community, in French or French Patois.
x VIPD officers are required to carry English, Spanish, French, and French Patois5 versions of complaint forms and informational brochures in their vehicles at all times while on duty.
x If a citizen objects to an officer’s conduct, the officer is required to inform the citizen of his or her right to make a complaint.
x Officers are prohibited from discouraging any person from making a complaint concerning an officer’s conduct.
The Consent Decree imposes the following requirements relating to the availability of means by which members of the public may lodge complaints against VIPD officers and the tracking of such complaints:
x The VIPD must be able to receive complaints filed in writing or orally, in person or by mail, and by telephone (or TDD), facsimile, or electronic mail.
x The duty officer at the front desk of each District station shall be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints. At the intake stage, an officer taking a complaint is permitted to describe facts that relate to a complainant’s demeanor and physical conditions but may not express

5

The OIM notes that paragraph 43 of the Consent Decree does not expressly

require VIPD officers to carry French language complaint forms and informational

brochures in addition to French Patois. However, in light of the third sentence in

paragraph 43 (which requires French language placards describing the complaint

process), the OIM believes that this was an inadvertent omission. For future printings

of brochures and other similar promotional information, the OIM suggests that the

VIPD create versions in English, Spanish, French, and French Patois to satisfy the

intent of the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 95 of 106 Office of the Independent Monitor | vii

opinions regarding the complainant’s mental competency or veracity.

x Upon receipt, the VIPD is required to assign each complaint a unique identifier number, which must be provided to the complainant.

x The VIPD must track each complaint according to the type of misconduct alleged in the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, and improper search).

x Copies of all allegations of misconduct against a VIPD officer that are filed with the Zone Commands shall be referred to the IAB within five business days.

B. Investigation of Complaints (CD ¶¶ 46-58)

1.

Requirements

The Consent Decree establishes numerous specific requirements relating to the investigation of complaints against VIPD officers, including the following:

x Complaints must be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. The VIPD is required to develop and implement appropriate training regarding application of the preponderance of the evidence standard in internal investigations of allegations of officer misconduct.

x The VIPD must explicitly prohibit an officer from being involved in the investigation of a complaint or incident if the officer used force during the underlying incident, was involved in conduct that led to the injury of a person during the incident, or authorized the conduct that led to the reported incident.

x The VIPD must investigate every citizen complaint and the resolution of each complaint shall be documented in writing.

x The VIPD must develop a clear policy and procedure regarding the intake of complaints, including anonymous and confidential complaints, against VIPD officers.

x The Department must implement a centralized system for numbering and tracking all complaints.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 96 of 106
viii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
x IAB is responsible for determining whether each individual investigation of a complaint will be assigned to a Zone, retained by IAB, or referred for possible criminal investigation.
x If IAB refers a complaint to one of the Zones for investigation, the Zone must immediately forward to IAB copies of all documents, findings, and recommendations so that IAB is able to track and monitor the investigation.
x The Police Commissioner must be notified of all complaints alleging excessive force or violation of a person’s Constitutional rights within twenty-four hours of the VIPD’s receipt of the complaint.
The VIPD also is required to develop a single policy governing the investigation of misconduct complaints, regardless of whether the investigation of such complaints is conducted by IAB or a Zone command. This policy must:
x Provide guidance concerning factors for investigators to consider in evaluating the credibility of the complainant and other witnesses, examining and interrogating accused officers and other witnesses, identifying potential misconduct that is not specifically referred to in the complaint, and applying the preponderance of the evidence standard. The VIPD also must train all officers who perform internal investigations on these issues.
x Require that VIPD investigators ensure that all officers present at the scene of the underlying incident provide a statement and that all interviews be recorded, as appropriate, on audio or video.
x Require that investigation findings include conclusions regarding whether:
 The police action was in compliance with policy, training, and legal standards, regardless of whether the complainant suffered harm;
 The incident involved misconduct by any officer;
 The use of different tactics could have, or should have, been employed;

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 97 of 106 Office of the Independent Monitor | ix

 The underlying incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling, or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and
 The incident suggests that the VIPD should revise its policy, training, or tactics.
x Establish that each allegation investigated must be resolved by a finding of either “unfounded,” “sustained,” “not sustained,” or “exonerated.”6
x Provide guidance to all investigators regarding procedures for handling allegations of potential criminal misconduct, including the referral of such allegations to the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office or other appropriate agency for possible criminal prosecution. The policy must establish the entity or individual responsible for making the determination as to whether a matter should be investigated criminally. The policy also must require the completion of the VIPD’s administrative investigations of potentially criminal misconduct, regardless of the initiation or outcome of any criminal proceedings.
x Require that all relevant police activity, including each use of force, be investigated, even if the activity or force was not specifically complained about.
x Require that investigations evaluate any searches or seizures that occurred during the underlying incident.
x Prohibit investigators from closing an investigation solely because a complaint is withdrawn, the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of an injury, or the complainant will not provide additional statements or written statements. The policy shall require that, under such circumstances, investigators must continue the investigation as necessary to determine whether the allegations

6

Under the Consent Decree, a finding of “unfounded” means that there are

insufficient facts establishing that the alleged incident actually occurred. A finding of

“sustained” means that there is sufficient evidence to determine that the alleged

incident occurred and that the officer’s actions were improper. A finding of “not

sustained” means that there is insufficient evidence that the alleged misconduct

occurred. Finally, a finding of “exonerated” means that the alleged conduct occurred

but that the conduct did not violate VIPD policies, procedures, or training. Each of

these findings must be based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. CD ¶ 57.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 98 of 106
x| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
can be resolved based on available information, evidence, and investigative techniques.
x Prohibit investigators from considering the fact that a complainant pleaded guilty to, or was found guilty of, an offense as evidence of whether or not an officer used a type of force or as a justification for the investigator to close the investigation.
The VIPD must keep complainants periodically informed of the status of the investigation of their complaints. Upon the completion of each investigation, the VIPD must notify the complainant of the outcome of the investigation, including an appropriate statement regarding whether any disciplinary action or non-disciplinary corrective action was taken against any officer.
Finally, the Consent Decree requires that Unit Commanders evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command in order to identify potential problems or training needs. Unit Commanders must report any such issues to the appropriate VIPD entity in the form of a recommendation that appropriate action in response to the identified issues be taken.
IV. Management and Supervision (CD ¶¶ 59-72)
A. Risk Management System (CD ¶¶ 59-68)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop and implement a Risk Management System (“RMS”) that includes a computerized relational database or a paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for the supervision and management of VIPD personnel. The VIPD is required to use this data regularly to promote respect for civil rights and the employment of best police practices, manage risks, and potential liability for the Department, and evaluate the performance of VIPD officers and personnel across all ranks, units, and shifts.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 99 of 106 Office of the Independent Monitor | xi

The Consent Decree specifically requires the VIPD to collect and record the following information in its new RMS:
x All uses of force;
x Canine bite ratios;7
x The number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers;
x All injuries to prisoners;
x All instances in which a VIPD officer used force and the subject was charged with resisting arrest, assault on a police officer, disorderly conduct, or obstruction of official or police business;
x All critical firearm discharges, whether they took place on duty or off-duty;
x All complaints against officers and the dispositions of those complaints;
x All criminal proceedings, civil or administrative claims, and civil lawsuits resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel;
x All vehicle pursuits;
x All incidents involving the pointing of a firearm;
x All disciplinary action taken against VIPD officers; and
x For incidents included in the database, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (e.g., the officer’s name, badge number, shift, and supervisor) and member of the public (including race and ethnicity or national origin, if such information is available).
The VIPD has the option either to purchase the RMS “off the shelf” and customize the system to VIPD’s requirements or to develop and

7

A canine bite ratio relates to apprehensions in which a canine unit participated.

It is the ratio of incidents that involved the canine biting or otherwise coming into

physical contact with the suspect compared to the overall number of such

apprehensions in which a canine unit participated.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 100 of 106 xii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

implement the RMS pursuant to a contracting schedule set forth in the Consent Decree.8
Within 120 days of the effective date of the Consent Decree, the VIPD is required to prepare a protocol for the use of the RMS, which must be submitted to DOJ for review and approval. Any proposed modifications to the RMS protocol also must be submitted to DOJ for review and approval prior to the implementation of the proposed modifications. The RMS protocol must contain:
x Provisions regarding data storage, data retrieval, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation, and audit;
x Requirements that the automated system be able to analyze data according to the following criteria:
 The number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit;
 The average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and
 The identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit.
x Requirements relating to the generation of reports on a monthly basis that describe data contained in the RMS and identify patterns of conduct by individual officers and units;
x Requirements that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors initiate appropriate interventions with individual officers, supervisors, and units based on activity and pattern assessments derived from the information contained in the RMS and that the VIPD has the following intervention options available:
 Discussions among Deputy Chiefs, managers, supervisors, and officers;
 Counseling;
 Training; and,

8

See CD ¶ 66.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 101 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | xiii
 Documented action plans and strategies designed to modify officer conduct and activity.
x A requirement that all interventions be documented in writing and entered into the RMS;
x A provision that actions taken as a result of information derived from the RMS be based on all relevant and appropriate information—including the nature of the officer’s assignment, crime trends, and crime problems—and not solely on the number or percentage of incidents in any category of information recorded in the RMS;
x A requirement that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors promptly review the RMS records of all officers who transfer into their sections or units;
x A requirement that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors be evaluated based on their ability to use RMS to enhance the effectiveness of their units and to reduce risks associated with officer conduct;
x Provisions that IAB shall manage and administer the RMS and that IAB shall conduct quarterly audits of RMS to ensure compliance with the RMS protocol; and
x A requirement that appropriate managers conduct regular reviews, at least quarterly, of relevant RMS information to evaluate officer performance across the Virgin Islands. The purpose of such reviews is to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all VIPD units in order to identify significant patterns or series of incidents.
Within 120 days of the implementation of the RMS (or later with the agreement of DOJ), the VIPD must prepare, for the DOJ’s review and approval, a Data Input Plan for including appropriate fields and values for new and historical data entered into the RMS.
x The Data Input Plan must identify the data to be included in the RMS and the means for inputting the data, the specific fields of information to be included in the RMS, the historical time periods for which information will be inputted into the system, deadlines for inputting data, and the persons responsible for the input of data.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 102 of 106
xiv| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
x The Data Input Plan must provide for the input of historical data that is up to date and complete into the RMS.
x Once the RMS is operational, the VIPD is required to enter information into the RMS in a timely, accurate, and complete manner and to maintain the RMS data in a secure and confidential manner.
The VIPD must maintain all personally identifiable information about individual officers that is contained in RMS for at least five years. The VIPD shall maintain information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis in the RMS indefinitely.
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD, even prior to the implementation of the RMS, to use existing databases and resources to the fullest extent possible to identify patterns of conduct by individual VIPD officers or groups of officers.
Following the initial implementation of the RMS, the VIPD may propose to add, subtract, or modify data tables and fields in the system, modify the types of documents entered into the RMS, or modify the standardized reports generated by the RMS. The VIPD is required to submit all such proposals to the DOJ for review and approval prior to implementing the proposed changes.
B. Oversight (CD ¶ 69)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop a protocol for conducting audits within the RMS, which must be followed by the VIPD personnel responsible for conducting audits. The protocol must establish a regular and fixed audit schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency and cover all VIPD Zones.
C. Discipline (CD ¶¶ 70-72)
1. Requirements
The VIPD is required to use a disciplinary matrix to take into account a subject officer’s violations of various rules, as opposed to considering only repeated violations of the same rule. The VIPD must revise its disciplinary matrix to increase penalties for uses of excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, and dishonesty. The revised disciplinary matrix, which must be reviewed and approved by DOJ, is required to provide the VIPD with the discretion to impose any

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 103 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | xv
appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes an officer’s misconduct reflects a lack of fitness for duty.
x Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD is not permitted to take mere non-disciplinary corrective action against an officer in cases in which the revised disciplinary matrix indicates that the imposition of discipline is appropriate.
x In cases in which disciplinary action is imposed on an officer, the VIPD is required to also consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action is necessary.
The VIPD’s policy must identify clear time periods by which each step—from the receipt of a complaint through the imposition of discipline, if any—of the complaint adjudication process should be completed. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions of these deadlines must not be granted without the Police Commissioner’s written approval and notice to the complainant. The policy must outline appropriate tolling provisions in the limited circumstances when an extension of these deadlines is necessary.
V. Training (CD ¶¶ 73-81)
A. Management Oversight (CD ¶¶ 73-77)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to provide training to its officers that is consistent with VIPD policy, the law, and proper police practices. Accordingly, the Consent Decree requires that:
x The VIPD review all use of force policies and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy;
 After completing its initial review of its force-related policies and training programs, the VIPD must conduct regular reviews of its use of force training program at least semi-annually.
x The VIPD must ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by training instructors; and,
x The VIPD must make best efforts to train each work shift as a team in its use of force training.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 104 of 106
xvi| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Under the Consent Decree, the VIPD’s Director of Training, either directly or through his or her designees, is responsible for:
x Ensuring the quality of all use of force training;
x Developing and implementing use of force training curricula;
x Selecting and training VIPD officer instructors;
x Developing, implementing, approving, and overseeing all inservice training;
x In conjunction with the District Chiefs, developing, implementing, approving, and overseeing a protocol for patrol division roll calls that is designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in law, policies, and procedures;
x Establishing procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and
x Conducting regular training needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
The VIPD must keep complete and accurate records of force-related lesson plans and other training materials. These lesson plans must be maintained in a central, commonly accessible file and must be clearly dated.
The VIPD also must maintain training records for every VIPD officer. These records must reliably reflect the training that each officer has received. These records must include, at a minimum, the course description, duration, curriculum, and instructor for each training program in which each individual officer participated.
B. Curriculum (CD ¶¶ 78-81)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD’s Director of Training to review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure that the training program complies with applicable laws and VIPD policy. Moreover, the Director of Training must consult with the Virgin Island Attorney General’s Office concerning any additions, changes, or modifications regarding use of force training or policies to ensure compliance with applicable laws.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 105 of 106
Office of the Independent Monitor | xvii
The VIPD must provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on the use of force. This use of force training must address the following topics:
x The VIPD’s use of force model;
x Proper use of force decision-making;
x The VIPD’s use of force reporting requirements;
x The Fourth Amendment and other Constitutional requirements;
x Examples of scenarios faced by VIPD officers that illustrate proper use of force decision-making;
x De-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without using force;
x Instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a suspect, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying an arrest may be appropriate responses to a situation even when the use of force would be legally justified;
x Threat assessment; and
x Appropriate training regarding conflict management.
The VIPD also is required to provide training to all officers regarding the citizen complaint process. The VIPD must develop a protocol, to be used by all VIPD officers, that sets forth an appropriate process for handling and responding to complaints by members of the public. The VIPD must train officers regarding this protocol.
x The VIPD also is required to train all supervisors with respect to appropriate burdens of proof in conducting misconduct investigations. This training also must include a discussion of the factors investigators should consider in evaluating complainant or witness credibility.
Finally, the VIPD must provide training to all supervisors regarding leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices.
x This training must be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of the officer’s assumption of

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 80-1 Filed: 11/07/13 Page 106 of 106 xviii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

supervisory responsibilities. This training also must be made a part of the annual in-service training of supervisors.

IV.

Monitoring, Reporting, and Implementation

(CD ¶¶ 82-102)

1. Requirements

The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to appoint a full-time Compliance Coordinator to serve as a liaison among the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office, VIPD, the OIM, and DOJ. The Compliance Coordinator’s responsibilities include:

x Coordinating the VIPD’s compliance and implementation activity relating to the Consent Decree;

x Facilitating the provision of data and documents and access to VIPD employees and materials to the Monitor and DOJ as needed;

x Ensuring the proper maintenance of relevant documents and records relating to the Consent Decree; and

x Assisting the Police Commissioner and his designees in assigning compliance-related tasks to appropriate VIPD personnel.

In addition to fulfilling these functions, the VIPD must file with the Monitor and the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office, with a copy to DOJ, quarterly status reports describing the steps taken during the reporting period to comply with each provision of the Consent Decree.

Finally, the Virgin Islands and the VIPD are required to implement the provisions of the Consent Decree “as soon as reasonably practicable” and, in any event, no later than 150 days after the March 23, 2009 effective date of the Consent Decree.

9053659

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 1 of 116
Third Quarterly Report of 2013 of the
Independent Monitor for the
Virgin Islands Police Department
William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel Independent Monitors
Office of the Independent Monitor Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
One New York Plaza New York, NY 10004
212.859.8000 http://www.policemonitor.org
December 18, 2013

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 2 of 116

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 3 of 116
Independent Monitoring Team
Independent Monitors William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
Fried Frank Monitoring Team Elizabeth P. Kozlowski Joshua D. Roth
Police Practices Coordinator Chief Charles A. Gruber Elgin (Illinois) Police Department (retired)
Police Practices Experts Superintendent Ann Marie Doherty Boston (Massachusetts) Police Department (retired) Chief Robert L. Stewart Ormond Beach (Florida) Police Department (retired)

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 4 of 116 Office of the Independent Monitor |
Table of Contents Executive Summary………………………………………………………. 1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………. 5 Compliance Assessment………………………………………………… 13
Use of Force………………………………………………………….. 13 Citizen Complaint Process………………………………………. 33 Management and Supervision………………………………….. 53 Training………………………………………………………………...72 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………88 Appendix A Case Tracking List ………………………………………… i Appendix B Summary of Consent Decree Requirements……….. v

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 5 of 116 Office of the Independent Monitor | 1
Executive Summary

This is the Third Quarterly Report of 2013 from the Office of the Independent Monitor (the “OIM” or the “Monitor”) for the United States Virgin Islands Police Department (the “VIPD” or the “Department”), covering the quarter ending on September 30, 2013.1
In the Third Quarter of 2013, the OIM‟s Police Practices Experts conducted two week-long monitoring trips to the United States Virgin Islands (the “Territory”). During these trips, the Police Practices Experts spent time meeting with and providing technical assistance to VIPD personnel, observing Consent Decree related training, and reviewing closed investigation files and other police records. The assessments contained in this Report are primarily based on the Police Practices Experts‟ observations and the Department‟s quarterly Status Report, dated October 4, 2013 (“VIPD Report”). In addition, there were frequent communications and updates, telephonically and electronically, between the VIPD and the Police Practices Experts during the Third Quarter of 2013, as well as periodic telephone conferences between the VIPD, the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”), the Police Practices Experts, and the Monitors to discuss the VIPD‟s efforts towards substantial compliance with the Consent Decree.
During the Third Quarter of 2013, the Parties filed a joint motion with the Court to extend the Consent Decree‟s October 31, 2013 substantial compliance deadline for another two years. On October 1, 2013, after consultation with the OIM, the Parties submitted a revised action plan to the Court outlining the remaining steps that the Department must take to achieve substantial compliance. The Court‟s decision regarding the extension is pending. The United States District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands (the “Court”) held a full day hearing with testimony on November 18, 2013, to assist the Court in reviewing the status of the VIPD‟s progress towards achieving substantial compliance, and whether the deadlines for achieving substantial compliance should be extended.
Even if the Court agrees to extend the compliance deadline, the VIPD must overcome substantial obstacles, devote additional resources, and hold its personnel (at all levels) accountable in order to make a substantial compliance deadline of October 31, 2015 realistic. First, the VIPD needs to improve its internal auditing capacity and audit its own compliance with the Consent Decree. VIPD audits should document any instances where the Department has not complied with its policies, which includes identifying problems or

1

This Report references a limited number of events that occurred after September 30,

2013 to provide a current assessment of the VIPD‟s compliance status.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 6 of 116
2 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
mistakes, the corrective action taken, and any discipline or other action taken against VIPD personnel who have not complied with Department policy. The VIPD should then report that information to the OIM. This process will enable the VIPD to demonstrate to the OIM (and the Court) that it has the ability to identify non-compliance with its policies and that it has the capacity to correct any issues.
The VIPD has made great strides finalizing policies and providing corresponding training (Phase 1 and 2 Compliance). However, the Department has generally been unable to demonstrate that VIPD personnel are consistently applying those policies and training in their policing (Phase 3 Compliance). In order to achieve Phase 3 Compliance, the VIPD should direct the Audit Unit to begin auditing the Department‟s compliance with each provision in the Consent Decree. As discussed below, although the VIPD‟s Audit Unit has existed (in name only) for more than a year, the Department only approved its Audit Policy during the Third Quarter of 2013. While certain working groups have undertaken audits relating to their respective areas of responsibility, that process has been ad hoc and inconsistent. The VIPD should empower the Audit Unit to do the work it was created to do.
Second, in each Quarterly Report the OIM provides recommendations to the VIPD to help the Department move towards substantial compliance, or, if not specifically required by the Consent Decree, to help strengthen the Department and bring it in line with generally accepted police practices. The VIPD, however, has done little to implement the OIM‟s suggestions, or even respond to them. For example, for many quarters, the OIM has recommended that the Training Division coordinate with the Chiefs, other command staff, and the Internal Affairs Bureau (“IAB”) to ensure that problems identified in the field by the Department‟s Early Intervention Program (“EIP”) are addressed in training. The Department, however, has not demonstrated to the OIM that this is being done. The VIPD should describe any efforts that it takes to implement the OIM‟s recommendations in future VIPD Reports.
Third, we have consistently observed varying levels of compliance with the Consent Decree across the Districts. We recognize the challenges associated with managing a police department based on three islands. However, that is no excuse for the VIPD‟s uneven delivery of police service. The VIPD should hold personnel (regardless of where they are stationed) to the same high standards. The VIPD‟s leadership (as they have done) should continue to emphasize that the VIPD is a single police department with a single organizational mission.
Finally, although the VIPD has made progress reporting uses of force and accepting citizen complaints, work remains with respect to the Department‟s investigation of these cases. For example, the Department has allowed several investigations into police involved shootings, including those with fatalities, to

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 7 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 3
linger incomplete for years; according to the Department‟s Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy, such investigations should be completed within 50 days by the IAB and 120 days by criminal investigators. The Department‟s failure in this regard is a critical deficiency that should be addressed immediately. As the OIM has stated repeatedly, the Department‟s use of force practices lie at the heart of the Consent Decree and the Department will not achieve substantial compliance with the Consent Decree until it complies with these policies by properly reporting and investigating uses of force.
Starting with this Report, the OIM provides Appendix A, a status update on (1) a number of serious use of force, officer misconduct, and citizen complaint investigations, and (2) investigations with no dispositions. During the Second Quarter of 2013, the OIM met with the Parties and agreed to provide this type of information in order to provide more visibility into the Department‟s ongoing investigations. The OIM will monitor these cases to evaluate whether the investigations complied with the Department‟s policies and generally accepted police practices. In future Reports, the OIM will provide further status updates about these investigations, and will add new cases as appropriate.
The Department did not achieve substantial compliance with any additional paragraphs during the Third Quarter of 2013. As previously reported in the First and Second Quarters of 2013, the VIPD has achieved substantial compliance with ¶¶ 31, 39, 40, 42, 47, 50, 52, 53, 62, 64, and 70, largely based on redefining the parameters of compliance so as to only require the development of policies or protocols for those paragraphs. The OIM will evaluate the Department‟s consistent application of these provisions under ¶¶ 100 and 101 of the Consent Decree. In addition, the Department‟s obligation to provide training for the policies and protocols required by ¶¶ 31, 39, 40, 47, 50, 52, 53, 62, 64 and 70 will be assessed in connection with the specific training requirements contained throughout the Consent Decree and ¶ 75.
At the beginning of the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the OIM circulated a “Data Sources Chart” to the Parties describing, in detail, the type of documents that the VIPD should provide to the OIM to help demonstrate compliance with each Consent Decree provision. The OIM intends to use the Data Sources Chart to evaluate the VIPD‟s and the Territory‟s compliance with the Consent Decree beginning in the First Quarter of 2014.
Finally, in response to comments from the Parties, the OIM is making progress towards publishing our Quarterly Reports more quickly. However, the OIM spends a significant amount of time each quarter interpreting the VIPD‟s quarterly Status Reports in order to incorporate their substance into our Quarterly Reports. This is not always easy to do because of the quality and substance of the VIPD‟s Status Reports. For each Consent Decree provision,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 8 of 116
4 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
the VIPD should clearly identify the steps that it took towards compliance during the prior quarter; any obstacles that the VIPD encountered; proposed solutions to overcome any obstacles; and whether the VIPD contends that it has complied. We recognize that the VIPD relies on the working groups to provide much of the information for each quarterly Status Report. As such, we also encourage the working groups to submit clearly written and organized work product to the Compliance Coordinator and Compliance Manager; to the extent that the Compliance Coordinator and Compliance Manager are not satisfied with the work product that they receive, they should promptly return it to the working groups for revision. The Commissioner (along with the Assistant Commissioner, Chiefs, and Deputy Chiefs) should also carefully review and approve each quarterly Status Report before it is provided to the OIM.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 9 of 116 Office of the Independent Monitor | 5
Introduction

This is the Third Quarterly Report of 2013 from the Office of the Independent Monitor (the “OIM” or the “Monitor”) for the United States Virgin Islands Police Department (the “VIPD” or the “Department”), covering the quarter ending on September 30, 2013.
The OIM was established in January 2010 to monitor compliance by the United States Virgin Islands (the “Territory”) and the VIPD with the Consent Decree entered by the United States District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands (the “Court”) on March 23, 2009. The Monitor is required by the Consent Decree to “issue quarterly written, public reports detailing the Territory‟s compliance with and implementation of each substantive provision” of the Consent Decree.2
The Consent Decree reflects the agreement between the Territory, the VIPD, and the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) (collectively, the “Parties”) to resolve a lawsuit brought by the United States alleging that the Territory and the VIPD violated 42 U.S.C. § 14141 by engaging “in a pattern or practice of excessive force by Officers of the Virgin Islands Police Department and by the failure to adequately train, supervise, investigate, and discipline Officers.”3
The Parties entered into the Consent Decree “to promote police integrity and prevent conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.”4 The 104 paragraph Consent Decree contains a broad range of substantive requirements for reform in areas such as: (1) revising the VIPD‟s force-related policies; (2) training Officers to properly use force in accordance with constitutional requirements, VIPD policy, and existing best practices in policing; (3) reporting and investigating use of force events; (4) documenting and investigating complaints alleging Officer misconduct; (5) developing systems for managing and supervising Officers; and (6) disciplining Officers found to have engaged in misconduct.
On October 1, 2010, the Court—charged with enforcing the VIPD‟s obligations under the Consent Decree—ordered the Parties to jointly propose a timetable by which the VIPD would substantially comply with each substantive provision in the Consent Decree. The Parties subsequently filed a timetable on

2

CD ¶ 96. This Quarterly Report, along with the OIM‟s prior reports, is available on the

internet at http://www.policemonitor.org/VI/VIindex.html.

3

CD ¶ 6; see also Complaint, United States v. The Territory of the Virgin Islands, No. 3:08-

CV-00158-CVG-GWB (D.V.I. 2008).

4

CD ¶ 3.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 10 of 116 6 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

November 24, 2010 that set forth specific dates by which the VIPD would substantially comply with each substantive provision in the Consent Decree (the “Consent Decree Timetable”). The Consent Decree Timetable also created interim deadlines for the VIPD to submit force-related policies to the DOJ for approval. The VIPD successfully met nearly every policy submission deadline. However, by the end of the Third Quarter of 2011, the VIPD had missed all of the remaining deadlines for substantial compliance established by the Courtordered Consent Decree Timetable (deadlines that the VIPD proposed and committed to meeting). For example, under the Consent Decree Timetable, the VIPD was required to substantially comply with Consent Decree ¶¶ 32-58, 70, and 72 by May 31, 2011, ¶¶ 60, 61, and 73-81 by June 30, 2011, and ¶¶ 49, 59, and 63-66 by September 15, 2011. To date, the VIPD has complied with ¶¶ 31, 39, 40, 42, 47, 50, 52, 53, 62, and 70.
In January 2011, to encourage compliance within the timeframe of the Consent Decree Timetable, the then Commissioner convened a Consent Decree Summit on St. Thomas on January 3 and 4, 2011 (the “Summit”).5 At the Summit, the Commissioner appointed senior VIPD personnel to lead, and ultimately be held accountable for, different aspects of the Consent Decree— Use of Force (Chief of the St. Croix District),6 Citizen Complaint Process (Chief of the St. Thomas/St. John District),7 Management and Supervision (Deputy Chief of St. Thomas), and Training (Director of Training). The Commissioner explained that each working group leader was responsible for: (1) designating a “point person” and recruiting other working group members; (2) drafting an action plan; (3) interacting with other VIPD personnel on interrelated Consent Decree issues; and (4) monitoring the working group‟s progress by attending and participating in as many meetings as schedules permit, but no less than twice a month.8
During the First Quarter of 2013, the OIM began assessing the VIPD‟s compliance with the Consent Decree in 3 phases—Phase 1: Policy; Phase 2:

5

The OIM discussed the Summit in detail in the Fourth Quarterly Report of 2010 and the

First Quarterly Report of 2011. For more information about the Summit, including objectives

and participants, see the Consent Decree Summit Appendix B at the end of those Reports.

6

Following on-duty injuries sustained by the Chief of the St. Croix District during the

Third Quarter of 2012, the Deputy Chief of St. Croix assumed responsibility as Acting Chief of

the St. Croix District and Acting Leader of the Use of Force working group. The Acting Chief

appointed a Captain as his point person, and she has recruited new members and commenced

regular meetings of the working group.

7

The Citizen Complaint Process working group is now led by the Deputy Chief of St.

John.

8

Memorandum from the Commissioner to various VIPD personnel, titled “Meeting

Current Standards of Policing,” dated January 19, 2011. The OIM‟s Police Practices Experts

also provided the working group leaders with a memorandum outlining their respective

responsibilities. During the Third Quarter of 2013, the Police Practices experts regularly

exchanged emails and telephone calls with their counterparts and met in person during the

quarter‟s monitoring trips.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 11 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 7
Training; Phase 3: Consistent Application. Phase 1 assesses whether the VIPD has issued policies reflecting the Consent Decree requirements. Phase 2 assesses whether the VIPD has provided initial and ongoing training (e.g., annual in-service training, Roll and Commanders Call training) on these policies. Phase 3 assesses whether the VIPD demonstrates consistent application of the Department‟s policies in its everyday policing activities. Certain phases may not be applicable to all Consent Decree requirements. For example, the provisions relating to training (¶¶ 75-79) primarily concern the training process, rather than training on a particular policy. Therefore, Phase 1 will not be applicable to those provisions. Moreover, where Phase 1 is not applicable because there is no required policy, Phase 2 will focus on steps towards execution, including training. As previously reported, the VIPD achieved substantial compliance with ¶ 42 of the Consent Decree during the First Quarter of 2013.
Beginning during the Second Quarter of 2013 and based on extensive discussions with and input from the VIPD, the Virgin Islands Attorney General‟s Office (“VIAG”), and the DOJ, the OIM modified its assessment criteria for the Consent Decree paragraphs that only require the Department to develop a policy or protocol. Under this approach, the VIPD has achieved substantial compliance with ¶¶ 31, 39, 40, 47, 50, 52, 53, 62, 64, and 70 because it has adopted relevant policies or protocols. Because the Consent Decree requires the VIPD to “implement . . . all provisions of this Agreement that involve the continuation of current VIPD policies, procedures, and practices[,]” the OIM will evaluate the Department‟s consistent application of its policies and protocols (Phase 3, described above) under ¶¶ 100 and 101 of the Consent Decree. In addition, the Department‟s obligation to provide training for its policies and protocols is addressed in connection with specific training requirements throughout the Consent Decree and ¶ 75. The VIPD did not achieve substantial compliance with any additional paragraphs during the Third Quarter of 2013.
In the Third Quarter of 2013, the Police Commissioner appointed Department veteran Thomas Hannah as Assistant Commissioner. The OIM congratulates Assistant Commissioner Hannah on his appointment and looks forward to working with him on the Department‟s efforts to achieve substantial compliance with the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 12 of 116 8 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

Status of Substantial Compliance

Consent Decree ¶
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Phase 1 Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied

Phase 2 N/A
Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied
N/A N/A Satisfied

Phase 3 N/A
Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied
N/A N/A Not Satisfied

Compliance Status
Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 13 of 116 Office of the Independent Monitor | 9

Consent Decree ¶
42 43
44
45
46 47 48
49 50 51 52 53

Phase 1 Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied

Phase 2 N/A
Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied
N/A Satisfied Satisfied N/A Satisfied N/A N/A

Phase 3 N/A
Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied
N/A Not Satisfied Not Satisfied
N/A Not Satisfied
N/A N/A

Compliance Status
Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 14 of 116 10 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

Consent Decree ¶
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

Phase 1 Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied

Phase 2 Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied N/A Satisfied N/A

Phase 3 Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied
N/A Not Satisfied
N/A

Compliance Status
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 15 of 116 Office of the Independent Monitor | 11

Consent Decree ¶
65
66 67 68 69 70 71
72
73
74
75
76

Phase 1 Satisfied Satisfied
N/A N/A Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied N/A N/A N/A N/A

Phase 2 Satisfied Satisfied
N/A N/A Satisfied N/A Satisfied Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied

Phase 3 Not Satisfied Not Satisfied
N/A N/A Not Satisfied N/A Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied

Compliance Status
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
N/A
N/A
Not in Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 16 of 116 12 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

Consent Decree ¶
77
78
79
80
81

Phase 1 N/A N/A N/A
Satisfied Satisfied

Phase 2 Satisfied Satisfied Not Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied

Phase 3 Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied

Compliance Status
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 17 of 116 Office of the Independent Monitor | 13

Compliance Assessment

This section of the Report describes the VIPD‟s compliance efforts with respect to each of the substantive provisions of the Consent Decree,9 as well as monitoring activities by the OIM‟s Police Practices Experts during the quarter. The organization of this section of the Report parallels the organization of the Consent Decree. Specifically, we provide a status and assessment discussion that describes and analyzes the VIPD‟s progress toward achieving substantial compliance with the Consent Decree‟s requirements.10 We include recommendations to assist the VIPD in achieving full and timely implementation of the Consent Decree‟s requirements.11
Use of Force Policies

Joint Action Plan Requirements

Joint Action Plan Requirements By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system) and periodically test proficiency with the policies. By November 30, 2012, ensure that the Virgin Islands Attorney General‟s Office, the Training Working Group, and the Use of Force Working Group review all use of force policies.

Status Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department has such a tracking system.
Not satisfied. The Use of Force working group reported during the First Quarter of 2013 that it planned to review one use of force policy every two weeks. The working group repeatedly said that it would provide the OIM with completed review forms, but the OIM never received any. Later in the quarter, the Department determined that a review protocol was needed to establish a uniform procedure for reviewing policies before it could proceed further. The VIPD drafted a Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”) to “facilitate a systematic review process for the

9

A summary of the Consent Decree requirements is excerpted at Appendix A. A copy of

the full text of the Consent Decree is available at:

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/VIPD_CD_03-23-09.pdf.

10

The Consent Decree provides that “[t]he Monitor shall issue quarterly written, public

reports detailing the Territory of the Virgin Islands‟ compliance with and implementation of

each substantive provision of [the] Agreement.” CD ¶ 96.

11

CD ¶ 85.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 18 of 116 14 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

By November 30, 2012, conduct Use of Force reviews on a quarterly basis.

annual review of all department policies, and particularly use of force and other force related polices….” The SOP was submitted to the Policies and Procedures Committee (the “Committee”) during the First Quarter of 2013 for its review. After reviewing the SOP, the Committee submitted it to the Commissioner for his review during the Third Quarter of 2013. The Commissioner signed the SOP during the Fourth Quarter of 2013. Not satisfied. The OIM has learned that the VIPD has a command level review process for individual force cases in each District. However, the VIPD does not conduct quarterly reviews of force cases for patterns of misconduct, weaknesses in training, or other issues related to use of force. In addition, the Department has not provided the OIM with any documentation from the command level review process.

By November 30, 2012, VIPD will provide DOJ with an action plan for achieving sufficient numbers of supervisors or outlining how it intends to use existing supervisors to implement the polices and this action plan. The plan will include an implementation date subject to the agreement of the parties.

Satisfied, but additional work needed. On December 31, 2012, the DOJ provided comments on the VIPD‟s action plan. Among other things, the DOJ sought clarification on what, if anything, the VIPD plans to do if there is a lack of funding for new Supervisors. Recognizing the Department‟s fiscal constraints, the VIPD should address that possibility and plan accordingly.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 19 of 116 Office of the Independent Monitor | 15

By November 30, 2012, conduct inspections of personnel with report on a quarterly basis.

Not satisfied. Documentation for inspections conducted in the St. Croix District following training was provided to the OIM during the Second Quarter of 2013. The VIPD has not trained personnel, conducted inspections, or provided similar documentation for the St. Thomas/St. John District.

By January 31, 2013, competencybased training of officers and supervisors on remaining policies 3.8 Off-Duty Policy 3.9 Vehicle Pursuit Policy 3.10 Spike Strip 3.12 Tactical Operations 3.13 Sniper Operations

Not satisfied. The VIPD has provided training on the Off-Duty Policy and Sniper Operations and train-thetrainer training on the Vehicle Pursuit Policy and Spike Strip. The VIPD provided in-service training on additional policies during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013. The VIPD has not provided the OIM with a report about these policies. Moreover, recent training does not appear to correspond with improved compliance, especially as it pertains to off-duty activities.

Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic inservice and Roll Call/Commanders Call training. By January 31, 2013, incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy.

Not satisfied. Although the VIPD has provided the OIM with attendance sheets and brief descriptions of Roll Call and Commanders Call training, the OIM needs more detailed information about the subject matter being covered. Likewise, the OIM cannot determine whether the VIPD has adequately incorporated competency-based training on policies into the Police Academy because the VIPD has not provided the OIM with a full set of lesson plans and related training materials.

By January 31, 2013, execute any contract(s) necessary to train supervisors or others responsible for conducting ballistic or crime scene analyses. By March 31, 2013,

Not satisfied. The VIPD has a contract with an outside vendor to analyze ballistics, but there is currently a backlog. Additionally, the VIPD has not provided any

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 20 of 116 16 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

conduct the training.
By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of 1As and arrest reports). By June 30, 2013, develop and implement a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to report uses of force or otherwise fail to follow the policy and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training. By June 30, 2013, ensure that audits audit the timeliness of completion of use of force investigations.

documentation that it has trained VIPD personnel on ballistics. There is a backlog of use of force investigations that cannot be resolved because of outstanding ballistics reports. The VIPD has allowed several investigations into police-involved fatal shootings to linger for years; according to the Department‟s Reporting, Investigation and Use of Force Policy, investigations should be completed within 50 days by the IAB and 120 days by criminal investigators. Not Satisfied. The VIPD continued to work on its audit tools during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013. The VIPD received DOJ approval for its audit tools during the Fourth Quarter of 2013. Not satisfied. The VIPD has started to conduct audits relating to the Department‟s use of force practices, but has not provided the OIM with documentation showing that it has consistently implemented such a process in both Districts. Not satisfied. The VIPD has started to conduct audits relating to the timely completion of use of force investigations, but has not provided the OIM with documentation showing that it has consistently implemented such a process in both Districts.

By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop and implement a process for identifying supervisors who neglect their responsibilities to investigate as required by policy and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of firearm

Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation showing that the Department has implemented such a process.
Not Satisfied. The VIPD continued to work on its audit tools during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013. The VIPD received DOJ approval for

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 21 of 116 Office of the Independent Monitor | 17

discharge reporting).

its audit tools during the Fourth Quarter of 2013.

31. The VIPD will review and revise its use of force policies as necessary to: a) define terms clearly; b) define force as that term is defined in this Agreement; c) incorporate a use of force model that teaches disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements or calling in specialized units as appropriate responses to a situation; d) advise that, whenever possible, individuals should be allowed to submit to arrest before force is used; e) reinforce that the use of excessive force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and/or civil liability; f) ensure that sufficient less lethal alternatives are available to all patrol officers; and g) explicitly prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized. Once the DOJ has reviewed and approved these policies, the VIPD shall immediately implement any revisions.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 31 of the Consent Decree. Because ¶ 31 of the Consent Decree only requires the Department to develop a policy, Phase 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the VIPD is in substantial compliance with ¶ 31 of the Consent Decree.
32. The VIPD will require all uses of force to be documented in writing. The use of force report form will indicate each and every type of force that was used, and require the evaluation of each type of force. Use of force reports will include a narrative description of the events preceding the use of force, written by a supervisor or by the designated investigative unit. Use of force reports also will include the officer(s)’ narrative description of events and the officer(s)’ statement. Except in cases of use of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, the officer’s statement shall be audio- or videotaped.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 32 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 32 of the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 22 of 116
18 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that Department personnel are required to document all uses of force using the Response to Resistance Report (“RRR”) form. The VIPD also reports that it uses IAPro to identify personnel who continually fail to report uses of force or comply with VIPD policy. During the Third Quarter of 2013, the VIPD (using IAPro) identified use of force and citizen complaint investigations involving alleged violations of Department policy, and disseminated a report identifying those investigations to senior VIPD personnel. According to the VIPD, IAPro has been configured to provide “alerts” about potential misconduct to supervisory personnel.
The VIPD also reports that it is developing an “internal self assessment system” in which the working groups will conduct inspections, reviews, and/or audits relating to their respective areas of responsibility.
OIM Report:
The VIPD has issued the Use of Force Policy, Reportable Use of Force Policy, and the Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy in partial satisfaction of ¶ 32 of the Consent Decree.
During the Third Quarter of 2013, the VIPD provided the Police Practices Experts with only 3 closed use of force investigations and 1 closed citizen complaint investigation for review. Despite requesting that the VIPD electronically forward all completed investigations to the OIM for review, the OIM learned during the Third Quarter of 2013 that the VIPD was unclear about its responsibility. The confusion, however, has been resolved and the VIPD forwarded completed use of force and serious misconduct investigations to the OIM during the Fourth Quarter of 2013. In addition, as reported during the previous quarter, the VIPD and the Police Practices Experts are collaborating to allow remote access to IAPro and Blue Team, which will provide the Police Practices Experts with real-time access to closed investigations.
The OIM‟s Police Practices Experts reviewed the four closed investigations referenced above to help evaluate the Department‟s use of force reporting practices. Throughout the Report, certain statistics may be calculated from a total number of less than 4 because: (1) the Police Practices Experts were unable to draw certain conclusions based on the information included in the investigative files; (2) a Consent Decree requirement was not applicable to all investigations, in which case we used the total number of applicable investigations; or (3) the particular requirement was not assessed during the Third Quarter of 2013 by the Police Practices Experts. Because of the limited sample size, the statistics contained in this report may not ultimately prove to be representative of the VIPD‟s performance overall.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 23 of 116 Office of the Independent Monitor | 19

Notwithstanding these limitations, the statistics contained in this Report still provide insight into the Department‟s progress.
For example, based on the Police Practices Experts‟ review of the closed use of force investigations, the OIM concluded that VIPD personnel reported force using an RRR in 3 out of 3 of the closed investigations reviewed during the Third Quarter of 2013; Supervisors described the events preceding the use of force and evaluated the appropriateness of each type of force used in 2 out of 3 of the investigation files; 3 out of 3 of the investigation files included the Officer‟s description of events preceding the use of force; the RRRs in 3 out of 3 of the investigation files indicated the type of force used; and 1 out of 3 of the investigations were completed within the timeline required under Department policy.
Although the Department‟s use of force reporting practices have generally improved over the past several quarters, the VIPD continues to struggle with completing investigations within the required timeline. The VIPD has acknowledged that it needs to do better in this regard. For example, on July 10, 2013, the Deputy Chief for the St. Croix District sent a memorandum to all Commanders, Bureau Heads, and Unit and Section Supervisors emphasizing the importance of completing reports on a timely basis, and stating that delinquent Officers (along with their Supervisors) would be disciplined for failing to do so. The Deputy Chief directed that all police reports should be completed by the end of an Officer‟s shift. The Deputy Chief also provided delinquent Officers with a ten day grace period to submit any outstanding reports, and stated that he would hold violators accountable. We note that the Deputy Chief for St. John previously circulated a similar memorandum in St. John. The OIM commends the VIPD for taking these positive steps. However, in order to achieve substantial compliance, the VIPD must follow through and hold personnel accountable if they fail to complete reports on a timely basis. The VIPD should report on whether the Deputy Chiefs‟ efforts to increase compliance were successful and whether corrective action or discipline was taken against any VIPD personnel for non-compliance.
The VIPD reviewed a completed use of force investigation during the Third Quarter of 2013 that highlighted several recurring deficiencies that we have seen in other use of force investigations.12 In the underlying incident, an off-duty Officer (“Officer 1”) identified a suspect in a robbery, ordered him to stop, and ultimately forced him to the ground (with assistance from a second Officer (“Officer 2”)) after the suspect ignored Officer 1‟s order and attempted to walk away. After the suspect was arrested, a third Officer (“Officer 3”) transported the suspect to the Zone because a crowd had reportedly formed outside the bar where the incident took place. Five days after the incident (RRRs are supposed to be completed before the end of an Officer‟s tour), Officer

12

See FX2013-0028.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 24 of 116
20 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
2 submitted a RRR stating that he used “soft hands” to “take down” the suspect. Following his arrest, the suspect provided a statement in which he alleged that the police beat him.
As discussed further below, the VIPD‟s investigation was deficient in several respects: (1) Officer 2 filed a RRR five days after the incident took place; (2) the investigation did not address how Officer 1 came into contact with the suspect (was Officer 1 “moonlighting” at the bar, and if so, was it authorized, was he a customer at the bar, and if so, had he consumed alcohol, etc.); (3) the investigation did not address whether Officer 1 complied with the Off-Duty Official Action Policy; (4) a Supervisor never responded to the scene to conduct an investigation; (5) Officer 3 never provided a statement about the suspect‟s injuries, if any, or the crowd that had formed; and (6) the VIPD never canvassed the crowd or conducted any civilian interviews.
Recommendations:
Under certain circumstances the OIM can require the VIPD to reopen use of force and citizen complaint investigations that are incomplete or inadequate.13 While the VIPD may not be required to reopen the use of force investigation described above because it occurred too long ago, the VIPD should use the investigation as a learning opportunity to understand what went wrong and how to do better in the future.
The Department should also seek to improve the timeliness of its use of force reporting. Under the Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy, VIPD personnel are required to report uses of force, to the extent practicable, before the end of the tour during which force was used. Although the VIPD has improved its use of force reporting, VIPD personnel continue to report force on a delayed basis. Delays in the reporting process frustrate use of force investigations by effectively shortening the 50-day statute of limitations period and potentially rendering evidence stale or unavailable.
As we have stated previously, the full and timely reporting of force is a cornerstone requirement of the Consent Decree. The Use of Force working group, Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Chiefs, and Deputy Chiefs should continue to audit Arrest Reports and Form 1As to determine the extent to which force is being reported across the Districts. Based on those audits, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to report the use of force. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work with the Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, the IAB, and the Training Division to provide remedial training or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions, as necessary. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.

13

See CD ¶ 87.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 25 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 21
33. Officers shall notify their supervisors following any use of force [or]14 upon the receipt of an allegation of excessive force. Except in uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, supervisors will respond to the scene, examine the subject for injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain, and ensure that the subject received needed medical attention.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 33 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 33 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it has adopted policies relating to ¶¶ 31 - 41 of the Consent Decree and provided related training through in-service, Roll Call, and Commanders Call sessions. The VIPD reports that it previously drafted an Audit Plan, which it resubmitted to the OIM during the Third Quarter of 2013 for comments. The Audit Plan identifies audit objectives and the methods that the Department will use to carry out audits.
The VIPD also reports that it is developing an Audit Unit to test whether VIPD personnel are complying with Consent Decree-related policies. During the Third Quarter of 2013, the Department finalized an Audit and Inspection Policy to guide the Audit Unit‟s work. The Department reports that training on the Audit and Inspection Policy was scheduled to take place in the St. Thomas/St. John District from October 14-18, 2013 and in the St. Croix District from October 21-25, 2013; those trainings took place as scheduled. Based on the course description, the training was supposed to cover the following subject areas: introduction to the inspection and auditing process; developing audit and inspection plans, audit guidelines, and standards; conducting law enforcement audits, assessments, and organizational reviews; preparing and disclosing inspections; and auditing and preparing written reports with professional recommendations and solutions. Additionally, as part of the VIPD‟s “self assessment strategy,” the VIPD reports that each working group is expected to conduct inspections or audits relating to its respective area of responsibility.

14

During the First Quarter of 2013 the Parties jointly filed a motion to correct or amend

the Court‟s Order, dated December 13, 2012, by inserting “or” into the first sentence of ¶ 33 of

the Consent Decree. The Court granted the Parties‟ motion.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 26 of 116
22 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
OIM Report:
The Police Practices Experts reviewed 3 completed use of force investigation files during the Third Quarter of 2013 to evaluate the Department‟s use of force reporting practices. Among other things, that review showed that Officers timely notified Supervisors following a use of force in 3 out of 3 of the investigations, and that Supervisors responded to the scene and conducted an investigation in 1 out of 3 of the investigations.
While Officers appear to notify Supervisors about uses of force on a consistent basis, Supervisors are not consistently responding to the scene to conduct investigations. The OIM has raised this issue with the VIPD. The VIPD has explained that its Supervisors are stretched too thin and cannot respond to the scene of each use of force. As such, according to the VIPD, Supervisors are forced to make triage-like decisions about whether to respond to the scene of a particular use of force or carry out other aspects of their job. However, the VIPD has never explained on a case-by-case basis why a Supervisor was unable to respond to the scene of a particular use of force. For example, why is it that a Supervisor did not respond to the scene of the use of force described in ¶ 32?
The VIPD has informed the OIM that it intends to hold promotional examinations in January 2014. We are hopeful that the VIPD will be able to add a significant number of additional Supervisors to its ranks based on those examinations because the VIPD currently has too few Supervisors. The Territory (which is a party to the Consent Decree) and its governing authority (the legislature and the governor) need to take responsibility for this issue and provide the VIPD with the funding necessary to provide adequate supervision. The Police Practices Experts have repeatedly advised the VIPD that when Supervisors assume command and control of an incident, there are typically fewer citizen complaints and less force is employed, yielding clear benefits to the VIPD and the public. Without adding additional qualified Supervisors, the OIM does not believe that the VIPD will be able to achieve and/or maintain substantial compliance.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should proceed with its plan to hold promotional examinations in January 2014. In order to promote the best people, the Department should encourage high performing personnel who are eligible to take the promotional exams. Once the examinations are administered and the results determined, the VIPD should promptly proceed to promotions.
For the time being, however, the VIPD should do its best to ensure that Supervisors are responding to the scene of use of force incidents as required by VIPD policy. To the extent that a Supervisor is unable to respond to a

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 27 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 23
particular use of force, the VIPD should document the circumstances that prevented a Supervisor from responding. That documentation will help the Department assess its supervisory needs and hold Supervisors accountable for their decisions. Responding to uses of force should be a high priority for Supervisors, and very few other duties will justify a Supervisor‟s absence. Moreover, even though a particular Supervisor‟s absence may be understandable under the circumstances, it will not excuse the Department from complying with this provision. It is the VIPD‟s and the Territory‟s obligation under the Consent Decree to provide adequate supervision, even if that means allocating additional funding for that purpose.
The Use of Force working group, Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Chiefs, and Deputy Chiefs should audit whether Officers are notifying their Supervisors following any use of force or allegation of excessive use of force. They should also audit, among other things required by the Consent Decree, whether Supervisors are responding to the scene of a use of force in a timely manner, examining the subject for injury, interviewing the subject for complaints of pain, and ensuring that the subject receives needed medical attention. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
34. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, will review, evaluate, and document each use of force, and will complete the narrative description section of the use of force report. The narrative description will include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer’s conduct. As part of this review, the supervisor or designated investigating officer/unit will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officer’s actions were within VIPD policy. An officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized conduct leading to the use of force or allegation of excessive force, or who was present during the incident, will not be eligible to review of investigate the incident.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 34 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 34 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
As reported above, the VIPD has adopted policies relating to ¶¶ 31 - 41 of the Consent Decree and provided corresponding training through in-service,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 28 of 116
24 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Roll Call, and Commanders Call sessions. The VIPD also reports that it is developing an Audit Unit to test whether VIPD personnel are complying with Consent Decree-related policies. The VIPD will provide additional information about its audits in future quarterly Status Reports.
OIM Report:
Based on the Police Practices Experts‟ review of completed use of force investigations during the Third Quarter of 2013, we concluded that Supervisors included a narrative describing the facts and circumstances that justified or failed to justify the Officer‟s conduct in 3 out of 3 of the investigations. In 2 out of 3 of the completed use of force investigations, Supervisors evaluated the basis for the use of force; in 3 out of 3 of the investigations, Supervisors determined whether the Officer‟s actions were within VIPD policy; and 3 out of 3 of the investigations were conducted by Supervisors who were not directly involved in the use of force incident.
Despite improvements in the VIPD‟s investigations of uses of force, the VIPD continues to commit certain errors, including failing to complete investigations in the timeframe required by Department policy, failing to collect all evidence, failing to interview all witnesses, or failing to report force.
Recommendations:
The Use of Force working group, Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Chiefs, and Deputy Chiefs should audit whether Supervisors are conducting adequate use of force investigations. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM. They should also audit Form 1As and Arrest Reports to determine the extent to which force is being reported across the Districts. Based on these audits, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to report uses of force. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work in concert with the Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, the IAB, and the Training Division to provide remedial training, or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions, as necessary. The Use of Force working group‟s audits should also include a review of investigations by Supervisors or Commanders whose force reviews have previously failed to meet the requirements of ¶ 34.
35. The parties agree that it is improper interview procedure during use of force investigations to ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer’s conduct when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. In each review/investigation, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. The VIPD will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 29 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 25
statements. The VIPD will train all of its supervisors and officers assigned to conduct use of force investigations in conducting use of force investigations, including in the factors to consider when evaluating credibility.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 35 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 35 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
As reported above, the VIPD has adopted policies relating to ¶¶ 31 - 41 of the Consent Decree and provided corresponding training through in-service, Roll Call, and Commanders Call sessions. The VIPD also reports that it is developing an Audit Unit to test whether VIPD personnel are complying with Consent Decree-related policies. The VIPD will provide additional information about its audits in future quarterly Status Reports.
OIM Report:
The OIM was not able to assess the VIPD‟s compliance with ¶ 35 of the Consent Decree during the Third Quarter of 2013 because the VIPD did not provide the Police Practices Experts with recorded witness statements or interviews. Without those recordings, we cannot evaluate, among other things, whether investigators used leading questions, whether there were material inconsistencies between witness statements, and whether any such inconsistencies were resolved appropriately.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should provide the OIM with copies of any recorded witness statements or interviews relating to use of force and citizen complaint investigations. During the Third Quarter of 2013, the VIPD began video recording certain training programs at the OIM‟s request. Given the size of those video recordings, the VIPD typically loads them onto an external hard drive to be delivered to the OIM (the external hard drive is then returned to the VIPD to be used again for the same purpose). The VIPD should use the same process to provide the OIM with recorded witness statements and interviews.
The VIPD should also require Supervisors to identify the universe of relevant evidence and document what each piece means to the case under review. We also recommend that the VIPD provide refresher training to Supervisors on making credibility determinations and drawing inferences from

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 30 of 116
26 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
those determinations. It is also critical for the VIPD to follow-up with witnesses who may not initially be available because Supervisors cannot effectively evaluate uses of force without reviewing all of the relevant evidence.
The Use of Force working group, Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Chiefs, and Deputy Chiefs should audit use of force investigations to determine the extent to which Supervisors are complying with the requirements of ¶ 35 of the Consent Decree. Based on these audits, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work in concert with the Chiefs, the Deputy Chiefs, the IAB, and the Training Division to provide remedial training, or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions, as necessary.
36. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall conduct an investigation of all uses of force or injury resulting from a use of force by any officer under their command. This requirement does not apply to uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ. In an investigation, supervisors or designated investigating officers or units, shall interview all witnesses to a use of force or an injury resulting from a use of force. Consistent with the requirements of the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable law, VIPD supervisors or designated investigating officers or units shall ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all use of force reports for all levels of force identify all officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports for all levels of force indicate whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided, and whether the subject refused medical treatment. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports include contemporaneous photographs or videotapes taken of all injuries at the earliest practicable opportunity, both before and after any treatment, including cleansing of wounds.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 36 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 36 of the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 31 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 27
VIPD Report:
As reported above, the VIPD has adopted policies relating to ¶¶ 31 - 41 of the Consent Decree and provided corresponding training through in-service, Roll Call, and Commanders Call training. The VIPD also reports that it is developing an Audit Unit to test whether VIPD personnel are complying with Consent Decree-related policies. The VIPD will provide additional information about its audits in future quarterly Status Reports.
OIM Report:
Based on the Police Practices Experts‟ review of completed use of force investigations during the Third Quarter of 2013, we concluded that Officers who witnessed a use of force provided written statements in 3 out of 3 of the completed use of force investigations. Officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred were identified in 3 out of 3 of the investigations. In 1 out of 1 of the investigations where an Officer or citizen was injured, the investigation file contained photographs of the injuries.
Recommendations:
The Use of Force working group should audit investigations to determine the extent to which Supervisors are complying with the requirements of ¶ 36 of the Consent Decree. Based on these audits, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work in concert with the Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, the IAB, and the Training Division to provide remedial training, or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions, as necessary. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
37. All investigations into use of force shall be reviewed by the Officer’s Commander and/or Director, or by a Commander and/or Director in the designated investigative unit, who shall identify any deficiencies in those reviews, and shall require supervisors, or designated investigative officers or units, to correct any and all deficiencies. Supervisors, and designated investigative officers or units, will be held accountable for the quality of their reviews. Appropriate non-disciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary action will be taken when a supervisor, or designated investigative officer or unit, fails to conduct a timely and thorough review, or neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action, or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action. As provided by VIPD policy and approved by DOJ, designated command staff shall further review the Commander and/or Director’s reviews according to the level of force involved.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 32 of 116
28 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 37 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 37 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
As reported above, the VIPD has adopted policies relating to ¶¶ 31 - 41 of the Consent Decree and provided corresponding training through in-service, Roll Call, and Commanders Call sessions. The VIPD also reports that it is developing an Audit Unit to test whether VIPD personnel are complying with Consent Decree-related policies. The VIPD will provide additional information about its audits in future quarterly Status Reports.
OIM Report:
Based on the Police Practices Experts‟ review of completed use of force investigations during the Third Quarter of 2013, we found that 3 out of 3 of the use of force investigations reviewed were complete. A “complete” investigation file generally consists of the following (to the extent applicable): Form 1A; Arrest Report; completed RRR; video or audio statements from witnesses; photos of injuries, weapons, etc.; the Supervisor‟s investigative report with an analysis of the facts, evidence identified, and findings; evidence that the Department‟s chain of command reviewed and approved the completed investigation file; and a disposition letter.
In 3 out of 3 of the investigations, a Deputy Chief reviewed the investigative report and supporting documents, and concurred with the investigative findings, and in 2 out of 3 of the investigation files, underlying problems and training needs were identified.
Although Commanders are consistently reviewing investigations conducted by their subordinates, they often overlook or ignore deficiencies in those investigations. For example, in the use of force investigation described in ¶ 32, the Commander failed to identify any of the deficiencies that we noted. Moreover, in past quarters, the OIM observed that when some Commanders returned investigations for additional work, they failed to follow up regarding the status of the investigation. When Commanders return investigations for additional work, they should detail the deficiencies that need to be corrected and set a deadline by which the additional work should be completed.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 33 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 29
Recommendations:
The Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs need to hold Supervisors and Commanders accountable for the quality and timelines of use of force investigations. The VIPD‟s efforts to implement a tracking form for Supervisors to follow the progress of the use of force investigations that are assigned to them is a step in the right direction. The form should identify everyone who worked on the investigation and specify the actions that they took. The VIPD should keep the OIM updated about its experience using the new tracking form.
The Use of Force working group, Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Chiefs, and Deputy Chiefs should audit investigations to determine the extent to which Supervisors are complying with the requirements of ¶ 37 of the Consent Decree. In particular, they should audit whether Supervisors are conducting adequate use of force investigations, and whether the Chiefs/Deputy Chiefs are reviewing investigations, identifying deficiencies, and forwarding closed cases to the IAB and Training Division (for review and archiving). Based on these audits, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work in concert with the Chiefs, the Deputy Chiefs, the IAB, and the Training Division to provide remedial training, or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions, as necessary. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
38. The VIPD will investigate all critical firearm discharges. The VIPD will ensure that the investigation accounts for all shots and locations of all officers who discharged their firearms. The VIPD will conduct ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 38 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 38 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that the IAB continues to investigate or review all critical firearms discharges. The VIPD also reports that it provided training regarding investigating crime scenes during the First Quarter of 2013, and death scene analysis and cold case investigations during the Fourth Quarter of 2013.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 34 of 116
30 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
OIM Report:
During the Second Quarter of 2013, investigations into at least three critical firearms discharges, including two police-involved shootings, were unresolved due, in part, to outstanding ballistics reports. According to the VIPD, there is a contract with an outside provider for such analysis. Unfortunately, there is a significant backlog preventing the Department from completing investigations of critical firearms discharges (a key component of the Consent Decree) on a timely basis.
During the Third Quarter of 2013, the OIM requested a status update from the VIPD about two police-involved shootings that occurred in 2011 and 2012, respectively. The VIPD did not complete any of those investigations during the Third Quarter of 2013. According to the VIPD‟s Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy, all IAB investigations should be completed within 50 days and criminal investigations should be completed within 120 days. For more than a year, the VIPD has told us that both investigations have been delayed because of outstanding ballistics reports. These delays are unacceptable, particularly almost 5 years after entering into the Consent Decree. The OIM will continue to monitor the status of both investigations.
Also during the Third Quarter of 2013, the Police Practices Experts reviewed a use of force investigation stemming from the accidental discharge of a firearm by an Officer. The Officer accidentally discharged her firearm while exiting her vehicle and attempting to draw her gun in order to confront a suspect. Although the VIPD adequately investigated the accidental discharge, we are concerned that the involved Officer (who was sent for remedial training) had served as a firearms training instructor through the time of this incident.
Recommendation:
The VIPD must fully investigate all critical firearms discharges. This includes, as stated in the Consent Decree, “ballistic or crime analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate.” The VIPD‟s current system of relying on a single outside vendor for ballistics analysis is not working. The VIPD should identify additional outside resources and consider bolstering its in-house capabilities.
Once the VIPD clears the current backlog of investigations, the VIPD should provide the OIM with documentation that it is investigating all critical firearms discharges as required by ¶ 38 of the Consent Decree. The VIPD should also provide the OIM with a status update about all of its outstanding investigations of critical firearms discharges.
In addition, the VIPD should review how Officers are taught to draw their weapons, particularly when exiting a vehicle. Officers should be taught to keep

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 35 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 31
their finger outside the trigger guard and off the trigger until they are prepared to fire. The fact that a firearms instructor appears to have failed to follow these rules for an often-repeated action underscores the importance of examining the VIPD‟s training in this regard.
39. VIPD shall complete development of a Use of Firearms policy that complies with applicable law and current professional standards. The policy shall prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition and shall inform officers that any such use may subject them to disciplinary action. The policy shall establish a single, uniform reporting system for all firearms discharges. The policy shall prohibit officers from obtaining service ammunition from any source except through official VIPD channels, and shall specify the number of rounds VIPD authorizes its officers to carry. The policy will continue to require that all discharges of firearms by officers on- or off-duty, including unintentional discharges, be reported and investigated.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued the Firearms Policy. Because ¶ 39 of the Consent Decree only requires the Department to develop a policy, Phase 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the VIPD is in substantial compliance with ¶ 39 of the Consent Decree.
40. The VIPD shall revise its policies regarding off-duty officers taking police action to: a) provide that off-duty officers shall notify on-duty VIPD or local law enforcement officers before taking police action, absent exigent circumstances, so that they may respond with appropriate personnel and resources to handle the problem; b) provide that, if it appears the officer has consumed alcohol or is otherwise impaired, the officer shall submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued the Off-Duty Official Action Policy. Because ¶ 40 of the Consent Decree only requires the Department to develop a policy, Phase 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the VIPD is in substantial compliance with ¶ 40 of the Consent Decree.
41. The VIPD shall continue to provide an intermediate force device, which is between chemical spray and firearms on the force continuum, that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The VIPD shall continue its policy regarding the intermediate force device, incorporate the intermediate force device into the force continuum and train all officers in its use on an annual basis.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 36 of 116
32 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 41 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 41 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it continues to equip VIPD personnel with TASERs, and provides annual training. The VIPD also reports that it developed a lesson plan to teach VIPD personnel how to conduct periodic inspections relating to TASERs, firearms, and O.C. Spray.
OIM Report:
During the Third Quarter of 2013, the VIPD conducted training on intermediate weapons, O.C. Spray, TASERs, and police batons during their annual in-service training. While monitoring during the Third Quarter of 2013, the OIM observed that Officers carry their intermediate weapons. The Police Practices Experts have also reviewed use of force incidents and concluded that Officers are effectively deploying these tools.
Recommendations:
The Use of Force working group should continue to work with the Training Division to ensure that training programs are held on the Electronic Control Weapon (“ECW”) Policy on an on-going basis so that all Officers will ultimately be trained and authorized to use TASERs in lieu of more lethal force tools. The Use of Force working group should also work with the Director of Training to evaluate post-training examinations to help assess the degree to which VIPD personnel understand the policies and the lessons conveyed during training. The Use of Force working group and Director of Training should then schedule follow-up training (continuing in-service or Roll Call or Commanders Call training) based on the results of those post-training examinations. In addition, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate.
The Use of Force working group should also provide the OIM with documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of the ECW Policy or that the Department has fully implemented the policy. Additionally, the Use of Force working group should provide documentation to the OIM showing the extent to which VIPD personnel are trained to use and equipped with TASERs.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 37 of 116 Office of the Independent Monitor | 33

Citizen Complaint Process

Joint Action Plan Requirements

Joint Action Plan Requirements By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system) and periodically test proficiency with the policies. By November 30, 2012, offer competency-based training to Officers and Supervisors.

Status Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department has such a tracking system.
Not satisfied. The VIPD provided inservice training during the Second Quarter of 2013. The VIPD has not provided the OIM with a report about the number of Officers and Supervisors that have been trained on the policies.

By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system) and periodically test Supervisors‟ knowledge of the preponderance of the evidence standard. By November 30, 2012, offer competency-based training of all investigators.

Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department has such a tracking system.
Not satisfied. The VIPD provided inservice training during the Second Quarter of 2013. The VIPD has not provided the OIM with a report about the number of investigators that have been trained on the policies.

On November 30, 2012, commence quarterly review of files in IAU and Zones to ensure compliance.

Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department has conducted these reviews.

By November 30, 2012, monthly review of files to determine whether complainants are being notified and implementation of timelines for notification and sample notification letter. By December 31, 2012, implement tracking system to document 5-day requirement.

Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department has conducted these reviews.
Not satisfied. Although the VIPD has reported that complaints are referred to the IAB within the required 5-day

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 38 of 116 34 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

period because the IAB retrieves complaints from drop-boxes located in each Zone, the VIPD has not provided any documentation demonstrating that the Department has such a tracking system.

By December 31, 2012, implement a tracking system for complaints referred to a Zone and a tracking system for notifying the Police Commissioner of complaints alleging excessive use of force. By January 31, 2013, offer refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and Roll Call/Commanders Call training. Incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy.

Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department has such a tracking system.
Not satisfied. The VIPD provided inservice training during the Second Quarter of 2013. The VIPD has not provided the OIM with a report about the number of Officers and Supervisors that have been trained on the policies.

By January 31, 2013, execute any contract(s) necessary to train Supervisors or others responsible for conducting ballistic or crime scene analyses. By January 31, 2013, all statements will be recorded. After January 31, 2013, bi-monthly review to ensure statements are being recorded.

Not satisfied. The VIPD has not reported that the Department has executed any contracts for such training.
Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department has implemented such a review.

By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of citizen complaint investigation files). Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, create a periodic report that analyzes patterns of violations of VIPD policy. Using the information gathered in the report, evaluate areas

Not Satisfied. The VIPD continued to work on its audit tools during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013.
Not Satisfied. The VIPD continued to analyze patterns of violations of VIPD policy during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013, but the VIPD did not provide the OIM with

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 39 of 116 Office of the Independent Monitor | 35

for policy modification or appropriate documentation that such information

remedial action (e.g., training).

is being used as required.

By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop a process for identifying Supervisors who are not using the preponderance of the evidence standard and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training.

Not Satisfied. The VIPD continued to develop a process for identifying Supervisors who are not using the preponderance of the evidence standard during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013.

By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop a process for identifying supervisors who neglect their responsibilities to investigate as required by policy and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training. By June 30, 2013, monthly review of IAU files to ensure compliance

Not Satisfied. The VIPD continued to develop a process for identifying Supervisors who neglect their responsibilities to investigate during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013.
Not Satisfied. The VIPD continued to work on its audit tools during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013.

By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, audit timeliness of completion of citizen complaint investigations.

Not Satisfied. The VIPD continued to work on its audit tools during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013. The VIPD received DOJ approval for its audit tools during the Fourth Quarter of 2013.

42. The VIPD will develop and implement a program to inform persons that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any officer. This program will include distribution of complaint forms, fact sheets, informational posters, and public service announcements that describe the citizen complaint process.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has developed and implemented a program to inform citizens that they may file a complaint/compliment regarding the performance of an Officer. The VIPD has provided extensive documentation about its efforts to inform the community about the citizen complains process. The Police Practices Experts have also observed these efforts first hand. Because ¶ 42 only requires the Department to develop a program, Phases 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the Department is in substantial compliance with ¶ 42. The OIM is pleased that

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 40 of 116
36 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
the VIPD has reported on continuing compliance efforts during the Third Quarter of 2013. The OIM will continue to assess the Department‟s efforts to maintain compliance in future quarters.
43. The VIPD will make complaint forms and informational materials available at government properties such as VIPD district stations, substations, mobile substations, libraries, the Internet, and, upon request, to community groups and community centers. At each VIPD district station, substation, and mobile substation, the VIPD will permanently post a placard describing the complaint process and include the relevant phone numbers. These placards shall be displayed in both English and Spanish, and where deemed necessary, in French or French Patois, to account for diversity in the VI population. The VIPD will require all officers to carry informational brochures and complaint forms, in English and Spanish, and where deemed necessary, in French or French Patois, in their vehicles at all times while on duty. If a citizen objects to an officer’s conduct, that officer will inform the citizen of his or her right to make a complaint. Officers will not discourage any person from making a complaint.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies pertaining to the citizen complaint process and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 43.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD continues to promote the Department‟s citizen complaint/compliment process through fact sheets, complaint/compliment forms, a hotline, informational posters, and public service announcements (“PSAs”). The Department has made these materials available at the Zones, substations, mobile substations, libraries, the Department‟s website, and other locations. The Department continues to provide the OIM with documentation of inspections at the Zones and other locations to ensure that adequate supplies of the complaint process materials are available.
As previously reported, the complaint form has been revised for complainants to indicate whether an Officer has discouraged them from filing a complaint. The VIPD plans to implement the OIM‟s recommendation to modify the current PSAs to include language that advises citizens to contact the IAB if they were discouraged from filing a complaint or if Officers neglected to advise them of their right to make a complaint.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 41 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 37
OIM Report:
The VIPD made additional progress towards compliance with ¶ 43 during the Third Quarter of 2013. The VIPD provided the OIM with documentation showing that complaint forms and informational materials were available at VIPD offices and other government properties. The OIM also learned during the Third Quarter of 2013 that the leader of the Citizen Complaint Process working group provided a memorandum to all Commanders requiring that inspection forms include when complaint process materials are replaced at the Zones and other locations. The OIM expects that these changes will be reflected in inspection forms submitted during the Fourth Quarter of 2013.
Recommendations:
The Department should continue to audit whether complaint forms and related informational materials are available at all required locations. The VIPD must audit whether the biweekly inspection reports are being submitted, and, if not, discipline those Commanders who fail to submit the required documentation or submit deficient documentation. As reported for several quarters, the Department has revised its complaint form for complainants to indicate whether an Officer has discouraged them from filing a complaint. The OIM expects that the VIPD will conduct and document audits during the Fourth Quarter of 2013 to assess this requirement. The VIPD should then provide documentation of these audits to the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM. Through the Department‟s information campaign, the VIPD should also inform citizens that they may contact the IAB if an Officer refuses to take their complaint or discourages them from filing a complaint. The VIPD should also ensure that any complaints against Officers are addressed appropriately and promptly.
44. Complaints may be filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile or electronic mail. The duty officer at the front desk of each district station will be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints, which persons may file at any district station. Complaint intake officers may describe facts that bear upon a complainant’s demeanor and physical condition but may not express opinions regarding his/her mental competency or veracity. Each complaint will be resolved in writing. Upon receipt, each complaint will be assigned a unique identifier, which will be provided to the complainant. Each complaint will be tracked according to the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, improper search, etc.).
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies pertaining to the citizen complaint process and provided related

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 42 of 116
38 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 44.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it continues to accept complaints as required by ¶ 44 of the Consent Decree. The Department also reports that the IAB provides Supervisors with weekly, monthly, and quarterly reports listing active and completed complaint investigations. Also, investigated complaints are resolved in writing and dispositions letter are mailed by the IAB to complainants. During the Second Quarter of 2013, the VIPD provided the OIM with sample templates that will be used to update complainants on the status and disposition of the investigations into their complaints.
OIM Report:
The DOJ approved the Acceptance of Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. The policy reflects the requirements in ¶ 44 of the Consent Decree. The VIPD reported that nearly 18% of all complaints made in the St. Thomas/St. John District and nearly 11% of all complaints made on the St. Croix District during the Third Quarter of 2013 were due to discourtesy to citizens, including making improper comments to citizens. According to the VIPD, Commanders are unclear about their responsibilities under the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and merely refer the complainant to the IAB. The VIPD has indicated that it plans to develop a tracking system by January 31, 2014 to ensure that all personnel are trained on the citizen complaint policies. Once the VIPD has developed this tracking system, the OIM will assess whether it sufficiently tracks that all personnel are trained on the citizen complaint policies. The VIPD must also develop a process for auditing such that once a complaint receives a VITEMA number, it is forwarded to the IAB within the timeframe allotted under Department policy.
Recommendations:
As stated in previous reports, the VIPD should continue to conduct audits to determine whether the required VIPD personnel are trained on the Department‟s policies, whether all complaints are being resolved in writing, and whether complaint numbers are being provided to complainants. The VIPD should then provide documentation relating to those audits to the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM. The VIPD should continue to offer Commanders Call training to all Commanders on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaint Policy, and document such training and provide the results of examinations administered after training to the OIM. In addition, the VIPD should audit complaint forms to ensure that complaint in-take Officers are not expressing their opinions regarding a complainant‟s mental competency or veracity on the complaint

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 43 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 39
forms. The VIPD should also finalize a tracking system for ensuring that all sworn personnel are trained on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy.
45. Copies of all allegations of misconduct against the VIPD filed with the Zone Commands will be referred to Internal Affairs Unit (“IAU”) within five business days.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies pertaining to the citizen complaint policies and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 45.
VIPD Report:
During the Third Quarter of 2013, the VIPD developed an audit plan to monitor compliance with the requirements of ¶ 45. The VIPD reports that IAPro, Blue Team, and log books15 will be used to ensure that the Department complies with the five-day requirement in ¶ 45.
According to the VIPD, it does not anticipate an issue with satisfying the five-day requirement because (i) a complaint filed at a Zone is immediately uploaded to IAPro and entered into Blue Team; and (ii) IAB agents collect complaints deposited in the drop boxes located at the Zones on a daily basis.
OIM Report:
The DOJ approved the Acceptance of Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. The policy reflects the requirements in ¶ 45 of the Consent Decree. The VIPD has reported that complaints are referred to the IAB within the required five-day period because IAB personnel retrieve complaints from dropboxes on a daily basis. The VIPD should verify that materials are picked up in a timely manner. The VIPD must also verify that all complaints with numbers provided by VITEMA are submitted to the IAB. However, the VIPD has not provided any documentation showing that all complaints initiated in the Zones are in fact retrieved on a daily basis.
Recommendations:
The VIPD needs to develop a process for auditing whether copies of all allegations of misconduct are referred to the IAB within 5 business days. This should include accessing information from VITEMA to ensure that all

15

The VIPD reports that it used log books in the Zones on both Districts to document all

uses of force and citizen complaints filed at Zones prior to the installation of IAPro and Blue

Team.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 44 of 116
40 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
complaints are forwarded. The Department should then provide documentation relating to those audits to the OIM.
46. Complaints will be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, for which the Territory will develop and implement appropriate training.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 46.
VIPD Report:
During the Third Quarter of 2013, the Citizen Complaint Process working group created an audit plan to review the Department‟s closed citizen complaint investigations, including reviewing audio taped interviews. As part of this audit process, the VIPD will assess Supervisors‟ knowledge and application of the preponderance of the evidence standard during in-service and Commanders Call training. Competency tests on the preponderance of evidence standard were previously administered to Supervisors during the Second Quarter of 2013.
OIM Report:
The VIPD has provided initial training on the preponderance of evidence standard. During the Second Quarter of 2013, the VIPD provided the OIM with documentation showing that Supervisors were tested on the preponderance of the evidence standard. According to the VIPD, a total of 45 Supervisors were tested on the preponderance of the evidence standard with a 66% passing rate (30 out of 45). Although initially requested in the Second Quarter of 2013, the VIPD still has not provided the OIM with any documentation demonstrating that the failing Supervisors have been retrained, retested, and, if necessary, disciplined. This request remained outstanding during the Third Quarter of 2013.
Recommendations:
As stated during the Second Quarter of 2013, the OIM was disappointed that such a high percentage of Supervisors failed the VIPD‟s competency test. The VIPD should provide additional training to those Supervisors and then retest their knowledge of the preponderance of the evidence standard using different test questions. In addition, the Training Division should re-examine its training relating to the preponderance of the evidence standard. The fact

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 45 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 41
that so many Supervisors failed the Department‟s competency test strongly suggests that the underlying training was inadequate. Further, the VIPD must establish a mechanism to audit compliance with the preponderance of the evidence standard. Documentation of the examinations and the audits should be forwarded to the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
47. The VIPD will explicitly prohibit from investigating an incident any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to the injury to a person, or who authorized the conduct that led to these reportable incidents.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. Because ¶ 47 only requires the Department to develop a policy, Phases 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the Department has achieved substantial compliance with ¶ 47.
48. The VIPD will investigate every citizen complaint. The VIPD will establish a clear policy and procedure regarding the intake of any complaint, including anonymous and confidential complaints, against a VIPD officer. This policy and these procedures will include instructions to an officer for taking a complaint and prompt delivery to a supervisor.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 48.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD continues to receive complaints through a variety of methods, including via email and drop-boxes at the Zones. The Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy dictates that the IAB remain the official clearing house for all complaints received, by either assigning complaints to the Zones for investigation or investigating the complaint directly.
The IAB reports that it produces IAPro reports on a weekly, monthly, and quarterly basis listing completed and outstanding use of force and citizen complaint investigations. These reports are provided to all Supervisors, Commanders, Chiefs, and Deputy Chiefs in both Districts.
The VIPD reports that the Deputy Chief of the St. John District issued a memorandum pertaining to outstanding use of force and citizen complaint

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 46 of 116
42 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
investigations from January to August 2013. The Deputy Chief of the St. John District conducted Commanders Call training addressing outstanding investigations. To facilitate the prompt completion of these cases, the Department ordered that overdue investigations be completed within a twoweek time period.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy on August 2, 2011. The IAB has conducted in-service and Roll Call and Commanders Call training addressing common mistakes made by Supervisors in citizen complaint investigations. The Police Practices Experts will continue to assess the quality of investigations completed in the Zones in subsequent quarters.
The VIPD has provided verbal updates about the status of the overdue investigations and whether the two-week deadline for the completed investigations was met, but has not provided documentation showing that all overdue investigations have been completed or whether any disciplinary action was taken against Officers who failed to meet the two-week deadline.
Recommendations:
As previously reported, the VIPD should develop a process to audit whether complaints are being adequately investigated within the allotted time period. We are hopeful that the Citizen Complaint Process working group‟s initiative will be helpful in this regard. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM. The VIPD should also provide documentation showing that all overdue investigations have been completed and whether any disciplinary action was taken against Officers who failed to meet the two-week deadline.
49. The VIPD will institute a centralized numbering and tracking system for all complaints and each complaint will receive a tracking number as quickly as possible. The IAU will be designated as the primary and centralized agency to determine whether the investigation will be assigned to zone (one of the seven zones located throughout the Virgin Islands), retained by the IAU, or referred for possible criminal investigation. If the IAU refers a complaint to a zone, copies of all documents, findings, and recommendations should be immediately forwarded to the IAU for tracking and monitoring. For complaints alleging the excessive use of force or violation of a person’s constitutional rights, the Police Commissioner should be notified no less than twentyfour hours after receipt of a complaint.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 47 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 43
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 49.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD contends that it has substantially complied with ¶ 49. Specifically, it reports that it has centralized its complaint numbering and tracking system, and that the Commissioner is notified about allegations of excessive force or violations of a person‟s constitutional rights within twenty four hours. This notification is documented by the IAB. The VIPD also reports that the IAB continues to decide whether investigation will be assigned to a Zone, retained by the IAB, or referred for possible criminal investigation. Once complaints investigated at the Zones are returned to the IAB, the IAB will review the investigation. If the IAB concludes that an investigation is adequate, the investigation will conclude and the IAB will maintain a copy of the investigation file for its records. However, if the IAB concludes that an investigation was inadequate, the IAB will return the investigation to the Zone for further work and the process described above will be repeated.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy on August 2, 2011. That policy reflects the requirements of ¶ 49 of the Consent Decree. The VIPD currently relies on VITEMA to assign tracking numbers for each complaint. The VIPD should ensure that each complaint (once assigned a complaint number by VITEMA) is forwarded to the IAB for investigation or referral to the Zones. The VIPD reports that it created a form to document when the Commissioner is notified about complaints pertaining to excessive use of force or violations of constitutional rights.
Recommendations:
Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs must ensure that cases referred to the Zones for investigation by the IAB are completed in the time period required by Department policy and are investigated completely. Any deficiencies in investigations must also be corrected. The Department must train, and if necessary, discipline, Supervisors who fail to satisfy these requirements. The VIPD should develop a process for auditing whether the Department has complied with the requirements of ¶ 49 of the Consent Decree. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM. In addition, the VIPD should provide the OIM with documentation

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 48 of 116
44 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
showing that the Commissioner was notified about complaints alleging excessive force or violations of constitutional rights.
50. The VIPD will adopt a single policy concerning the investigation of misconduct complaints, regardless of whether the investigation is conducted by the IAU or a zone.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. Because ¶ 50 only requires the Department to develop a policy, Phases 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the Department has achieved substantial compliance with ¶ 50.
51. The VIPD will establish policies and procedures and train all of its investigators on the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility; examination and interrogation of accused officers and other witnesses; identifying misconduct even if it is not specifically named in the complaint; and using the preponderance of the evidence standard as the appropriate burden of proof. VIPD investigators will ensure that all officers on the scene of an incident provide a statement regarding the incident. The policy will require that all interviews be mechanically recorded using an audio or video tape.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 51.
VIPD Report:
In-service training is scheduled for the Fourth Quarter of 2013 and is scheduled to include training on the citizen complaint process and the preponderance of the evidence standard. In addition to in-service training, the VIPD continues to offer Roll Call and Commanders Call training on these topics, and reinforces training through post-training examinations. To further comply with this provision, the VIPD has purchased video cameras and audio recorders for taping witness interviews. The VIPD notes that it will continue to audit the Department‟s compliance with this provision through working group inspections, audits by the Audit Unit (once functional), and audits by Supervisors.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 49 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 45
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. That policy reflects the requirements of ¶ 51 of the Consent Decree. The VIPD has provided initial training on the preponderance of evidence standard, but the VIPD has not provided documentation reflecting that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of ¶ 51.
Earlier this year, the VIPD provided the OIM with information about 15 cases from both Districts involving serious uses of force and citizen complaints about VIPD personnel using force. During the Third Quarter of 2013, the OIM requested an update on the 9 cases from the St. Thomas/St. John District, and learned that 4 investigations have been completed and that 5 investigations remain outstanding. The OIM will review the 4 completed investigations during the Fourth Quarter of 2013. Once the remaining 5 investigations are complete, the VIPD should forward them (without prompting) to the OIM for review. During the Third Quarter of 2013, all of the closed investigations that the Police Practices Experts reviewed contained witness statements from Officers who were on the scene at the time of the incident.
Recommendations:
As previously recommended, the Citizen Complaint Process working group should continue to test whether VIPD personnel adequately understand the citizen complaint process. The VIPD should provide VIPD personnel with additional training on the citizen complaint process and then conduct and document periodic audits to ensure that VIPD personnel are complying with the relevant policies. The VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training as appropriate.
Specifically, the VIPD should also audit whether investigators correctly: 1) evaluate complainant or witness credibility; 2) examine and interrogate accused Officers and other witnesses; and 3) identify misconduct. The audits should also evaluate whether VIPD investigators take statements from all Officers on the scene of an incident. Based on its audits, the VIPD should identify any trends or areas for improvement. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
52. The policy will require that the investigative findings include whether: 1) the police action was in compliance with policy, training and legal standards, regardless of whether the complainant suffered harm; 2) the incident involved misconduct by any officer; 3) the use of different tactics should or could have been employed; 4) the incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling or other non-disciplinary

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 50 of 116
46 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
corrective measures; and 5) the incident suggests that the VIPD should revise its policies, training, or tactics.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. Because ¶ 52 only requires the Department to develop a policy, Phases 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the Department has achieved substantial compliance with ¶ 52.
53. The policy will provide clear guidance to all investigators regarding the procedures for handling criminal misconduct allegations, referring them to the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office or other appropriate agency for possible criminal prosecution, and the entity or individual who should make the determination of whether the complaint should be investigated criminally. The policy shall continue to require the completion of an administrative investigation, irrespective of the initiation or outcome of criminal proceedings.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. Because ¶ 53 only requires the Department to develop a policy, Phases 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the Department has achieved substantial compliance with ¶ 53.
54. In each investigation, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. There will be no automatic preference for an officer's statement over a non-officer's statement, nor will the VIPD completely disregard a witness' statement merely because the witness has some connection to the complainant. The VIPD will make efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 54.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it continues to implement its Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. As part of policy implementation,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 51 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 47
the Citizen Complaint Process working group continues to conduct audits of citizen complaint investigations to ensure compliance with the requirements of ¶ 54. In addition, the VIPD reports that the Audit Unit will conduct similar audits to identify obstacles with compliance once the Audit Unit is functioning.
The VIPD also acknowledges that Supervisors, and other members of the chain of command, are expected “to be more vigilant and thorough” in their review of investigation files to ensure compliance with the Consent Decree. The VIPD reports that it will conduct ongoing training, including in-service, Roll Call and Commanders Call training, to facilitate compliance with ¶ 54.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. That policy reflects the requirements of ¶ 54 of the Consent Decree. The Department has conducted initial training on this policy, and conducted in-service training during the Second Quarter of 2013. The VIPD, however, has not provided full documentation for this training, including a schedule of remedial training for Supervisors who failed the proficiency examination.
Recommendations:
Once the Audit Unit is finally operational, the VIPD should develop a process to audit whether VIPD personnel consider all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible, in all investigations. Audits should also evaluate whether preference is given to an Officer's statement over a nonOfficer's, and whether the VIPD makes efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. Based on its audits, the Citizen Complaint Process working group should identify any trends or areas for improvement. All audits should be documented and shared with the OIM.
55. During an investigation, all relevant police activity, including each use of force (i.e., not just the type of force complained about) will continue to be investigated. The investigation will also evaluate any searches or seizures that occurred during the incident. The VIPD will not close an investigation simply because the complaint is withdrawn or the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of injury or the complainant will not provide additional statements or written statements; rather, the investigating agency will continue its investigation as necessary to determine whether the original allegation(s) can be resolved based on the information, evidence, and investigatory procedures and techniques available. In each investigation, the fact that a complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense will not be

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 52 of 116
48 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
considered as evidence of whether a VIPD officer used or did not use a type of force, nor will it justify discontinuing the investigation.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 55.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it continues to implement its Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. As part of policy implementation, the Citizen Complaint Process working group continues to conduct audits of citizen complaint investigations to ensure compliance with the requirements of ¶ 54. In addition, the VIPD reports that the Audit Unit will conduct similar audits to identify obstacles with compliance once the Audit Unit is functioning.
The VIPD also acknowledges that Supervisors, and other members of the chain of command, are expected “to be more vigilant and thorough” in their review of investigation files to ensure compliance with the Consent Decree. The VIPD will also conduct ongoing training, including in-service, Roll Call and Commanders Call training, to facilitate compliance with ¶ 54.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. That policy reflects the requirements of ¶ 55 of the Consent Decree. The Department has conducted initial training on this policy and on-going in-service training, but it has not provided documentation demonstrating that Supervisors are proficient in the requirements of the policy.
During the Third Quarter of 2013, the Police Practices Experts reviewed a completed citizen complaint investigation and concluded that the investigation was closed for reasons other than: the complainant withdrew the complaint; the complainant was uncooperative; the complainant was unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of injury; and the complainant pled or was found guilty of an offense. The OIM will continue to assess this requirement in future quarters.
Recommendations:
The Citizen Complaint Process working group should develop a process for auditing whether VIPD personnel comply with ¶ 55 of the Consent Decree. The VIPD should also develop a process for identifying personnel who

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 53 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 49
continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
56. The complainant will be periodically kept informed regarding the status of the investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, the complainant will be notified of its outcome, including an appropriate statement regarding whether any non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action was taken.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 56.
VIPD Report:
The IAB continues to decide whether investigations will be assigned to a Zone, retained by the IAB, or referred for possible criminal investigation. Once complaints investigated at the Zone are returned to the IAB, the IAB will review the investigations and complete disposition letters, and send the letter to the complainant.
In compliance with the Action Plan approved by the Court on November 2, 2012, the VIPD continued to draft an audit plan during the Third Quarter of 2013 to audit the Department‟s handling of citizen complaints. The draft audit plan requires the VIPD to “[f]ind out whether complainants are being notified of the status of his/her complaint and disposition of investigation.” Once the audit plan is finalized, the VIPD will audit whether it keeps complainants informed and will report the results of these audits.
OIM Report:
During the Third Quarter of 2013, the Police Practices Experts reviewed 1 closed citizen complaint investigation and concluded that the complainant was notified of the outcome of the complaint investigation. The OIM will continue to assess this requirement in future quarters.
Recommendations:
The Citizen Complaint Process working group should continue to audit whether VIPD personnel adequately understand and comply with the complaint process. The Citizen Complaint Process working group also should evaluate whether complainants are kept informed about the status of their complaints

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 54 of 116
50 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
and notified about the outcome. Based on its audits, the Citizen Complaint Process working group should identify any trends or areas for improvement, and develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply with these requirements, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
57. Each allegation in an investigation will be resolved by making one of the following dispositions: a) “Unfounded,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that no facts to support that the incident complained of actually occurred; b) “Sustained,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person's allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the incident occurred and the actions of the officer were improper; c) “Not Sustained,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred; and d) “Exonerated,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate VIPD policies, procedures, or training.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 57.
VIPD Report:
The IAB continues to decide whether investigations will be assigned to a Zone, retained by the IAB, or referred for possible criminal investigation. Once complaints investigated at the Zone are returned to the IAB, the IAB will review the investigations and complete disposition letters, and send the letter to the complainant. In addition, the IAB will review the investigations for any deficiencies, and will send a “Return Investigation Form” to the investigating Supervisor specifying any deficiencies and informing the Supervisor that the case will remain open until the deficiencies are corrected. During the Third Quarter of 2013, the IAB submitted a memorandum to Zone Commanders identifying common deficiencies and making recommendations for improving two investigations.16

16

The cases identified by the IAB with deficiencies were CCT 2013-0072 and CCT 2013-

0069.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 55 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 51
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued its Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. Among other things, that policy requires the Department to resolve all allegations with one of four findings: “unfounded,” “sustained,” “not sustained,” or “exonerated.” The Police Practices Experts have observed that investigations are increasingly resolved with one of the four required findings. For example, in the citizen complaint investigation reviewed by the Police Practices Experts during the Third Quarter of 2013, the VIPD found that the citizen complaint was “not sustained.” The investigation, however, did not address that the Officers failed to document that they detained and transported the complainant to his home. A report or, at a minimum, notes should have been made about the incident.
Recommendations:
As previously recommended, the Department should develop a process for auditing whether VIPD personnel comply with ¶ 57. The VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply with these requirements, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM. The VIPD should also provide Roll Call and Commanders Call training to reinforce the meaning of and differences between the four disposition findings.
58. Unit commanders will evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command to identify underlying problems and training needs. Any such problems or needs will be relayed in the form of a recommendation to the appropriate VIPD entity.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 58.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it will be better able to assess whether commanders are complying with the mandates of ¶ 58 as it develops its selfassessment capabilities.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 56 of 116
52 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
OIM Report:
During the Third Quarter of 2013, the Police Practices Experts reviewed 1 closed citizen complaint investigation in which unit commanders identified underlying problems and training needs. There was no evidence, however, that these problems or training needs were relayed to the appropriate VIPD entity, or that any recommended corrective action was taken.
Recommendations:
The Department should develop a process for auditing whether VIPD personnel comply with ¶ 58. Unit Commanders must evaluate investigations to identify underlying problems and training needs. Commanders must then relay any problems or training needs to the appropriate VIPD entity. The VIPD should also develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply with requirements and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 57 of 116 Office of the Independent Monitor | 53

Management and Supervision

Joint Action Plan Requirements

Joint Action Plan Requirements Revisions to Disciplinary [Matrix] will be forwarded to DOJ by November 1, 2012.
Beginning on November 30, 2012, at least once per month, the Deputy Chief during Commanders Call, will address Decree compliance issues, including timely completion of use of force reports. Beginning on November 30, 2012, working group members will conduct regular reviews, but no less frequently than weekly, to ensure that all Blue Team programs are installed on all Zone Command computers and are also fully functioning. By November 30, 2012, VIPD will provide DOJ with an action plan for achieving sufficient numbers of staff to input current and historic data or outlining how it intends to use existing staff to accomplish this task. The plan will include an implementation date subject to the agreement of the parties.
Working group members will conduct bi-monthly reviews commencing November 30, 2012 to ensure compliance with A through K [of Consent Decree ¶ 60]. Quarterly review commencing November 30, 2012 will be conducted

Status Satisfied. The VIPD did not comply with the Joint Action Plan‟s November 1, 2012 deadline, but submitted a revised version of the Disciplinary Matrix to the DOJ on January 18, 2013. After reviewing DOJ approval, the VIPD issued a revised version of the Disciplinary Policy and Matrix during the Third Quarter of 2013. Not Satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation demonstrating compliance with this requirement.
Not Satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation demonstrating compliance with this requirement. The VIPD has from timeto-time provided information about the operating status of Blue Team at various locations. Satisfied, but additional work needed. On December 31, 2012, the DOJ provided comments on the VIPD‟s action plan. Among other things, the DOJ sought clarification on what, if anything, the VIPD plans to do if there is a lack of funding for new Supervisors. Recognizing the Department‟s fiscal constraints, the VIPD should address that possibility and plan accordingly. Not Satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation demonstrating compliance with this requirement.
Not Satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 58 of 116 54 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

to ensure compliance [with Consent Decree ¶ 65]. Working group members will conduct bi-monthly reviews commencing November 30, 2012 to ensure compliance with a through g [of Consent Decree ¶ 66]. VIPD will maintain documentation of how it identified and addressed patterns of officer conduct based on existing databases and resources and provide this documentation on a quarterly basis to the Monitor, starting in the 3rd quarter of 2012. Finalize Audit Protocol and submit to DOJ by November 30, 2012.
Blue Team technical issues will be resolved, training will be ongoing, and all districts will receive a round of training by January 31, 2013.
Competency-based training of all staff by Feb. 15, 2013 and ongoing documented refresher training through in-services and Roll Call/Commanders Call. Auditors to attend training re: conducting audits by April 30, 2013.
By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. This ensures periodic quality checks on data entered. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of

demonstrating compliance with this requirement. Not Satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation demonstrating compliance with this requirement.
Not Applicable. Because the Department appears to be relying solely on IAPro for risk management, this requirement is no longer applicable.
Satisfied. The VIPD submitted a draft version of the Audit and Inspection Policy to the DOJ for review on November 30, 2012. The VIPD issued the Audit and Inspection Policy during the Third Quarter of 2013. Satisfied. The VIPD provided the OIM with documentation regarding Blue Team training on the St. Thomas/St. John District during the First Quarter of 2013, and provided similar documentation for the St. Croix District in the Second Quarter of 2013. Not Satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation demonstrating compliance with this requirement.
Satisfied. The VIPD did not comply with the Joint Action Plan‟s April 30, 2013 deadline, but Audit Training was held on both Districts during the Third Quarter of 2013. Not Satisfied. The VIPD continued to work on its audit tools during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013. The DOJ approved a revised version of the VIPD‟s audit tools during the Fourth Quarter of 2013. The VIPD has not yet implemented the audit tools.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 59 of 116 Office of the Independent Monitor | 55

documented discipline and/or re-training. Train staff regarding Audit Protocol by June 30, 2013.
Audit will commence by June 30, 2013.
By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies, including (but not limited to) review for inclusion of written Police Commissioner extension approval in investigatory files. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

Satisfied. Audit Training was held on both Districts during the Third Quarter of 2013. That training covered the Audit and Inspection Policy. Not Satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation demonstrating compliance with this requirement. While the VIPD attempted to conduct use of force audits during the First and Second Quarters of 2013, those efforts were not successful. The Citizen Complaint Process working group has conducted some inspections within its area of responsibility. Not Satisfied. The VIPD continued to work on its audit tools during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013. The DOJ approved a revised version of the VIPD‟s audit tools during the Fourth Quarter of 2013. The VIPD has not yet implemented the audit tools.

59. The VIPD will develop and implement a risk management system to include a new computerized relational database or paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for supervision and management of the VIPD. Priority will be given to the VIPD obtaining any established program and system. The VIPD will regularly use this data to promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 59 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 59 of the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 60 of 116
56 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it continued to use IAPro during the Third Quarter of 2013 to generate reports about uses of force and citizen complaints on a weekly, monthly, and quarterly basis. Those reports are disseminated through the chain of command. According to the VIPD, all Supervisors have access to IAPro, which allows them to view the status of use of force and citizen complaint investigations. Pursuant to the Department‟s EIP Policy, Supervisors, Managers, and Deputy Chiefs are required to regularly review reports generated by IAPro; IAPro can track whether the required reviews are being completed.
OIM Report:
As previously reported, the Department has made substantial progress towards implementing IAPro. The Joint Action Plan requires members of the Management and Supervision working group to “conduct regular reviews . . . to ensure that all Blue Team programs are installed on all Zone Command computers and are also fully functioning.” The Chairperson of the Management and Supervision working group initiated a process during the First Quarter of 2013 for the Department‟s Management and Information Systems Unit (“MIS”) and the Zones to submit biweekly reports documenting the required reviews. Also during the First Quarter of 2013, the Management and Supervision working group issued a memorandum entitled “Blue Team Inspection Territory Wide,” which requires all Commanders to submit weekly Blue Team functionality reports. The VIPD also provided documentation during the Third Quarter of 2013 confirming the functionality of Blue Team at certain VIPD facilities on St. Thomas. The VIPD has not provided similar documentation for St. John or the St. Croix District.
During the First Quarter of 2013, the VIPD provided the OIM with records for Blue Team and EIP training that took place in the St. Thomas/St. John District; the VIPD provided the same training in the St. Croix District during the Second Quarter of 2013. The records for the training conducted on St. Thomas contained, for the first time, a breakdown of the personnel who attended the training and those who did not.
The EIP appears to be progressing at different rates in the two Districts. While there is room for significant improvement, the Department is making progress implementing the EIP in the St. Croix District. For example, the Police Practices Experts have seen some basic documentation from the St. Croix District detailing how alerts (relating to potentially problematic behavior by VIPD personnel) were handled. The Police Practices Experts have not seen similar documentation for the St. Thomas/St. John District.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 61 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 57
Recommendations:
Even though the Department has implemented certain aspects of IAPro, the RMS Protocol needs to be fully implemented by, among other things, providing on-going training on the Department‟s EIP and conducting the required beta test (i.e., an initial full scale test) of the RMS. The VIPD should also use the Blue Team and EIP training records described above as a model for how to present training records to the OIM going forward. The VIPD should also consider modifying the PowerPoint presentation that it previously provided regarding the EIP program for use during Roll Call and Commanders Call training sessions.
The VIPD also needs to document every step that it takes relating to the EIP process, including when IAPro first generated an alert, what the Department did in response to that alert (counseling, remedial training, discipline, etc.), and the outcome of the Department‟s response. The St. Thomas/St. John District, in particular, needs to start documenting the EIP process. The OIM will continue to review the EIP process in future quarters, including EIP assessment and audit forms.
60. The new risk management system will collect and record the following information: a) all uses of force; b) canine bite ratios; c) the number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers; d) all injuries to prisoners; e) all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with “resisting arrest,” “assault on a police officer,” “disorderly conduct,” or “obstruction of official business;” f) all critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty; g) all complaints (and their dispositions); h) all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the Territory and its officers, or agents, resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel; i) all vehicle pursuits; j) all incidents involving the pointing of a firearm (if any such reporting is required); and k) all disciplinary action taken against officers.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 60 of the Consent Decree and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 60 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that the Management and Supervision working group held multiple meetings during the Third Quarter of 2013 regarding the Department‟s arrest database. Specifically, the meetings focused on finalizing

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 62 of 116
58 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
the electronic arrest form that will be used to enter information into the arrest database and creating an interim process to document arrests until the Department implements new software to manage that process (which is described below); the VIPD also reports that it is working on a separate form to document detentions that do not result in arrests. Participants at those meetings included representatives from the MIS, the Planning and Research Bureau, the EIP Coordinator, the IAB, the Compliance Coordinator, and the Compliance Manager. The VIPD also reports that the DOJ approved a revised version of the Department‟s Canine Policy during the Third Quarter of 2013, which was subsequently signed by the Commissioner.
MIS is currently working to implement Smart Cop software, which features a records management system and field reporting function. The VIPD expects that it will take approximately four to five months to implement Smart Cop. According to the VIPD, the Virgin Islands Territorial Emergency Management Agency (“VITEMA”) is currently using the CAD component of Smart Cop, and the Bureau of Corrections is using the Jail component. The goal is for VITEMA, the Bureau of Corrections, and the VIPD to eventually be able to access information across agencies. While MIS works to implement Smart Cop, the VIPD is developing an interim system to more systematically collect arrest data. Once finalized, this interim arrest procedure will be disseminated to all Department personnel.
The VIPD previously reported that the Chairperson of the Management and Supervision working group submitted a memorandum to the Commissioner on April 30, 2013, asking that: (1) a protocol be established for the VIAG to notify the VIPD of all criminal and civil proceedings involving the Territory, the VIPD, and VIPD personnel; and (2) a request be submitted to the Director of VITEMA to provide the VIPD with data on all VIPD personnel involved in vehicle pursuits.
During the Third Quarter of 2013, the Commissioner submitted a memorandum to the VIAG (in response to the Chairperson of the Management and Supervision working group‟s request) relating to criminal and civil proceedings involving the Territory, the VIPD, and VIPD personnel. On September 25, 2013, a representative of the VIAG stated that the VIAG was compiling the requested information. It is unclear whether the Commissioner contacted VITEMA about providing data relating to vehicle pursuits.
The Chairperson of the Management and Supervision working group also sent a memorandum to the Acting Director of Training on April 30, 2013 seeking documentation about the number of canisters of O.C. Spray used by VIPD personnel. Additionally, the Chairperson of the Management and Supervision working group circulated a memorandum on September 18, 2013 to all Commanders in the St. Thomas/St. John District directing them to inspect the O.C. Spray canisters carried by their subordinates. The objective of

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 63 of 116 Office of the Independent Monitor | 59

the inspection was to confirm that O.C. Spray canisters were not expired. The memorandum required all Commanders to submit documentation regarding these inspections by September 23, 2013.
The VIPD also reports that the Management and Supervision working group is working to ensure that each of the data elements specified in ¶ 60 is being collected and entered into IAPro. The Management and Supervision working group plans to conduct inspections to confirm.
OIM Report:
The VIPD‟s Data Input Plan requires the Department to collect the data specified in ¶ 60 of the Consent Decree. The Management and Supervision working group reported at the end of the Fourth Quarter of 2012 that it was creating forms, drafting procedures, and developing a system to verify the accuracy of the data collected under subparagraphs a through k. The OIM has not seen any documentation relating to those efforts.
During the First Quarter of 2013, the OIM learned that the VIPD continued to have problems accessing required information that was maintained by other government agencies. For example, the VIPD appears to have limited access to information from the VIAG regarding court proceedings (criminal and civil) involving VIPD personnel and from VITEMA regarding vehicle pursuits.17 The VIPD‟s Data Input Plan requires that such information be collected and entered into the RMS. The VIPD appears to have made some progress collecting (or having the VIAG collect for them) information about court proceedings, but does not appear to have made progress collecting information about vehicle pursuits.
The OIM learned during the Second Quarter of 2013 that a Department audit of the RMS revealed that certain data sources were not being collected as required by the Data Input Plan. Specifically, the VIPD was not collecting information about canine bite ratios or about the number of canisters of O.C. Spray being used by VIPD personnel. Moreover, the fact that an internal VIPD audit identified these deficiencies underscores the important role that the Audit Unit should play in helping the VIPD achieve and maintain substantial compliance.
The VIPD previously reported that it held training on the Data Input Plan during the Second Quarter of 2013 on both Districts. The VIPD provided training on the Department‟s RMS Protocol and EIP at the same time. The VIPD

17

As required by subparagraph (h), which, in part, requires the VIPD‟s RMS system to

record “all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the

Territory and its officers, or agents, resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD

personnel,” the VIAG provided the IAB with information about civil claims filed since 2009

during the Fourth Quarter of 2013. The OIM will report more fully on the information provided

in the next quarterly report.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 64 of 116
60 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
provided the OIM with lesson plans for the EIP training, but has not provided documentation (like what the Department provided for Blue Team training) detailing who was eligible/should have attended the training, who attended the training, who passed any post-training competency tests, or any related retraining or discipline that was required.
During the Third Quarter of 2013, the VIPD provided the OIM with a document titled “Quarterly Patterns and Trending Data: 3rd Qtr 2013.” As the title suggests, that document provides various statistics relating to the Department‟s use of force and citizen complaints. Going forward, the VIPD should analyze the patterns and trends reflected in the document. Generating documents like this and forwarding them to the OIM (while appreciated) is not enough. For example, during the Third Quarter of 2013, one-third of all complaints from the St. Thomas/St. John District involved discourtesy. The OIM learned during the Fourth Quarter of 2013 that the VIPD has initiated a request for customer service training from the Chamber of Commerce to assist regarding these types of complaints.
Similarly, a high percentage of arrests in both Districts during the Third Quarter of 2013 were so called “discretionary arrests” for offenses such as disobeying police orders, disturbing the peace, and interfering with an officer. While those arrests may have been appropriate under the circumstances, the VIPD should consider whether similar behavior can be addressed without resorting to an arrest. The Department‟s senior managers, including the Commissioner, should review the Department‟s patterns and trends relating to uses of force and citizen complaints.
Recommendations:
Even though the Department has implemented certain aspects of IAPro, the RMS Protocol needs to be fully implemented by, among other things, collecting all of the information required by the Data Input Plan. To the extent that the VIAG has access to any of the required information, it should establish a protocol to share that information. The VIPD should also provide the OIM with documentation regarding its efforts to collect all of the information required by the Data Input Plan. Once the VIPD comes into compliance with the Data Input Plan, the Department should generate quarterly IAPro reports demonstrating that data from subparagraphs a through k are captured in the Department‟s RMS. The Department should also provide the OIM with a report for the training that it held on the Data Input Plan, the RMS Protocol, and the EIP near the end of the Second Quarter of 2013.
The VIPD should continue to provide the OIM with pattern and trend data relating to uses of force and citizen complaints. The Department should also analyze that data and provide a summary of its conclusions and proposed remedial actions, if any, to the OIM.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 65 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 61
61. The new risk management system will include, for the incidents included in the database, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (e.g., name, badge number, shift and supervisor) and civilian (e.g., race, ethnicity or national origin, if available).
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 61 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 61 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it continues to comply with ¶ 61 by entering appropriate identifying information (name, badge number, and shift Supervisor) for each Officer involved in an incident.
OIM Report:
To help track VIPD personnel (who may change job functions, names, etc.), the Commissioner issued a directive during the Fourth Quarter of 2011 ordering that a permanent designator number (“PDN”) be assigned to all sworn personnel, including designated civilian personnel with assignments as agents, auxiliaries, and forensic technicians. The PDN is a four digit number assigned by VITEMA. Officers are required to use their PDNs (which they keep for their entire career) on all police reports, rather than their badge numbers as was the previous practice. The OIM will review VIPD audits regarding compliance with ¶ 61 of the Consent Decree in subsequent quarters.
Recommendations:
The Department should audit whether Officers are using their PDNs on all police reports. During the Third Quarter of 2013, the OIM was informed that the VIPD conducted an audit of PDNs during a training exercise. This audit was not retained, and the OIM never saw the document itself. These audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM. In addition, the VIPD should provide the OIM with quarterly IAPro reports demonstrating that appropriate identifying information for each involved Officer and civilian is captured by the Department‟s RMS, and a list of the PDNs assigned to all VIPD personnel.
62. Within 120 days of the implementation of the new risk management system, or later with the agreement of DOJ, the VIPD will prepare, for the review and approval of DOJ, a plan for including appropriate fields and values of new and historical data into the risk management system (the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 66 of 116
62 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
"Data Input Plan"). The Data Input Plan will identify the data to be included and the means for inputting such data (direct entry or otherwise), the specific fields of information to be included, the past time periods for which information is to be included, the deadlines for inputting the data, and the responsibility for the input of the data. The Data Input Plan will include historical data that is up-to-date and complete in the risk management system. The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final review and approval within 30 days after it is presented for approval.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued the Data Input Plan in compliance with ¶ 62 of the Consent Decree. Because ¶ 62 of the Consent Decree only requires the Department to develop a policy, Phase 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the VIPD is in substantial compliance with ¶ 62 of the Consent Decree.
63. The VIPD will, within 120 days, prepare for the review and approval of DOJ, and thereafter implement, a protocol for using the risk management system. The VIPD will submit for the review and approval of DOJ all proposed modifications to the protocol prior to implementing such modifications.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 63 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 63 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD Reports that it has adopted the RMS Protocol and provided related training during the Second Quarter of 2013. The VIPD also reports that the Committee is currently reviewing draft versions of the forms that will be used to document EIP interventions.
OIM Report:
After several years of work, the DOJ approved the Department‟s RMS Protocol on October 2, 2012. As previously reported, the RMS Protocol provides various thresholds that trigger supervisory review. For example, if an Officer receives more than X number of complaints within Y period of time, IAPro will alert the Officer‟s Supervisor (and other appropriate personnel) to the potential issue and need for review. When reporting arrest and use of force

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 67 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 63
data, the Consent Decree requires that the VIPD use ratios based on the conduct of VIPD personnel (the total number of arrests where force was used divided by the total number of arrests) to identify potentially problematic behavior. The VIPD is not currently capable of providing these ratios because its arrest records are not uniform or reliable. The VIPD has been working to consolidate all of its arrest records into a single database for several quarters. Although the VIPD appears to be close to finalizing that database, it has not yet done so. The Parties agree that the Department will not be in compliance with the Consent Decree until it implements a ratio-based RMS Protocol.
Recommendations:
Once the Department can rely on its arrest records, the VIPD must begin to use ratios, rather than numerical thresholds, as triggers for supervisory review of Officers‟ conduct. The VIPD should also provide the OIM with audits documenting the Department‟s compliance with ¶ 63 of the Consent Decree.
64. The protocol for using the risk management system will include the following provisions and elements: a) The protocol is comprised of the following components: data storage, data retrieval, reporting, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation and audit; b) The protocol will require the automated system to analyze the data according to the following criteria: (i) number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; (ii) average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and (iii) identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; c) The protocol will require the system to generate reports on a monthly basis describing the data and data analysis and identifying individual and unit patterns; d) The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors will review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, system reports, and will evaluate individual officer, supervisor, and unit activity; e) The protocol will require that VIM deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors initiate intervention for individual officers, supervisors and for units based on appropriate activity and pattern assessment of the information contained in the risk management system; f) The protocol will require that intervention options include discussion by deputy chiefs, managers, supervisors, and officers; counseling; training; and supervised, monitored, and documented action plans and strategies designed to modify activity. All interventions will be documented in writing and entered into the automated system (appropriate intervention options will be employed based on the evaluation described in subsection (e) above); g) The protocol will specify that actions taken as a result of information from the risk management system be based on all relevant and appropriate information, including the nature of the officer’s assignment, crime trends and crime

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 68 of 116
64 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
problems, and not solely on the number or percentages of incidents in any category of information recorded in the risk management system; h) The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors will promptly review the risk management system records of all officers recently transferred to their sections and units; i) The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors be evaluated on their ability to use the risk management system to enhance effectiveness and reduce risk; (j) The protocol will require that the system be managed and administered by the Internal Affairs Unit of the VIPD. The IAU of the VIPD will conduct quarterly audits of the system to ensure action is taken according to the process described above; k) The protocol will require regular reviews, at no less than quarterly intervals, by appropriate managers of all relevant risk management system information to evaluate officer performance territory-wide, and to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all VIPD units in order to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued the RMS Protocol in compliance with ¶ 64 of the Consent Decree. Because ¶ 64 of the Consent Decree only requires the Department to develop a policy Phase 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the VIPD is in substantial compliance with ¶ 64 of the Consent Decree.
65. The VIPD will maintain all personally identifiable information about an officer included in the risk management system during the officer’s employment with the VIPD for at least five years. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis will be maintained indefinitely in the risk management system. On an ongoing basis, the VIPD will enter information into the risk management system in a timely, accurate, and complete manner, and maintain the data in a secure and confidential manner.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 65 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 65 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it has retained data for all former Officers since the Department‟s RMS became operational. The VIPD also reports that IAPro

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 69 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 65
allows authorized users to prohibit data for specific incidents from being purged or deleted.
The Department also reports that it is attempting to hire at least one EIP analyst per District to assist the EIP Manager, who is located in the St. Thomas/St. John District, and the EIP Coordinator, who is located in the St. Croix District. The VIPD has included a request for two analysts in its 2014 proposed budget, which has not yet been approved by the legislature. As an interim measure, the Commissioner contacted the Territory‟s Division of Personnel about temporarily assigning qualified and experienced staff from other government agencies to the VIPD on a temporary basis.
OIM Report:
The OIM did not assess the VIPD‟s compliance with ¶ 65 of the Consent Decree during the Third Quarter of 2013.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should explain whether, and under what circumstances, it is utilizing the IAPro feature that allows the VIPD to prohibit data for specific incidents from being purged or deleted. We made this same request in the Second Quarterly Report of 2013, but the VIPD did not provide an explanation. With limited exceptions for clerical errors, the Department should not delete any records from IAPro. Moreover, to the extent that the VIPD needs to delete data from IAPro, the process should be documented and approved by the Director of the IAB.
The VIPD should also provide the OIM with an update about its efforts to hire or borrow data analysts from other government agencies. However the VIPD chooses to staff those positions, it is crucial that the VIPD staff those positions. The VIPD will not be able to adequately monitor its EIP without additional help.
66. The new risk management system will be purchased off the shelf and customized by VIPD. Alternatively, the new risk management system may be developed and implemented according to the following schedule: a) Within 150 days of the effective date of this Agreement, subject to the review and approval of DOJ, the VIPD will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP); b) Within 270 days of the issuance of the RFP, or later with the agreement of DOJ, the VIPD will select the contractor to create the risk management system; c) Within 150 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the VIPD will submit the protocol for using the risk management system to DOJ for review and approval. The VIPD will share drafts of this document with DOJ and the Monitor (a position described in Section VII) to allow DOJ and the Monitor to become familiar with the document as it develops and to provide informal comments on it. The

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 70 of 116
66 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final approval within 30 days after it is presented for review and approval; d) Within 14 months of selecting the contractor, the VIPD will have ready for testing a beta version of the risk management system consisting of (i) server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the VIPD's existing automated systems; (ii) necessary data base software installed and configured; (iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and (iv) the use of force information system completed, including historic data. DOJ and the Monitor will have the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version using use of force data and test data created specifically for purposes of checking the risk management system; e) The risk management system computer program and computer hardware will be operational and fully implemented within 20 months of the selection of the risk management system contractor.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 66 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 66 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it purchased and installed IAPro software, along with its companion program Blue Team, in both Districts. The OIM requested confirmation from the VIPD regarding whether it has undertaken the required beta test of its RMS. The VIPD will provide further information about its efforts to conduct a beta test in future status reports.
OIM Report:
The OIM has requested information relating to any beta testing (i.e., an initial full scale test) that is planned for the Department‟s RMS. While some VIPD personnel have asserted that the required beta test has been completed, the VIPD has not responded to our requests for documentation. During the Third Quarter of 2013, the OIM again attempted to verify whether the VIPD has conducted a beta test. In addition, the Compliance Coordinator sent an email on behalf of the OIM to the Director of MIS requesting documentation. The Director of MIS has not yet provided any documentation.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 71 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 67
Recommendations:
Even though the Department has implemented certain aspects of IAPro, the RMS Protocol needs to be fully implemented. The VIPD should respond to the OIM‟s request for information about the required beta tests.
67. Prior to implementation of the new risk management system, the VIPD will continue to use existing databases and resources to the fullest extent possible, to identify patterns of conduct by VIPD officers or groups of officers.
Compliance Assessment:
Because the Department appears to rely on IAPro for risk management, this requirement is no longer applicable.
68. Following the initial implementation of the risk management system, and as experience and the availability of new technology may warrant, the VIPD may propose to add, subtract, or modify data tables and fields, modify the list of documents scanned or electronically attached, and add, subtract, or modify standardized reports and queries. The VIPD will submit all such proposals for review and approval by DOJ before implementation.
Compliance Assessment:
Because the Department has not yet fully implemented its RMS, this requirement is not yet applicable.
69. The VIPD will develop a protocol for conducting audits. The protocol will be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol will establish a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all VIPD zones.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 69 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 69 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that the Commissioner approved the Audit and Inspection Policy during the Third Quarter of 2013, which reflects the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 72 of 116
68 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
requirements contained in ¶ 69. The VIPD also reports that training on the Audit and Inspection Policy was scheduled to take place in both Districts in October 2013; those trainings took place as scheduled.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the Audit and Inspection Policy in September 2013, and provided related training in October 2013. Despite providing training more than a month ago, the VIPD has not provided any documentation showing that the Audit Unit is operational. During the Third Quarter of 2013, the OIM learned that the Commissioner has decided to wait until supervisory promotions take place (hopefully in early 2014) to appoint members to the Audit Unit. Given the importance of the Audit Unit, there is no reason for this delay. The Commissioner should appoint members to the Audit Unit immediately, even if only on a part time basis. He could then supplement or change those appointments following supervisory promotions. The Commissioner should also consider consolidating the Audit Committee (which has been inactive in recent quarters) into the Audit Unit. To the extent that the Audit Committee is currently staffed, those individuals could be better utilized as members of the Audit Unit.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should consider appointing VIPD personnel to the Audit Unit on a full time basis. Because of the overlap between the Consent Decree and the Audit Unit, the Consent Decree Coordinator and/or Consent Decree Manager are well positioned to take leadership roles in the Audit Unit. The OIM learned during the Third Quarter of 2013 that the Compliance Manager attended audit training, but that the Compliance Coordinator did not. The Compliance Coordinator should attend any future audit trainings and be an active part of the Audit Unit. The OIM is also hopeful that the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner will take active and direct roles in the leadership and supervision of the Audit Unit. To that end, the VIPD should provide documentation showing that the Commissioner met, at least quarterly, with the Department‟s management to review all RMS data and identify significant patterns of misconduct.
70. The VIPD will continue to utilize a disciplinary matrix to take into account an officer’s violations of different rules, rather than just repeated violations of the same rule. The VIPD will further revise this matrix to increase the penalties for uses of excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, or dishonesty, to reflect the seriousness of those infractions. The revised disciplinary matrix will provide the VIPD with the discretion to impose any appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes the officer’s misconduct exhibits a lack of fitness for duty. This revised matrix will be subject to the review and approval of DOJ.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 73 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 69
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued the Disciplinary Matrix in compliance with ¶ 70 of the Consent Decree. Because ¶ 70 of the Consent Decree only requires the Department to develop a policy, Phase 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the VIPD is in substantial compliance with ¶ 70 of the Consent Decree.
71. VIPD policy will continue to identify clear time periods by which the various steps of a complaint adjudication process should be completed, from complaint receipt to the imposition of discipline, if any. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions will not be granted without the Police Commissioner's written approval and notice to the complainant. In the limited circumstances when an extension is necessary, appropriate tolling provisions will be outlined in the policy.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 71 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 71 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that extending the statute of limitations for instituting disciplinary actions from 50 to 90 days is “an unresolved matter” because the Department‟s contracts with the Police Benevolent Association (“PBA”) and the Law Enforcement Supervisors Union (“LESU”) (the unions that represent VIPD Officers and Supervisors, respectively) would have to be amended.
The Chairperson of the Management and Supervision working group submitted a memorandum to the Commissioner on September 24, 2013 requesting that, as part of upcoming negotiations with the PBA and the LESU, the VIPD should seek to extend the statute of limitations from 50 working days to 90 working days; the IAB has recommended further extending the period to 120 working days. Because the VIPD‟s contracts with the PBA and the LESU have both expired, the Chairperson of the Management and Supervision working group recognized that this is an “opportune time to address the statute of limitation” issue.
The VIPD also reports that time limits relating to the complaint adjudication process and the granting of extensions are outlined in the citizen complaint policies.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 74 of 116
70 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
OIM Report:
As an initial matter and as the OIM previously reported, the VIPD appears to be confusing the time period in which the Department can initiate administrative charges against an Officer with the timelines set forth in the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy. The unions‟ reported refusal to extend the 50-day statute of limitations has no bearing on the Department‟s ability to comply with internal investigative deadlines. In addition, while the Department‟s policies set deadlines for various steps in the complaint adjudication process, the VIPD frequently fails to comply with those deadlines.
The OIM agrees with the Chairperson of the Management and Supervision working group and the IAB that the statute of limitations should be extended. While we would favor the longer 120 working day period advocated by the IAB, a 90 working day period would be a vast improvement from the status quo. The VIPD should make this issue a priority in negotiating new contracts with the PBA and LESU.
Although the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy sets forth “clear time periods by which the various steps of a complaint adjudication process should be completed[,]” many of the Department‟s citizen complaint investigations are overdue. Moreover, even when the investigation file indicates that a stay was granted, there is often too little information in the file to determine whether the stay was justified.
Recommendations:
The Management and Supervision working group, together with the Citizen Complaint Process working group and the IAB, should audit and document Department personnel‟s compliance with the relevant time periods. The VIPD should also hold Officers accountable for violating deadlines concerning the adjudication of investigations. The VIPD should provide the OIM with quarterly IAPro reports reflecting the status of all pending citizen complaint investigations so we can monitor the Department‟s compliance with the required deadlines on a regular basis.
72. Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD will not take only nondisciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix indicates the imposition of discipline. In a case where discipline has been imposed on an officer, the VIPD must also consider whether nondisciplinary corrective action is required.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 72 of the Consent Decree and has

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 75 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 71
provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 72 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that the DOJ approved its revised Disciplinary Matrix during the Third Quarter of 2013, and that training is expected to take place in October 2013. The VIPD also acknowledges that it needs to audit the Department‟s compliance with ¶ 72.
OIM Report:
The OIM did not assess the VIPD‟s compliance with ¶ 72 of the Consent Decree during the Third Quarter of 2013.
Recommendations:
The Management and Supervision working group should promptly implement the Disciplinary Matrix by providing corresponding training. In order to help the OIM evaluate the Department‟s compliance with ¶ 72 of the Consent Decree, it should provide the OIM with documentation from disciplinary hearings, including the charges, findings, and any discipline and/or non-disciplinary corrective action that was taken.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 76 of 116 72 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

Training

Joint Action Plan Requirements

Joint Action Plan Requirements By November 30, 2012, finalize Audit Protocol and submit to the DOJ and the Monitors‟ subject matter experts.

Status Satisfied. On November 30, 2012, the VIPD submitted a final Audit and Inspection Policy to the DOJ for review. That policy was signed by the Commissioner during the Third Quarter of 2013.

By November 30, 2012, the Director of Training will develop and implement a tracking system to track training attendance and shall periodically test for proficiency on the policies.

Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with a report documenting that the Department has such a tracking system or periodically tests for proficiency with policies.

By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system).
By November 30, 2012, and on an ongoing basis, provide Monitors‟ subject matter experts with training curricula and schedules at least 15 days in advance of training, but preferably 30 days in advance.

Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department has such a tracking system.
Not satisfied. As the OIM has previously requested, and as is required by the Joint Action Plan, the VIPD must provide the OIM with training schedules, lesson plans, and curricula, without prompting, from the OIM.

By November 30, 2012, and on an ongoing basis, VIPD shall consult with VIAG to ensure that all use of force training and use of force policies are in compliance with applicable laws and VIPD policy.

Not satisfied. The VIPD reported during the First and Second Quarters of 2013 that the Training and Use of Force working groups are developing a protocol for cooperation between the VIPD‟s Training Director and the VIAG. The VIPD continued working on such a protocol during the Third Quarter of 2013.

By January 31, 2013, provide competency-based training of officers and supervisors on remaining policies.

Not satisfied. The VIPD provided inservice training during the Second Quarter of 2013. The VIPD has not provided the OIM with a report about the number of Officers and

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 77 of 116 Office of the Independent Monitor | 73

Supervisors that have been trained on the Department‟s policies.

By January 31, 2013, provide ongoing refresher training on policies through documented, periodic inservice and Roll Call training. Incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy.

Not satisfied. Although the VIPD has provided the OIM with attendance sheets and brief descriptions of Roll Call and Commanders Call training, the OIM needs more detailed information about the subject matter being covered.

By January 31, 2013, provide competency-based training of supervisors on remaining policies (i.e. Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy).

Not satisfied. The VIPD provided inservice training during the Second Quarter of 2013. The VIPD has not provided the OIM with a report about the number of Supervisors that have been trained on the Department‟s policy.

By April 30, 2013, auditors will attend outside training regarding conducting audits.
By June 30, 2013, VIPD will implement systems to ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.
By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.
By June 30, 2013, Train staff regarding Audit Protocol.

Not satisfied. The VIPD expects to provide audit training in the Fourth Quarter of 2013.
Not satisfied. The VIPD continued to work on its audit tools during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013. The VIPD received DOJ approval for its audit tools during the Fourth Quarter of 2013. Not satisfied. The VIPD continued to work on its audit tools during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013. The VIPD received DOJ approval for its audit tools during the Fourth Quarter of 2013.
Not satisfied. The VIPD expects to provide audit training in the Fourth Quarter of 2013.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 78 of 116
74 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
73. The VIPD will continue to coordinate and review all use of force policy and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy. The VIPD will conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually.
Compliance Assessment:
Phase 1 is inapplicable to this Consent Decree requirement. The Department has not achieved Phase 2 or Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 73 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
During the Third Quarter of 2013, the Committee reviewed the Critical Policy Review Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”), which provides guidelines for reviewing Department policies, and forwarded it to the Commissioner for review and approval.
The VIPD reports that the Committee continued efforts to coordinate an annual review process for all policies, including use of force policies. The Department issued a memorandum to VIPD personnel soliciting comments about the policies to be reviewed. The Policy Committee has yet to set any dates to review the policies. The VIPD reports that it will document the review process and that the VIAG will be involved.
OIM Report:
The VIPD first reported during the Third Quarter of 2012 that it would periodically review its use of force policies in consultation with the VIAG. The Use of Force working group reported during the First Quarter of 2013 that it planned to review one use of force policy every two weeks. The VIPD stopped that process because it determined that the SOP was needed. The Committee approved the SOP during the Third Quarter of 2013, and it was signed by the Commissioner during the Fourth Quarter of 2013. Although the OIM has observed greater ad hoc involvement by the VIAG in the development of lesson plans and policy review, the VIPD has not demonstrated that there is a process for VIAG review that is systematic and documented.
Recommendations:
The VIPD must provide documentation to the OIM demonstrating that the VIPD has coordinated and reviewed all use of force policies at least annually, and that the Training Division has reviewed all training at least semiannually. The OIM has only received an explanation on how the semi-annual review of training would take place and who would participate.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 79 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 75
74. The Director of Training, either directly or through his/her designee(s), consistent with applicable law and VIPD policy will: a) ensure the quality of all use of force training; b) develop and implement use of force training curricula; c) select and train VIPD officer trainers; d) develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service training; e) in conjunction with the Chiefs, develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures; f) establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and g) conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
Compliance Assessment:
Phase 1 is inapplicable to this Consent Decree requirement. The Department has not achieved Phase 2 or Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not in substantial compliance with ¶ 74 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that during the Third Quarter of 2013, the Training Division submitted lesson plans to the VIAG in preparation for in-service training scheduled for the Fourth Quarter of 2013. As part of in-service training, the VIPD reports that only certified use of force instructors conduct use of force training. The VIPD sent two Officers from each District to training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glenco, Georgia. As reported last quarter, the Training Division is developing criteria upon which to base its instructor selection process. Once finalized, the VIPD will provide the criteria to the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
During the Third Quarter of 2013, the Department held Integrated Use of Force and Law Enforcement Firearms instructor training. The VIPD‟s Compliance Coordinator will provide the OIM with the relevant training records once they are received from the Training Division, including lesson plans and post-training proficiency examinations.
The Training Division continues to provide course evaluation forms at the conclusion of training. The completed forms are then reviewed by the Training Director and/or his staff for suggestions on improving the quality of training.
OIM Report:
Progress in achieving substantial compliance with ¶ 74 continues to be slow.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 80 of 116
76 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
74 a) The VIPD previously reported that the Director of Training reviews evaluations completed by Supervisors and Officers at the conclusion of training. Ensuring the quality of use of force training, however, requires more than just reviewing student evaluations. The Director of Training must elicit feedback from instructors and the Training working group, aggregate and file all reviews and comments received, and implement any improvements prior to in-service and other training. The VIPD must document that it includes the VIAG in its systematic evaluation of use of force training. While the OIM is aware that the VIPD completes evaluation forms following each training, the VIPD has not demonstrated that it analyzes the comments received or reports any significant conclusions (e.g., need to revise course material) from those evaluations.
74 b) The VIPD reports that the Department developed use of force training curricula in March of 2011. That curricula must be reviewed for possible revisions in light of intervening legal developments or the Department‟s identification of particular deficiencies. The VIPD has not reported that it has undertaken this type of review. Under the Consent Decree, the Department must conduct the review at least semi-annually.
74 c) The VIPD did not assess this requirement during the Third Quarter of 2013.
74 d) The VIPD has satisfied this requirement.
74 e) The Training Division has updated its records to reflect recent Roll Call training in both Districts. The OIM commends the Training Division for reinforcing Consent Decree related training, but systematic implementation of Roll Call training is required to achieve substantial compliance. The VIPD has previously reported that it has not fully implemented the Roll Call Policy because of a shortage of Supervisors in both Districts. This provision also requires the Training Director to coordinate with the Chiefs in both Districts in conducting and developing Roll Call and Commanders Call training. The VIPD has not demonstrated to the OIM that the Training Director is coordinating with the Chiefs in developing Roll Call Training. The Department‟s training function would benefit from close coordination between the Department‟s management on this and other training requirements. The OIM, however, has observed little coordination or communication in this area. Since the VIPD has not provided the OIM with any documentation that the Training Director jointly develops Roll Call training with other divisions in the Department, the Training Division should develop a training committee with the IAB to identify recurring issues to address during in-service and Roll Call and Commanders Call training.
74 f) The VIPD reported to the OIM that it has created a “Training Division Course Evaluation” form to evaluate all training. The Department,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 81 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 77
however, has not provided the Police Practices Experts with completed forms or any report summarizing the Department‟s analysis of these evaluations.
74 g) During the First and Second Quarters of 2013, the VIPD reported that it continues to maintain training folders for Officers, which include questionnaires that Officers complete after attending training to assess their understanding of the material presented. The VIPD, however, has not developed a process for reviewing and analyzing this information. A proper review process must analyze this information, in concert with other training data, so that the VIPD (and the OIM) can determine where improvements in training are required. In addition, the VIPD has limited any review of these evaluations to staff in the Training Division. The Department would benefit from including Supervisors and other managers and trainers in this review process.
Recommendations:
The VIPD needs to substantially improve the way in which it provides and evaluates the quality of the Department‟s training. For example, the Department does not appear to have a system in place for selecting suitable candidates to serve as instructors. For the past three years, the OIM has requested a policy or procedure detailing how the Department selects instructor candidates, but the Department has not provided a substantive response. The OIM previously worked with the VIPD to develop a process for selecting suitable Field Training Officer candidates. We previously recommended that the Department adopt that process to identify instructor candidates more broadly, but the Department ignored that recommendation.
The VIPD has reported (verbally) that members of the Training Division periodically observe training programs, but it needs to better document that process. In addition to documenting the fact that an instructor was observed, the observer should also document any comments or suggestions relating to the training and then provide that feedback to the instructor. We have not seen any documentation indicating that the Department follows this procedure.
75. The VIPD will continue to provide training consistent with VIPD policy, law, and proper police practices, and will ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by instructors. The VIPD will make best efforts to train each work shift as a team in their use of force training.
Compliance Assessment:
Phase 1 is inapplicable to this Consent Decree requirement. The Department has achieved Phase 2 compliance because it has provided training on Department policies, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 82 of 116
78 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not in substantial compliance with ¶ 75 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it has provided the OIM with the lesson plans for the following policies: Arrest; Firearms; O.C. Spray; Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force; Vehicle Pursuit; Sniper; Hostage Negotiation; Spike Strip; Canine; and Electronic Control Weapon. The Department also provided the OIM with copies of post-training examinations from in-service training on the following policies: Investigating Officer Misconduct and Citizen Complaints; Electronic Control Weapon; Arrest; O.C. Spray; Impact Weapon; Canine; Use of Force; Firearms; Spike Strip; Sniper; Hostage Negotiation; and Vehicle Pursuit.
The VIPD reports that lesson plans continue to be reviewed by the VIPD‟s Training Director and the VIAG prior to training to ensure compliance with the requirements of ¶ 75.
OIM Report:
The OIM commends the VIPD for providing copies of lesson plans for inservice training conducted during the Third Quarter of 2013. The OIM, however, notes that the Department has not provided lesson plans for training on the Use of Force, Off-Duty Official Action, or Field Training Officer Program policies. Additionally, the Department has not provided documentation that all lesson plans have been reviewed by the VIAG. Indeed, the OIM has received some lesson plans indicating that the VIAG has reviewed the materials, but there is no such indication on others. The Department must develop a process for consistent and systematic review of Department lesson plans and curricula by the VIAG.
The Police Practices Experts have observed that the quality of training has improved, especially when the VIAG has reviewed the lesson plans and post-training examinations. The OIM was also pleased that participants in vehicle-related training took additional steps to discuss specific places within the Virgin Islands where certain tactics would not be practical and should be prohibited. In addition, training has increasingly incorporated adult learning techniques (e.g., practical exercises and illustrations), which are more effective for comprehension and participation.
As explained earlier in the Report, the OIM will assess the Department‟s obligation to provide training for the policies and protocols required by ¶¶ 31, 39, 40, 47, 50, 52, 53, 62, 64 and 70 in connection with the specific requirements contained throughout the Consent Decree and ¶ 75. In the next quarterly report, the OIM hopes to provide a more detailed analysis of the steps that the VIPD has taken towards complying with ¶ 75 based on its responses to the Data Sources Chart.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 83 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 79
Recommendations:
The OIM continues to recommend that the Training Division work in concert with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to arrange further training (inservice, Roll Call, and Commanders Call) on certain policies where compliance has been problematic, including the Use of Force Policy, Acceptance of Citizen Complaint Policy, and Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. To ensure the post-training examinations serve their intended purpose, the OIM has recommended repeatedly that the VIPD develop multiple versions of the post-training examinations so that VIPD personnel cannot memorize the questions and answers. Although having multiple versions of an exam is a standard police practice, the VIPD has not adopted this recommendation. The Training Division also should work closely with the Use of Force, Complaint Process, and Management and Supervision working groups to identify areas that require additional training, either through additional in-service training or Roll Call and Commanders Call training, to ensure that VIPD personnel adequately understand their obligations. Lesson plans for all training programs should be vetted and approved by Department management and the VIAG in advance of training, and should be provided to the OIM with documentation sufficient to show that the lesson plans were reviewed by the VIAG.
76. The VIPD shall continue to keep adequate records of lesson plans and other training materials, such that the most current training documents are maintained in a central, commonly accessible file, and are clearly dated.
Compliance Assessment:
Phase 1 is inapplicable to this Consent Decree requirement. The Department has achieved Phase 2 compliance because the VIPD currently maintains training records, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not in substantial compliance with ¶ 76 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
During the Third Quarter of 2013, the Training Division continued its process to procure more sophisticated software to maintain all training records. This software will track and manage all training records for sworn and civilian personnel. The software will also enable the VIPD to conduct on-line training.
In addition, the VIPD continued its process to procure 22 flat screen televisions for the Zones in both Districts to provide, among other things, training information for VIPD personnel.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 84 of 116
80 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
OIM Report:
The VIPD has indicated for almost a year its intent to acquire software capable of producing the kind of information required by the Consent Decree in a format that would substantiate compliance. This area of compliance languishes behind other areas of the Consent Decree. The OIM expects that, even after new software is purchased, additional effort and resources will need to be devoted to installation and data transfer.
Under the Joint Action Plan, the VIPD is required to provide “training curricula and schedules at least 15 days in advance of training, but preferably 30 days in advance.” The Training Division, however, often provides notice of any upcoming Consent Decree training with only 15 days notice. This practice makes it difficult for the OIM to make proper arrangements to monitor training. The Department should provide the OIM with as much notice about upcoming training as possible. Once the Department has scheduled training, there is no reason to wait to notify the OIM.
Similarly, the VIPD does not provide training curricula within the required timeframe. During the Third Quarter of 2013, the OIM attended audit training, but did not receive the training curricula as required until arriving in the Territory and specifically requesting such material. It is in the VIPD‟s best interest to provide as much notice as possible so that the OIM can have every opportunity to evaluate the VIPD‟s progress towards substantial compliance with ¶ 76.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should finalize plans to purchase a new database to maintain training records. A manual record keeping system does not allow the Training Division to generate reports sufficient to assess the VIPD‟s compliance with the Consent Decree‟s training requirements. This capability is fundamental to modern policing.
Until the Department establishes a new computerized system to maintain training records, the OIM urges the VIPD to document (i) sworn personnel who satisfactorily complete training; (ii) sworn personnel who fail to attend training; and (iii) dispositions against sworn personnel who fail to attend training. With the exception of a report reflecting this information for Blue Team training in the St. Thomas/St. John District, the VIPD has not provided the OIM with this information for other Consent Decree related training.
77. The VIPD shall continue to maintain training records regarding every VIPD officer that reliably indicate the training each officer has received. The training records shall, at a minimum, include the course description and duration, curriculum, and instructor for each officer.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 85 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 81
Compliance Assessment:
Phase 1 is inapplicable to this Consent Decree requirement. The Department has achieved Phase 2 compliance since the VIPD reports that it maintains training records, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not in substantial compliance with ¶ 77 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it continues to maintain a training database in each District, which stores lesson plans, attendance rosters, instructor certifications, and training completed by each Officer. The Training Division is also in the process of procuring more sophisticated software to maintain all training records. This software will track and manage all training records for sworn and civilian personnel. The software will also enable the VIPD to conduct on-line training.
OIM Report:
The VIPD‟s current system for maintaining training records does not capture the course description, length of training, curricula, or instructor information. While the VIPD may be able to cobble together that information from different sources, it is not readily accessible. Moreover, the VIPD does not maintain computerized records for instructor trainings.
Recommendations:
As discussed above, the VIPD should finalize plans to purchase a new database to maintain training records. Until a new database is purchased and functioning, the VIPD should manually compile reports confirming compliance with the requirements of ¶ 77.
78. The Training Director will review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure compliance with applicable laws and Virgin Islands Police Department policy. The Training Director will consult with the Attorney General’s Office on any additions, changes and/or modifications regarding use of force training or policies to ensure compliance with applicable laws.
Compliance Assessment:
Phase 1 is inapplicable to this Consent Decree requirement. The Department has achieved Phase 2 compliance since the VIPD reports that the Training Director reviews all training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not in substantial compliance with ¶ 78 of the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 86 of 116
82 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that the Training Division continues to consult with the VIAG to review force related policies and lesson plans. The VIPD contends that the SOP approved by the Committee and under review by the Commissioner will formalize this review process.
OIM Report:
The Use of Force working group reported during the First Quarter of 2013 that it planned to review one use of force policy every two weeks. The VIPD stopped that process because it determined that the SOP was needed. The Committee approved the SOP during the Third Quarter of 2013, and it was signed by the Commissioner during the Fourth Quarter of 2013. Although the OIM has observed greater ad hoc involvement by the VIAG in the development of lesson plans and policy review, the VIPD has not demonstrated that there is a process for VIAG review that is systematic and documented
Recommendations:
Maintaining a viable Training working group is critical and long overdue. The Training Director must work with Department management in order for the Department‟s training capacity to grow. Up to this point, the Training working group has functioned independently but should work cooperatively with other working groups when appropriate to achieve substantial compliance with the Consent Decree.
79. The VIPD will continue to provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on use of force. Such training will include and address the following topics: a) the VIPD’s use of force model, as described in this Agreement; b) proper use of force decision making; c) the VIPD’s use of force reporting requirements; d) the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements; e) examples of scenarios faced by VIPD officers that illustrate proper use of force decision-making; f) interactive exercises that emphasize proper use of force decisionmaking; g) de-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without using force, and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest maybe the appropriate response to a situation even when the use of force would be legally justified; h) threat assessment; i) appropriate training on conflict management.
Compliance Assessment:
Phase 1 is inapplicable to this Consent Decree requirement. The Department has not achieved Phase 2 or Phase 3 compliance as discussed

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 87 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 83
below. Therefore, the Department is not in substantial compliance with ¶ 79 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that annual in-service training is scheduled to begin during the Fourth Quarter of 2013. The Department intends to train on the following Consent Decree related topics: TASER, O.C. Spray; Disciplinary Matrix; Defensive Tactics; Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints; preponderance of the evidence; constitutional law; dealing with the mentally ill; and integrated use of force and scenario based training.
OIM Report:
a) The VIPD has developed a use of force model as required under the Consent Decree. However, the VIPD has not provided the OIM with any lesson plans demonstrating how the use of force model will be reinforced during inservice training.
b) The VIPD has not provided the OIM with any lesson plans relating to training on proper use of force decision making. In addition, the OIM has not received any lesson plans addressing how the training lab will be used during in-service training.
c) The VIPD has improved its use of force reporting since the inception of the Consent Decree. However, the VIPD conducted its own audit and discovered issues with uniform force reporting and accountability.
d) Topics including the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements have been addressed in previous training provided by the Department. The OIM will monitor in-service training during the Fourth Quarter of 2013.
e) The Police Practices Experts have observed that the VIPD has started to incorporate scenario-based training. This is a positive development since much of the training previously observed by the Police Practices Experts was a recitation of the policy.
f) The Department has not utilized the training lab with great frequency. The OIM expected to see a plan integrating simulators into recruit and inservice training. The VIPD has reported to the OIM that the training lab was used in November of 2012 and that the Special Response Team on the St. Thomas/St. John District received introductory training. The Department, however, has not provided the OIM with documentation of that training. The OIM will monitor in-service training during the Fourth Quarter of 2013 since the Department intends to use scenario based training.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 88 of 116
84 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
g) As of the Second Quarter of 2013, the OIM was not aware of any specific training on de-escalation techniques, including encouraging officers to make arrests without using force, or instructing on disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest.
h) The VIPD has not provided the OIM with a training schedule or lesson plans for threat assessment training.
i) The VIPD has not provided the OIM with a training schedule or lesson plans that focus on conflict management.
Recommendations:
We previously recommended that the Training Division work closely with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to arrange further training (in-service, Roll Call, and Commanders Call) on certain policies for which compliance has been problematic based on the results of post-training examinations, Department audits, and OIM audits. The Training Division also should work closely with the Use of Force, Citizen Complaint Process, and Management and Supervision working groups to identify areas that require additional training, either through additional in-service training or Roll Call and Commanders Call training, to ensure that VIPD personnel adequately understand their obligations. VIPD management needs to use information attained from the EIP to identify training needs. The VIPD has not provided the OIM with any indication that the Training Division has formalized or documented its relationship with the Chiefs on both Districts to coordinate Roll Call training. To the extent the VIPD has undertaken such a process, it should explain what training has been held as a result of this joint effort.
80. The VIPD will continue to provide training to all its officers on the VIPD citizen complaint process. The VIPD will develop a protocol for all its officers on appropriate conduct and responses in handling citizens’ complaints and will train officers in the protocol.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies consistent with the citizen complaint process requirements of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 80 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
The VIPD held in-service training during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013, which included training on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 89 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 85
Policy. Further in-service training will be conducted during the Fourth Quarter of 2013.
OIM Report:
The Department has increased the number of Roll Call and Commanders Call trainings dedicated to the citizen complaint process. Records for Roll Call and Commanders Call training, like all Department training, should document which Officers attended training, which Officers did not attend, and what efforts the Department has undertaken to train any “no shows.” The Training Division, in coordination with the Chiefs from both Districts, must ensure that Roll Call and Commanders Call training is implemented and documented systematically. Despite repeated requests for information on “no shows” and Officers who receive remedial training, the VIPD has not provided the OIM with comprehensive files on these trainings. The OIM will report on in-service training during the Fourth Quarter of 2013.
Recommendations:
The VIPD has made significant progress issuing the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizens Policy. The VIPD should continue to provide Officers and Supervisors with additional training on the complaint process and then conduct and document periodic audits to ensure that VIPD personnel are complying with the relevant policies. The VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate. The Training Division also should document training and testing in connection with Roll Call and Commanders Call training.
81. The VIPD will provide training on appropriate burdens of proof to all supervisors, as well as the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility (to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform, and legally appropriate). The VIPD will also continue to provide training to supervisors on leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training will be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities, and will be made part of annual in-service training.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies consistent the requirements of ¶ 81 and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 81 of the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 90 of 116
86 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
VIPD Report:
The VIPD reports that it continues to provide training on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy through in-service, Roll Call and Commanders Call training. According to the VIPD, this training includes post-training examinations prepared by the VIAG on the preponderance of evidence standard, which is used to evaluate citizen complaint investigations.
The VIPD reports that it previously provided training to Supervisors within 90 days of being promoted, but that such training was last held in 2012.
OIM Report:
Although the VIPD is conducting training, administering post-training examinations, and recording attendance at training, the VIPD does not routinely provide the OIM with all lesson plans, curricula, instructor information and other training materials for training held during the quarter. At this point in the Consent Decree, there is no reason for any delay in sharing records or providing insufficient training records. In addition, the Department needs to train Captains and higher ranking VIPD personnel about command accountability. The VIPD has not provided the OIM with evidence that this training has ever occurred.
Recommendations:
Maintaining a viable Training working group will help the Training Division achieve compliance with the requirements of ¶ 81. The Training Division should work with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to conduct Commanders Call training on the preponderance of the evidence standard, document such training and attendance by Supervisors, and record the results of any examinations administered following training. Additionally, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply with Department policy. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work with the Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, the IAB, and the Training Division to provide remedial training or other corrective action. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator and the OIM.
100. The Territory of the Virgin Islands and the VIPD shall implement each and every provision of this Agreement as that term defined in Paragraph 30 of this Agreement.
101. The VIPD shall implement immediately all provisions of this Agreement that involve the continuation of current VIPD policies, procedures, and practices. The remaining provisions shall be implemented either by the specified implementation date or, for those

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 91 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | 87
provisions that have no specified implementation date, as soon as is reasonably practicable and no later than 150 days after this Agreement’s effective date.
OIM Report:
As explained earlier in the Report, the OIM will assess whether the Department is consistently applying the policies and protocols required by ¶¶ 31, 39, 40, 47, 50, 52, 53, 62, 64 and 70 in connection with ¶¶ 100 and 101. The VIPD has not achieved substantial compliance with the implementation requirement of ¶¶ 100 and 101 because, among other things, the Department has not provided documentation demonstrating that VIPD personnel are proficient with the Department‟s policies. In addition, the Department‟s Audit Unit is not fully functioning to assess the VIPD‟s compliance with Department policies as required under the Consent Decree. In the next quarterly report, the OIM hopes to provide a more detailed analysis of the steps that the VIPD has taken towards implementing each applicable provision of the Consent Decree based on its responses to the Data Sources Chart.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 92 of 116
88 |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
Conclusion
While the VIPD continues to make progress in certain areas, work remains, particularly with respect to the Department‟s use, reporting, and investigation of force. The Department should conduct further training to emphasize the requirements of its revised use of force policies, which lie at the heart of the Consent Decree. In addition, in order to achieve substantial compliance (and demonstrate substantial compliance to the OIM), the Department must (among other things) put in place a rigorous audit process to determine whether VIPD personnel are complying with the Department‟s policies, and to memorialize the VIPD‟s progress towards substantial compliance. This will require the Audit Unit to be fully functional and to work with the Training Division, the IAB, and the working groups. As we have previously reported, a robust auditing function is essential to the Department‟s ability to ensure that policies are implemented, that personnel understand and comply with Department policies, and that remedial training or other required action is taken to ensure that VIPD personnel are equipped to carry out Department policies and procedures in their daily policing activities. While audits conducted by the working groups can supplement the Audit Unit‟s work, they will generally be more narrowly tailored than audits conducted by the Audit Unit and not a substitute for the Audit Unit‟s work.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 93 of 116

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 94 of 116

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 95 of 116 Office of the Independent Monitor | i

Appendix A Case Tracking List

Case Number AIX2010-0091 FAX2010-0014 UOFX2011-0050 CCX2012-0073 UOFX2012-0005 UOFX2012-0066 UOFX2012-0065 AIX2013-0001 CCX2013-0003 CCX2013-0007 CCX2013-0016 UOFX2013-0004 UOFX2013-0005 UOFX2013-0007 UOFX2013-0008 UOFX2013-0018

District

Summary of Allegations

St. Croix

Use of force involving a firearm during a vehicle pursuit.

St. Croix

Use of force in responding to a burglary. Suspect died.

St. Croix Incomplete case.

St. Croix

Citizen complaint about Officer‟s alleged use of force.

St. Croix

Use of force involving a firearm while Officer executed a warrant. Suspect died.

St. Croix

Use of force involving a firearm in responding to a burglary. Suspect was wounded.

St. Croix

Use of force involving a firearm in responding to a burglary.

St. Croix Incomplete case.

St. Croix Incomplete case.

St. Croix

Citizen complaint about Officer‟s threatened use of force.

St. Croix

Citizen complaint about Officer‟s use of force during an arrest.

St. Croix

Use of force in responding to a burglary. Suspect was bitten by police dog.

St. Croix

Use of force involving a TASER in arresting an armed suspect.

St. Croix Incomplete case.

St. Croix Use of force in making an arrest.

St. Croix Use of force during a vehicle pursuit.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 96 of 116 ii |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

Case Number

District

Summary of Allegations

UOFX2013-0024 St. Croix Incomplete case.

AIT2010-0019

St. Thomas

Officers arrested on 33 counts of federal indictment.

AIT2011-0031 St. Thomas Officer allegedly committed assault.

AIT2011-0034 St. Thomas Officer allegedly made a false statement.

AIT2011-0047

St. Thomas

Sergeant allegedly made fraudulent claims to the government.

AIT2011-0050 St. Thomas Use of force involving a firearm.

AIT2011-0054

St. Thomas

Use of force involving a firearm in responding to a robbery. Suspect was killed.

AIT2011-0065

St. Thomas

Officers arrested for allegedly committing crimes.

AIT2011-0071 St. Thomas Officer allegedly failed to fill out RRR.

AIT2011-0074

St. Thomas

Officer allegedly served alcohol in the presence of minors.

AIT2011-0122 St. Thomas Alleged discrepancy about overtime.

AIT2012-0015

St. Thomas

Officers allegedly assaulted and false imprisoned each other.

AIT2012-0029

St. Thomas

Officer testified as a character witness for the defense without first notifying the VIPD.

AIT2012-0061 St. Thomas Use of force on a disturbed individual.

AIT2013-0012

St. Thomas

Verbal and sexual harassment between Officer and Supervisor.

AIT2013-0014

St. Thomas

Alleged failure to file Form 1A on a timely basis and to notify VIPD personnel of crime.

CCT2009-0003 St. Thomas Alleged criminal conduct by Officer.

CCT2010-0015

St. Thomas

Citizen complaint about Officer‟s alleged use of force.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 97 of 116 Office of the Independent Monitor | iii

Case Number CCT2011-0206 CCT2012-0090 CCT2013-0009
CCT2013-0010
CCT2013-0011 CCT2013-0020 CCT2013-0023
CCT2013-0024
CCT2013-0042 CT-0001-09 CT-0012-09 CT-0024-11
CCT2013-0035
CCT2013-0044 FAT2009-0001 FAT2010-0001 FAT2011-0014 FAT2011-0016 FAT2011-0018

District

Summary of Allegations

St. Thomas Alleged criminal conduct by Officer.

St. Thomas Citizen complaint about alleged use of force.

St. Thomas

Citizen complaint about alleged interrogation.

St. Thomas

Citizen complaint about Officer‟s alleged inaction.

St. Thomas

Citizen complaint about alleged interrogation.

St. Thomas Citizen complaint about alleged detention.

St. Thomas

Citizen complaint about Officer‟s alleged inaction.

St. Thomas

Citizen complaint about alleged harassment and threats by Officer.

St. Thomas

Citizen complaint about alleged brandishing of a firearm by an Officer.

St. Thomas Use of force involving a firearm.

St. Thomas Officer arrested for alleged crimes.

St. Thomas Officer investigated for alleged crimes.

St. Thomas

Citizen complaint about alleged warrantless search of home.

St. Thomas

Citizen complaint about alleged Officer misconduct

St. Thomas Use of force involving a firearm.

St. Thomas Use of force involving a firearm.

St. Thomas Use of force involving a firearm.

St. Thomas Use of force involving a firearm.

St. Thomas Use of force involving a firearm.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 98 of 116 iv |William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

Case Number FAT2011-0019
FAT2011-0020 FAT2011-0021 FAT2012-0002 FAT2013-0001 UOFT2011-0084 UOFT2011-0140
UOFT2012-0031

District

Summary of Allegations

St. Thomas

Use of force involving a firearm. Suspect was wounded.

St. Thomas

Use of force in responding to a robbery. Suspect was wounded.

St. Thomas Use of force involving a firearm.

St. Thomas Use of force involving a firearm.

St. Thomas Use of force involving a firearm.

St. Thomas Citizen complaint about alleged use of force.

St. Thomas

Use of force involving firearms while executing an arrest warrant. Suspect died.

St. Thomas

Use of force involving firearms. Suspect and one Officer died.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 99 of 116 Office of the Independent Monitor | v

Appendix B Summary of Consent Decree Requirements
Below is a summary of the requirements imposed by each substantive section of the Consent Decree. Because these summaries of the substantive requirements significantly lengthen our reports, we include them in this Appendix to provide the reader with context concerning the VIPD‟s progress in implementing the broad range of reforms required under each section of the Consent Decree.
I. Use of Force Policies (CD ¶ 31)
A. Requirements
Under paragraph 31 of the Consent Decree, the VIPD is required to review and revise its use of force policies as necessary to:
 Define terms clearly, including establishing a definition of force that is consistent with the definition of force under the Consent Decree;1
 Incorporate a use of force model that teaches officers to use, as appropriate, strategies such as disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, or calling in specialized units to assist with a situation;
 Advise VIPD officers that, whenever possible, individuals should be allowed to submit voluntarily to arrest before force is used;
 Reinforce that the use of excessive force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and potential civil liability;
 Ensure that sufficient less lethal force alternatives are available to all VIPD officers; and
 Explicitly prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized.2

1

Under the Consent Decree, “[t]he term „force‟ means any physical coercion used

to effect, influence or persuade an individual to comply with an order from an officer.

The term shall not include ordinary, unresisted handcuffing. The term shall include the

use of chemical irritant and the deployment of a canine and/or pointing a firearm at or

in the direction of a human being.” CD ¶ 21.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 100 of 116 vi| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

This provision requires that the VIPD implement its revised use of force policies immediately after the DOJ has reviewed and approved finalized versions of the policies.
II. Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force (CD ¶¶ 32-41)
A. General Use of Force Events (CD ¶¶ 32-38)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires that the VIPD document in writing all uses of force and develop a use of force reporting form on which officers are required to record each and every type of force used in an incident. The use of force reports must include: (1) a narrative description, prepared by a supervisor, of the events preceding the use of force; (2) a narrative description, prepared by the involved officer, of the event relating to the use of force incident; and, (3) audiotaped statements, as appropriate, from those officers.3
The Consent Decree requires officers to notify their supervisors following any use of force or allegation of excessive force. The supervisor must respond to the scene, examine the person who was subjected to the use of force for injury, interview him or her to determine the extent of any injuries, and ensure that the person receives medical attention, if necessary.
A supervisor must conduct a review and evaluation of each use of force by a VIPD officer. The Consent Decree contains the following requirements relating to these evaluations of uses of force:
 The supervisor must prepare a detailed narrative description of the incident that includes all of the facts and circumstances relevant to determining whether or not the involved officers‟ conduct was justified.

2

The Consent Decree defines “deadly force” as “any use of force likely to cause

death or serious physical injury, including, but not limited to, the discharge of a

firearm.” CD ¶ 20.

3

The Consent Decree defines “supervisor” as a “sworn VIPD employee at the rank

of corporal or above (or anyone acting in those capacities) and non-sworn personnel

with oversight responsibility for other officers.” CD ¶ 27.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 101 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | vii
 The supervisor must evaluate the grounds for the use of force and determine whether the involved officers‟ actions were consistent with VIPD policy.
 To filter out potential bias, reviews of use of force incidents may not be conducted by any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized action that led to a use of force or allegation of excessive force.
 Supervisors are required to interview all witnesses of a use of force, as well as all witnesses of any incident in which an injury results from a use of force. Supervisors must ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident, subject to any limitations imposed by any applicable provision of collective bargaining agreements or law.
 Supervisors are not permitted to ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that might, for example, suggest legal justifications for the officers‟ conduct.
 Supervisors must consider all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence, as appropriate. Supervisors are required to make reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between statements provided by witnesses and make determinations with respect to the credibility of witnesses when feasible. The VIPD is required to train all of its supervisors on methods and factors for evaluating the credibility of a witness.
 Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that use of force reports identify every officer who was involved in a use of force incident or was on the scene when the incident occurred. Supervisors must ensure that use of force reports reflect whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided to an injured person, and, if not, whether the person refused medical treatment. Supervisors also must ensure that use of force reports include contemporaneous photographs or video of all injuries resulting from the underlying incident. These images must be taken both before and after any treatment of the injuries, including the cleansing of wounds.
 Supervisors are required to evaluate the performance of all officers under their command who use force or were involved in

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 102 of 116 viii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

an incident that resulted in a subject being injured due to a use of force by an officer.
 Finally, the Consent Decree requires a Deputy Chief to review and evaluate every use of force performance review prepared by a VIPD supervisor. The Deputy Chief‟s review must include the identification of any deficiencies in the supervisors‟ reviews and must require supervisors to correct any such deficiencies. The Consent Decree requires the Department to hold supervisors accountable for the quality of their use of force reviews, including subjecting a supervisor to appropriate corrective or disciplinary action in cases where the supervisor failed to conduct a timely and thorough review, or failed to recommend or implement appropriate corrective action with respect to a subject officer.
The VIPD also must investigate all critical firearm discharges.4 These reviews must account for all shots fired and the locations of all officers who discharged their weapons. In connection with the investigation of all critical firearm discharges, the VIPD is required to conduct, as appropriate, ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue and bullet trajectory tests.
B. Specific Force Policies (CD ¶¶ 39-41)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop a Use of Firearms Policy that is consistent with applicable law and current professional standards. This policy must:
 Prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition and inform officers that any such use may subject them to disciplinary action;
 Establish a single, uniform system for reporting all firearm discharges;
 Prohibit officers from obtaining service ammunition from any source other than official VIPD channels;

4

The Consent Decree defines the term “critical firearm discharge” as “each

discharge of a firearm by a VIPD officer with the exception of range and training

discharges and discharges at animals.” CD ¶ 22.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 103 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | ix
 Specify the number of rounds VIPD officers are authorized to carry; and,
 Require that all discharges of firearms by officers, including unintentional discharges, whether on duty or off-duty at the time of the discharge, are reported and investigated.
The VIPD also must develop a revised policy regarding officers‟ offduty conduct that:
 Provides that, absent exigent circumstances, off-duty officers must notify the VIPD or the relevant local law enforcement agency before taking police action; and
 Requires that an officer who responds to an incident while offduty must submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests if it appears that the officer had consumed alcohol or was otherwise impaired at the time of the incident.
Finally, the VIPD is required to implement a policy that provides for an intermediate force device that falls between the use of chemical spray and the use of a firearm on the use of force continuum. This intermediate force device must be one that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The VIPD must incorporate the use of this intermediate force device into its use of force continuum and train officers in the device‟s use on an annual basis.
III. Citizen Complaint Process (CD ¶¶ 42-58)
A. Public Information (CD ¶¶ 42-43) & Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints (CD ¶¶ 44-45)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop and implement a program to inform members of the public that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any VIPD officer. The Consent Decree contains the following requirements with respect to this public information program:
 The VIPD must develop and distribute complaint forms, fact sheets, informational posters, and public service announcements that describe its citizen complaint process.
 The VIPD must make complaint forms and informational materials available at government facilities, including VIPD

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 104 of 116 x| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

stations, substations, mobile substations, and libraries. These forms and materials also must be available on the Internet and, upon request, with community groups and at community centers.
 Each VIPD station, substation, and mobile substation must permanently post a placard that describes the complaint process and includes relevant contact information, including telephone numbers. These placards must be displayed in English, Spanish, and, where necessary in light of the local community, in French or French Patois.
 VIPD officers are required to carry English, Spanish, French, and French Patois5 versions of complaint forms and informational brochures in their vehicles at all times while on duty.
 If a citizen objects to an officer‟s conduct, the officer is required to inform the citizen of his or her right to make a complaint.
 Officers are prohibited from discouraging any person from making a complaint concerning an officer‟s conduct.
The Consent Decree imposes the following requirements relating to the availability of means by which members of the public may lodge complaints against VIPD officers and the tracking of such complaints:
 The VIPD must be able to receive complaints filed in writing or orally, in person or by mail, and by telephone (or TDD), facsimile, or electronic mail.
 The duty officer at the front desk of each District station shall be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints. At the intake stage, an officer taking a complaint is permitted to describe facts that relate to a complainant‟s demeanor and physical conditions but may not express

5

The OIM notes that paragraph 43 of the Consent Decree does not expressly

require VIPD officers to carry French language complaint forms and informational

brochures in addition to French Patois. However, in light of the third sentence in

paragraph 43 (which requires French language placards describing the complaint

process), the OIM believes that this was an inadvertent omission. For future printings

of brochures and other similar promotional information, the OIM suggests that the

VIPD create versions in English, Spanish, French, and French Patois to satisfy the

intent of the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 105 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | xi
opinions regarding the complainant‟s mental competency or veracity.
 Upon receipt, the VIPD is required to assign each complaint a unique identifier number, which must be provided to the complainant.
 The VIPD must track each complaint according to the type of misconduct alleged in the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, and improper search).
 Copies of all allegations of misconduct against a VIPD officer that are filed with the Zone Commands shall be referred to the IAB within five business days.
B. Investigation of Complaints (CD ¶¶ 46-58)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree establishes numerous specific requirements relating to the investigation of complaints against VIPD officers, including the following:
 Complaints must be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. The VIPD is required to develop and implement appropriate training regarding application of the preponderance of the evidence standard in internal investigations of allegations of officer misconduct.
 The VIPD must explicitly prohibit an officer from being involved in the investigation of a complaint or incident if the officer used force during the underlying incident, was involved in conduct that led to the injury of a person during the incident, or authorized the conduct that led to the reported incident.
 The VIPD must investigate every citizen complaint and the resolution of each complaint shall be documented in writing.
 The VIPD must develop a clear policy and procedure regarding the intake of complaints, including anonymous and confidential complaints, against VIPD officers.
 The Department must implement a centralized system for numbering and tracking all complaints.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 106 of 116
xii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
 IAB is responsible for determining whether each individual investigation of a complaint will be assigned to a Zone, retained by IAB, or referred for possible criminal investigation.
 If IAB refers a complaint to one of the Zones for investigation, the Zone must immediately forward to IAB copies of all documents, findings, and recommendations so that IAB is able to track and monitor the investigation.
 The Police Commissioner must be notified of all complaints alleging excessive force or violation of a person‟s Constitutional rights within twenty-four hours of the VIPD‟s receipt of the complaint.
The VIPD also is required to develop a single policy governing the investigation of misconduct complaints, regardless of whether the investigation of such complaints is conducted by IAB or a Zone command. This policy must:
 Provide guidance concerning factors for investigators to consider in evaluating the credibility of the complainant and other witnesses, examining and interrogating accused officers and other witnesses, identifying potential misconduct that is not specifically referred to in the complaint, and applying the preponderance of the evidence standard. The VIPD also must train all officers who perform internal investigations on these issues.
 Require that VIPD investigators ensure that all officers present at the scene of the underlying incident provide a statement and that all interviews be recorded, as appropriate, on audio or video.
 Require that investigation findings include conclusions regarding whether:
 The police action was in compliance with policy, training, and legal standards, regardless of whether the complainant suffered harm;
 The incident involved misconduct by any officer;
 The use of different tactics could have, or should have, been employed;

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 107 of 116 Office of the Independent Monitor | xiii

 The underlying incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling, or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and
 The incident suggests that the VIPD should revise its policy, training, or tactics.
 Establish that each allegation investigated must be resolved by a finding of either “unfounded,” “sustained,” “not sustained,” or “exonerated.”6
 Provide guidance to all investigators regarding procedures for handling allegations of potential criminal misconduct, including the referral of such allegations to the Virgin Islands Attorney General‟s Office or other appropriate agency for possible criminal prosecution. The policy must establish the entity or individual responsible for making the determination as to whether a matter should be investigated criminally. The policy also must require the completion of the VIPD‟s administrative investigations of potentially criminal misconduct, regardless of the initiation or outcome of any criminal proceedings.
 Require that all relevant police activity, including each use of force, be investigated, even if the activity or force was not specifically complained about.
 Require that investigations evaluate any searches or seizures that occurred during the underlying incident.
 Prohibit investigators from closing an investigation solely because a complaint is withdrawn, the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of an injury, or the complainant will not provide additional statements or written statements. The policy shall require that, under such circumstances, investigators must continue the investigation as necessary to determine whether the allegations

6

Under the Consent Decree, a finding of “unfounded” means that there are

insufficient facts establishing that the alleged incident actually occurred. A finding of

“sustained” means that there is sufficient evidence to determine that the alleged

incident occurred and that the officer‟s actions were improper. A finding of “not

sustained” means that there is insufficient evidence that the alleged misconduct

occurred. Finally, a finding of “exonerated” means that the alleged conduct occurred

but that the conduct did not violate VIPD policies, procedures, or training. Each of

these findings must be based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. CD ¶ 57.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 108 of 116
xiv| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
can be resolved based on available information, evidence, and investigative techniques.
 Prohibit investigators from considering the fact that a complainant pleaded guilty to, or was found guilty of, an offense as evidence of whether or not an officer used a type of force or as a justification for the investigator to close the investigation.
The VIPD must keep complainants periodically informed of the status of the investigation of their complaints. Upon the completion of each investigation, the VIPD must notify the complainant of the outcome of the investigation, including an appropriate statement regarding whether any disciplinary action or non-disciplinary corrective action was taken against any officer.
Finally, the Consent Decree requires that Unit Commanders evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command in order to identify potential problems or training needs. Unit Commanders must report any such issues to the appropriate VIPD entity in the form of a recommendation that appropriate action in response to the identified issues be taken.
IV. Management and Supervision (CD ¶¶ 59-72)
A. Risk Management System (CD ¶¶ 59-68)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop and implement a Risk Management System (“RMS”) that includes a computerized relational database or a paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for the supervision and management of VIPD personnel. The VIPD is required to use this data regularly to promote respect for civil rights and the employment of best police practices, manage risks, and potential liability for the Department, and evaluate the performance of VIPD officers and personnel across all ranks, units, and shifts.
The Consent Decree specifically requires the VIPD to collect and record the following information in its new RMS:
 All uses of force;

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 109 of 116 Office of the Independent Monitor | xv

 Canine bite ratios;7
 The number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers;
 All injuries to prisoners;
 All instances in which a VIPD officer used force and the subject was charged with resisting arrest, assault on a police officer, disorderly conduct, or obstruction of official or police business;
 All critical firearm discharges, whether they took place on duty or off-duty;
 All complaints against officers and the dispositions of those complaints;
 All criminal proceedings, civil or administrative claims, and civil lawsuits resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel;
 All vehicle pursuits;
 All incidents involving the pointing of a firearm;
 All disciplinary action taken against VIPD officers; and
 For incidents included in the database, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (e.g., the officer‟s name, badge number, shift, and supervisor) and member of the public (including race and ethnicity or national origin, if such information is available).
The VIPD has the option either to purchase the RMS “off the shelf” and customize the system to VIPD‟s requirements or to develop and implement the RMS pursuant to a contracting schedule set forth in the Consent Decree.8
Within 120 days of the effective date of the Consent Decree, the VIPD is required to prepare a protocol for the use of the RMS, which must be submitted to DOJ for review and approval. Any proposed

7

A canine bite ratio relates to apprehensions in which a canine unit participated.

It is the ratio of incidents that involved the canine biting or otherwise coming into

physical contact with the suspect compared to the overall number of such

apprehensions in which a canine unit participated.

8

See CD ¶ 66.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 110 of 116
xvi| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
modifications to the RMS protocol also must be submitted to DOJ for review and approval prior to the implementation of the proposed modifications. The RMS protocol must contain:
 Provisions regarding data storage, data retrieval, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation, and audit;
 Requirements that the automated system be able to analyze data according to the following criteria:
 The number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit;
 The average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and
 The identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit.
 Requirements relating to the generation of reports on a monthly basis that describe data contained in the RMS and identify patterns of conduct by individual officers and units;
 Requirements that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors initiate appropriate interventions with individual officers, supervisors, and units based on activity and pattern assessments derived from the information contained in the RMS and that the VIPD has the following intervention options available:
 Discussions among Deputy Chiefs, managers, supervisors, and officers;
 Counseling;
 Training; and,
 Documented action plans and strategies designed to modify officer conduct and activity.
 A requirement that all interventions be documented in writing and entered into the RMS;
 A provision that actions taken as a result of information derived from the RMS be based on all relevant and appropriate

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 111 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | xvii
information—including the nature of the officer‟s assignment, crime trends, and crime problems—and not solely on the number or percentage of incidents in any category of information recorded in the RMS;
 A requirement that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors promptly review the RMS records of all officers who transfer into their sections or units;
 A requirement that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors be evaluated based on their ability to use RMS to enhance the effectiveness of their units and to reduce risks associated with officer conduct;
 Provisions that IAB shall manage and administer the RMS and that IAB shall conduct quarterly audits of RMS to ensure compliance with the RMS protocol; and
 A requirement that appropriate managers conduct regular reviews, at least quarterly, of relevant RMS information to evaluate officer performance across the Virgin Islands. The purpose of such reviews is to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all VIPD units in order to identify significant patterns or series of incidents.
Within 120 days of the implementation of the RMS (or later with the agreement of DOJ), the VIPD must prepare, for the DOJ‟s review and approval, a Data Input Plan for including appropriate fields and values for new and historical data entered into the RMS.
 The Data Input Plan must identify the data to be included in the RMS and the means for inputting the data, the specific fields of information to be included in the RMS, the historical time periods for which information will be inputted into the system, deadlines for inputting data, and the persons responsible for the input of data.
 The Data Input Plan must provide for the input of historical data that is up to date and complete into the RMS.
 Once the RMS is operational, the VIPD is required to enter information into the RMS in a timely, accurate, and complete manner and to maintain the RMS data in a secure and confidential manner.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 112 of 116
xviii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
The VIPD must maintain all personally identifiable information about individual officers that is contained in RMS for at least five years. The VIPD shall maintain information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis in the RMS indefinitely.
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD, even prior to the implementation of the RMS, to use existing databases and resources to the fullest extent possible to identify patterns of conduct by individual VIPD officers or groups of officers.
Following the initial implementation of the RMS, the VIPD may propose to add, subtract, or modify data tables and fields in the system, modify the types of documents entered into the RMS, or modify the standardized reports generated by the RMS. The VIPD is required to submit all such proposals to the DOJ for review and approval prior to implementing the proposed changes.
B. Oversight (CD ¶ 69)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop a protocol for conducting audits within the RMS, which must be followed by the VIPD personnel responsible for conducting audits. The protocol must establish a regular and fixed audit schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency and cover all VIPD Zones.
C. Discipline (CD ¶¶ 70-72)
1. Requirements
The VIPD is required to use a disciplinary matrix to take into account a subject officer‟s violations of various rules, as opposed to considering only repeated violations of the same rule. The VIPD must revise its disciplinary matrix to increase penalties for uses of excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, and dishonesty. The revised disciplinary matrix, which must be reviewed and approved by DOJ, is required to provide the VIPD with the discretion to impose any appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes an officer‟s misconduct reflects a lack of fitness for duty.
 Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD is not permitted to take mere non-disciplinary corrective action against an officer in cases in which the revised disciplinary matrix indicates that the imposition of discipline is appropriate.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 113 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | xix
 In cases in which disciplinary action is imposed on an officer, the VIPD is required to also consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action is necessary.
The VIPD‟s policy must identify clear time periods by which each step—from the receipt of a complaint through the imposition of discipline, if any—of the complaint adjudication process should be completed. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions of these deadlines must not be granted without the Police Commissioner‟s written approval and notice to the complainant. The policy must outline appropriate tolling provisions in the limited circumstances when an extension of these deadlines is necessary.
V. Training (CD ¶¶ 73-81)
A. Management Oversight (CD ¶¶ 73-77)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to provide training to its officers that is consistent with VIPD policy, the law, and proper police practices. Accordingly, the Consent Decree requires that:
 The VIPD review all use of force policies and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy;
 After completing its initial review of its force-related policies and training programs, the VIPD must conduct regular reviews of its use of force training program at least semi-annually.
 The VIPD must ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by training instructors; and,
 The VIPD must make best efforts to train each work shift as a team in its use of force training.
Under the Consent Decree, the VIPD‟s Director of Training, either directly or through his or her designees, is responsible for:
 Ensuring the quality of all use of force training;
 Developing and implementing use of force training curricula;
 Selecting and training VIPD officer instructors;

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 114 of 116
xx| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel
 Developing, implementing, approving, and overseeing all inservice training;
 In conjunction with the District Chiefs, developing, implementing, approving, and overseeing a protocol for patrol division roll calls that is designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in law, policies, and procedures;
 Establishing procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and
 Conducting regular training needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
The VIPD must keep complete and accurate records of force-related lesson plans and other training materials. These lesson plans must be maintained in a central, commonly accessible file and must be clearly dated.
The VIPD also must maintain training records for every VIPD officer. These records must reliably reflect the training that each officer has received. These records must include, at a minimum, the course description, duration, curriculum, and instructor for each training program in which each individual officer participated.
B. Curriculum (CD ¶¶ 78-81)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD‟s Director of Training to review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure that the training program complies with applicable laws and VIPD policy. Moreover, the Director of Training must consult with the Virgin Island Attorney General‟s Office concerning any additions, changes, or modifications regarding use of force training or policies to ensure compliance with applicable laws.
The VIPD must provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on the use of force. This use of force training must address the following topics:
 The VIPD‟s use of force model;
 Proper use of force decision-making;

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 115 of 116
Office of the Independent Monitor | xxi
 The VIPD‟s use of force reporting requirements;
 The Fourth Amendment and other Constitutional requirements;
 Examples of scenarios faced by VIPD officers that illustrate proper use of force decision-making;
 De-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without using force;
 Instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a suspect, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying an arrest may be appropriate responses to a situation even when the use of force would be legally justified;
 Threat assessment; and
 Appropriate training regarding conflict management.
The VIPD also is required to provide training to all officers regarding the citizen complaint process. The VIPD must develop a protocol, to be used by all VIPD officers, that sets forth an appropriate process for handling and responding to complaints by members of the public. The VIPD must train officers regarding this protocol.
 The VIPD also is required to train all supervisors with respect to appropriate burdens of proof in conducting misconduct investigations. This training also must include a discussion of the factors investigators should consider in evaluating complainant or witness credibility.
Finally, the VIPD must provide training to all supervisors regarding leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices.
 This training must be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of the officer‟s assumption of supervisory responsibilities. This training also must be made a part of the annual in-service training of supervisors.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 84-1 Filed: 12/19/13 Page 116 of 116 xxii| William F. Johnson and Steven M. Witzel

IV.

Monitoring, Reporting, and Implementation

(CD ¶¶ 82-102)

1. Requirements

The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to appoint a full-time Compliance Coordinator to serve as a liaison among the Virgin Islands Attorney General‟s Office, VIPD, the OIM, and DOJ. The Compliance Coordinator‟s responsibilities include:

 Coordinating the VIPD‟s compliance and implementation activity relating to the Consent Decree;

 Facilitating the provision of data and documents and access to VIPD employees and materials to the Monitor and DOJ as needed;

 Ensuring the proper maintenance of relevant documents and records relating to the Consent Decree; and

 Assisting the Police Commissioner and his designees in assigning compliance-related tasks to appropriate VIPD personnel.

In addition to fulfilling these functions, the VIPD must file with the Monitor and the Virgin Islands Attorney General‟s Office, with a copy to DOJ, quarterly status reports describing the steps taken during the reporting period to comply with each provision of the Consent Decree.

Finally, the Virgin Islands and the VIPD are required to implement the provisions of the Consent Decree “as soon as reasonably practicable” and, in any event, no later than 150 days after the March 23, 2009 effective date of the Consent Decree.

9154301

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 1 of 157

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 2 of 157
Independent Monitoring Team
Independent Monitor Steven M. Witzel Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
Fried Frank Monitoring Team Elizabeth P. Kozlowski Joshua D. Roth
Police Practices Coordinator Chief Charles A. Gruber Elgin (Illinois) Police Department (retired)
Police Practices Experts Superintendent Ann Marie Doherty Boston (Massachusetts) Police Department (retired) Chief Robert L. Stewart Ormond Beach (Florida) Police Department (retired)

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 3 of 157
Table of Contents Executive Summary………………………………………………………. 1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………. 5 Compliance Assessment………………………………………………… 13
Use of Force………………………………………………………….. 13 Citizen Complaint Process………………………………………. 34 Management and Supervision………………………………….. 51 Training………………………………………………………………...69 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………87 Appendix A VIPD Report …………………………………………………. i Appendix B Case Tracking List ……………………………………….xlv Appendix C Summary of Consent Decree Requirements……..xlix

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 4 of 157

Executive Summary

his is the Fourth Quarterly Report of 2013 from the Office of the
TIndependent Monitor (the “OIM” or the “Monitor”) for the United States Virgin Islands Police Department (the “VIPD” or the “Department”), covering the quarter ending on December 31, 2013.1
In the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the OIM’s Police Practices Experts conducted two week-long monitoring trips to the United States Virgin Islands (the “Territory”). During these trips, the Police Practices Experts spent time meeting with and providing technical assistance to VIPD personnel, observing Consent Decree related training, and reviewing closed investigation files and other police records. The assessments contained in this Report are primarily based on the Police Practices Experts’ observations and the Department’s quarterly Status Report, dated January 7, 2014 (“VIPD Report”). In addition, there were frequent communications and updates, telephonically and electronically, between the VIPD and the Police Practices Experts during the Fourth Quarter of 2013, as well as periodic telephone conferences among the VIPD, the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office (the “VIAG”), the Office of the Governor, the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”), the Police Practices Experts, and the Monitor to discuss the VIPD’s efforts towards substantial compliance with the Consent Decree.
On November 18, 2013 (the “November 18 Hearing”), the United States District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands (the “Court”) held a full day hearing to review a joint motion filed by the Parties to extend the Consent Decree’s October 31, 2013 substantial compliance deadline for another two years (the “Joint Motion”). As previously reported, the original deadline for substantial compliance was March 23, 2012, to be followed by two consecutive years of compliance, at which time the Consent Decree would terminate. After the VIPD failed to comply with the March 23, 2012 deadline, the Court approved the Parties’ Joint Action Plan in the Fourth Quarter of 2012, which eliminated the brightline termination date, extended the substantial compliance deadline to October 31, 2013, and detailed the VIPD’s obligations to achieve substantial compliance with each paragraph of the Consent Decree. Subsequently, the VIPD advised the Court that it would not meet the October 31, 2013 substantial compliance deadline.
At the November 18 Hearing, the Court heard testimony from two of the Police Practices Experts and several VIPD personnel on the status of the VIPD’s progress towards achieving substantial compliance, and whether the deadlines

1

This Report references a limited number of events that occurred after December 31,

2013 to provide a current assessment of the VIPD’s compliance status.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 5 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 2
for achieving substantial compliance should be extended. The Court’s decision regarding the extension is pending. Until the Court reaches a decision on the extension, the OIM will continue to reference the deadlines, all of which have passed, for the Joint Action Plan currently in place and approved by the Court.
The Court has scheduled a hearing for February 25, 2014 to address the Parties’ Joint Motion, including “whether the proposed amended action plan is feasible at this juncture.” In addition, the Court ordered the Parties to be “prepared to discuss what other remedies, if any, are appropriate given the status of the matter.” The OIM will provide an update about the upcoming hearing in its First Quarterly Report of 2014.
A significant amount of work remains for the VIPD to achieve substantial compliance. To move towards substantial compliance and achieve the final phase of compliance, the VIPD must continue to audit its own compliance with the Consent Decree. VIPD audits should be performed by an independent Audit Unit and should document any instances where VIPD personnel did not comply with Department policies, including identifying, in detail, the problems or mistakes, the corrective action taken, and any discipline that was imposed. The VIPD should then report that information to the OIM and correct any problems identified by the audits.
The VIPD took a big step forward during the Fourth Quarter of 2013 when it completed an initial round of audits designed to assess the Department’s compliance with various Consent Decree requirements. While there is substantial room for improvement and the quality of the audits varied considerably depending on which working group was responsible, the VIPD has demonstrated a good faith initial effort to conduct internal audits. The VIPD should conduct additional audits during the First Quarter of 2014 and promptly forward the results to the OIM.
Second, almost five years into the Consent Decree, the VIPD has made little progress implementing its Early Intervention Program (“EIP”). As discussed more fully below, the EIP is a cornerstone of the Consent Decree. It provides the Department, particularly managers, Supervisors, and the Internal Affairs Bureau (the “IAB”), which maintains and administers the EIP, a means to identify and address potentially problematic behavior at an early (and hopefully remediable) stage. When the EIP identifies potentially problematic behavior by an Officer, the Supervisor and his/her commanding Officer are required to meet and determine if corrective action is appropriate; the Department would follow a similar process for more senior personnel. The Department, however, has not demonstrated to the OIM that this is being done consistently across the Districts. For example, during the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the OIM learned about an Officer from the St. Thomas District who received 12 citizen complaints in the prior 12 months, accounting for approximately 60% of the citizen complaints in her unit. Based on the files

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 6 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 3
provided to the OIM, it does not appear that the Officer’s Supervisor (or anyone else in the chain of command) intervened. The Director of the IAB ultimately sent a memorandum to the Officer’s Commander highlighting this issue, but it is not clear to the OIM if anything was done in response. This demonstrates a lack of accountability at all levels of the Department.
We have also noted that senior managers appear reluctant to impose meaningful sanctions for misconduct, which further undermines accountability within the Department. For example, during the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the Police Practices Experts reviewed the proceedings of a disciplinary hearing in which the charges against the Officer were sustained, but the sanction was held in abeyance. To achieve substantial compliance and operate as a successful police department after the Consent Decree expires, the VIPD must embrace a culture of accountability—at all levels—and must overcome its current reluctance to hold personnel accountable for violations of Department policies.
Finally, as stated in the last Report, the OIM regularly provides recommendations to the VIPD in our Reports to help the Department move towards substantial compliance, or, if not specifically required by the Consent Decree, to bring the Department in line with generally accepted police practices. We note that the VIPD is just beginning to address the OIM’s recommendations. The Department should continue to describe any efforts that it takes to implement the OIM’s recommendations in future VIPD Reports.
Starting with this Report, the OIM will attach the VIPD Report as Appendix A. In prior quarters, the OIM summarized the VIPD’s Report for each paragraph, but this new approach will give the VIPD the opportunity to directly communicate with the Court and the broader community about its Consent Decree Compliance efforts. In addition, this is the second quarter that the OIM is providing Appendix B, a status update on (1) a number of serious use of force, officer misconduct, and citizen complaint investigations, and (2) investigations with no dispositions. The OIM continues to monitor these cases to evaluate whether the investigations complied with the Department’s policies and generally accepted police practices. The OIM will provide status updates about these investigations as additional information becomes available.
The Department achieved substantial compliance with two additional paragraphs, ¶¶ 57 and 66, during the Fourth Quarter of 2013. As previously reported in the First and Second Quarters of 2013, the VIPD has achieved substantial compliance with ¶¶ 31, 39, 40, 42, 47, 50, 52, 53, 62, 64, and 70, largely based on redefining the parameters of compliance so as to only require the development of policies or protocols for those paragraphs. The OIM will continue to evaluate the Department’s consistent application of these provisions under ¶¶ 100 and 101 of the Consent Decree. In addition, the Department’s obligation to provide training for the policies and protocols

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 7 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 4
required by ¶¶ 31, 39, 40, 47, 50, 52, 53, 62, 64 and 70 will be assessed in connection with the specific training requirements contained throughout the Consent Decree and ¶ 75.
Finally, effective January 27, 2014, William F. Johnson resigned his position as Co-Independent Monitor because he joined a different law firm. We thank him for his hard work, dedication, and passion to the monitoring process, and wish him well.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 8 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | 5

Introduction
his is the Fourth Quarterly Report of 2013 from the Office of the
TIndependent Monitor (the “OIM” or the “Monitor”) for the United States Virgin Islands Police Department (the “VIPD” or the “Department”), covering the quarter ending on December 31, 2013.
The OIM was established in January 2010 to monitor compliance by the United States Virgin Islands (the “Territory”) and the VIPD with the Consent Decree entered by the United States District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands (the “Court”) on March 23, 2009. The Monitor is required by the Consent Decree to “issue quarterly written, public reports detailing the Territory’s compliance with and implementation of each substantive provision” of the Consent Decree.2
The Consent Decree reflects the agreement between the Territory, the VIPD, and the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) (collectively, the “Parties”) to resolve a lawsuit brought by the United States alleging that the Territory and the VIPD violated 42 U.S.C. § 14141 by engaging “in a pattern or practice of excessive force by Officers of the Virgin Islands Police Department and by the failure to adequately train, supervise, investigate, and discipline Officers.”3
The Parties entered into the Consent Decree “to promote police integrity and prevent conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.”4 The 104 paragraph Consent Decree contains a broad range of substantive requirements for reform in areas such as: (1) revising the VIPD’s force-related policies; (2) training Officers to properly use force in accordance with constitutional requirements, VIPD policy, and existing best practices in policing; (3) reporting and investigating use of force events; (4) documenting and investigating complaints alleging Officer misconduct; (5) developing systems for managing and supervising Officers; and (6) disciplining Officers found to have engaged in misconduct.
On October 1, 2010, the Court—charged with enforcing the VIPD’s obligations under the Consent Decree—ordered the Parties to jointly propose a timetable by which the VIPD would substantially comply with each substantive provision in the Consent Decree. The Parties subsequently filed a timetable on November 24, 2010 that set forth specific dates by which the VIPD would

2

CD ¶ 96. This Quarterly Report, along with the OIM’s prior reports, is available on the

internet at http://www.policemonitor.org/VI/VIindex.html.

3

CD ¶ 6; see also Complaint, United States v. The Territory of the Virgin Islands, No. 3:08-

CV-00158-CVG-GWB (D.V.I. 2008).

4

CD ¶ 3.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 9 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | 6

substantially comply with each substantive provision in the Consent Decree (the “Consent Decree Timetable”). The Consent Decree Timetable also created interim deadlines for the VIPD to submit force-related policies to the DOJ for approval. The VIPD successfully met nearly every policy submission deadline. However, by the end of the Third Quarter of 2011, the VIPD had missed all of the remaining deadlines for substantial compliance established by the Courtordered Consent Decree Timetable (deadlines that the VIPD proposed and committed to meeting). For example, under the Consent Decree Timetable, the VIPD was required to substantially comply with Consent Decree ¶¶ 32-58, 70, and 72 by May 31, 2011, ¶¶ 60, 61, and 73-81 by June 30, 2011, and ¶¶ 49, 59, and 63-66 by September 15, 2011. To date, the VIPD has complied with ¶¶ 31, 39, 40, 42, 47, 50, 52, 53, 62, and 70.
In January 2011, to encourage compliance within the timeframe of the Consent Decree Timetable, the then Commissioner convened a Consent Decree Summit on St. Thomas on January 3 and 4, 2011 (the “Summit”).5 At the Summit, the Commissioner appointed senior VIPD personnel to lead, and ultimately be held accountable for, different aspects of the Consent Decree— Use of Force (Chief of the St. Croix District),6 Citizen Complaint Process (Chief of the St. Thomas/St. John District),7 Management and Supervision (Deputy Chief of St. Thomas), and Training (Director of Training). The Commissioner explained that each working group leader was responsible for: (1) designating a “point person” and recruiting other working group members; (2) drafting an action plan; (3) interacting with other VIPD personnel on interrelated Consent Decree issues; and (4) monitoring the working group’s progress by attending and participating in as many meetings as schedules permit, but no less than twice a month.8
During the First Quarter of 2013, the OIM began assessing the VIPD’s compliance with the Consent Decree in 3 phases—Phase 1: Policy; Phase 2: Training; Phase 3: Consistent Application. Phase 1 assesses whether the VIPD

5

The OIM discussed the Summit in detail in the Fourth Quarterly Report of 2010 and the

First Quarterly Report of 2011. For more information about the Summit, including objectives

and participants, see the Consent Decree Summit Appendix B at the end of those Reports.

6

Following on-duty injuries sustained by the Chief of the St. Croix District during the

Third Quarter of 2012, the Deputy Chief of St. Croix assumed responsibility as Acting Chief of

the St. Croix District and Acting Leader of the Use of Force working group. The Acting Chief

appointed a Captain as his point person, and she has recruited new members and commenced

regular meetings of the working group.

7

The Citizen Complaint Process working group is now led by the Deputy Chief of St.

John.

8

Memorandum from the Commissioner to various VIPD personnel, titled “Meeting

Current Standards of Policing,” dated January 19, 2011. The OIM’s Police Practices Experts

also provided the working group leaders with a memorandum outlining their respective

responsibilities. During the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the Police Practices experts regularly

exchanged emails and telephone calls with their counterparts and met in person during the

quarter’s monitoring trips.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 10 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 7
has issued policies reflecting the Consent Decree requirements. Phase 2 assesses whether the VIPD has provided initial and ongoing training (e.g., annual in-service training, Roll and Commanders Call training) on these policies. Phase 3 assesses whether the VIPD demonstrates consistent application of the Department’s policies in its everyday policing activities. Certain phases may not be applicable to all Consent Decree requirements. For example, the provisions relating to training (¶¶ 75-79) primarily concern the training process, rather than training on a particular policy. Therefore, Phase 1 will not be applicable to those provisions. Moreover, where Phase 1 is not applicable because there is no required policy, Phase 2 will focus on steps towards execution, including training. As previously reported, the VIPD achieved substantial compliance with ¶ 42 of the Consent Decree during the First Quarter of 2013.
Beginning during the Second Quarter of 2013 and based on extensive discussions with and input from the VIPD, the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office (“VIAG”), and the DOJ, the OIM modified its assessment criteria for the Consent Decree paragraphs that only require the Department to develop a policy or protocol. Under this approach, the VIPD has achieved substantial compliance with ¶¶ 31, 39, 40, 47, 50, 52, 53, 62, 64, and 70 because it has adopted relevant policies or protocols. Because the Consent Decree requires the VIPD to “implement . . . all provisions of this Agreement that involve the continuation of current VIPD policies, procedures, and practices[,]” the OIM will evaluate the Department’s consistent application of its policies and protocols (Phase 3, described above) under ¶¶ 100 and 101 of the Consent Decree. In addition, the Department’s obligation to provide training for its policies and protocols is addressed in connection with specific training requirements throughout the Consent Decree and ¶ 75. The VIPD achieved substantial compliance with two additional paragraphs, ¶¶ 57 and 66, during the Fourth Quarter of 2013.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 11 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | 8

Status of Substantial Compliance

Consent Decree ¶
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Phase 1 Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied

Phase 2 N/A
Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied
N/A N/A Satisfied

Phase 3

Compliance Status

N/A

Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

N/A

Substantial Compliance

N/A

Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 12 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | 9

Consent Decree ¶
42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

Phase 1 Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied

Phase 2 N/A
Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied
N/A Satisfied Satisfied N/A Satisfied N/A N/A

Phase 3

Compliance Status

N/A

Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

N/A

Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

N/A

Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

N/A

Substantial Compliance

N/A

Substantial Compliance

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 13 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | 10

Consent Decree ¶
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

Phase 1 Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied

Phase 2 Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied N/A Satisfied N/A

Phase 3

Compliance Status

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Satisfied

Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

N/A

Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

N/A

Substantial Compliance

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 14 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | 11

Consent Decree ¶
65 66 67 68 69 70 71
72
73
74
75
76

Phase 1 Satisfied Satisfied
N/A N/A Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied N/A
N/A N/A N/A

Phase 2 Satisfied Satisfied
N/A N/A Satisfied N/A Satisfied Satisfied Not Satisfied
Not Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied

Phase 3

Compliance Status

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Satisfied

Substantial Compliance

N/A

N/A

N/A Not Satisfied
N/A

N/A
Not in Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 15 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | 12

Consent Decree ¶
77 78 79 80 81

Phase 1 N/A N/A N/A
Satisfied Satisfied

Phase 2 Satisfied Satisfied Not Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied

Phase 3

Compliance Status

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Not Satisfied

Not in Substantial Compliance

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 16 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | 13

Compliance Assessment

his section of the Report describes the VIPD’s compliance efforts with
Trespect to each of the substantive provisions of the Consent Decree,9 as well as monitoring activities by the OIM’s Police Practices Experts during the quarter. The organization of this section of the Report parallels the organization of the Consent Decree. Specifically, we provide a status and assessment discussion that describes and analyzes the VIPD’s progress toward achieving substantial compliance with the Consent Decree’s requirements.10 We include recommendations to assist the VIPD in achieving full and timely implementation of the Consent Decree’s requirements.11

Use of Force Policies

Joint Action Plan Requirements

Joint Action Plan Requirements By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system) and periodically test proficiency with the policies. By November 30, 2012, ensure that the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office, the Training Working Group, and the Use of Force Working Group review all use of force policies.

Status Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department has such a tracking system.
Not satisfied. The Use of Force working group reported during the First Quarter of 2013 that it planned to review one use of force policy every two weeks. The working group repeatedly said that it would provide the OIM with completed review forms, but the OIM never received any. Later in the quarter, the Department determined that a review protocol was needed to establish a uniform procedure for reviewing policies before it could proceed further. The VIPD drafted a Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”) to “facilitate a systematic review process for the

9

A summary of the Consent Decree requirements is excerpted at Appendix C. A copy of

the full text of the Consent Decree is available at:

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/VIPD_CD_03-23-09.pdf.

10

The Consent Decree provides that “[t]he Monitor shall issue quarterly written, public

reports detailing the Territory of the Virgin Islands’ compliance with and implementation of

each substantive provision of [the] Agreement.” CD ¶ 96.

11

CD ¶ 85.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 17 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | 14

By November 30, 2012, conduct Use of Force reviews on a quarterly basis.
By November 30, 2012, VIPD will provide DOJ with an action plan for achieving sufficient numbers of supervisors or outlining how it intends to use existing supervisors to implement the polices and this action plan. The plan will include an implementation date subject to the agreement of the parties.
By November 30, 2012, conduct inspections of personnel with report on a quarterly basis.

annual review of all department policies, and particularly use of force and other force related polices….” The Commissioner signed the SOP during the Fourth Quarter of 2013. The OIM understands that the Use of Force Policy is currently under review by VIPD counsel and the VIAG. Not satisfied. The OIM has learned that the VIPD has a command level review process for individual force cases in each District. To date, we have not received documentation relating to that process. The quarterly use of force reviews should seek to identify any patterns of misconduct, weaknesses in training, or other issues related to use of force. The quarterly force reviews differ from the use of force audits that the VIPD initiated during the Fourth Quarter of 2013. The audits are generally narrower in scope and designed to test compliance with particular policies of Consent Decree provisions. Satisfied, but additional work needed. On December 31, 2012, the DOJ provided comments on the VIPD’s action plan. Among other things, the DOJ sought clarification on what, if anything, the VIPD plans to do if there is a lack of funding for new Supervisors. Recognizing the Department’s fiscal constraints, the VIPD should address that possibility and plan accordingly. The VIPD reported during the Fourth Quarter of 2013 that it anticipates holding promotional exams in May and April 2014. Not satisfied. Documentation for inspections conducted in the St. Croix District following training was provided to the OIM during the Second Quarter of 2013. During the Fourth

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 18 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | 15

By January 31, 2013, competencybased training of officers and supervisors on remaining policies 3.8 Off-Duty Policy 3.9 Vehicle Pursuit Policy 3.10 Spike Strip 3.12 Tactical Operations 3.13 Sniper Operations
Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic inservice and Roll Call/Commanders Call training. By January 31, 2013, incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy.
By January 31, 2013, execute any contract(s) necessary to train supervisors or others responsible for conducting ballistic or crime scene analyses. By March 31, 2013, conduct the training. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of 1As and arrest reports).

Quarter of 2013, the VIPD revised its inspection form and conducted training on the St. Thomas/St. John District in January of 2014. Training is scheduled for the St. Croix District in February of 2014. Not satisfied. The VIPD has provided training on the Off-Duty Policy and Sniper Operations and train-thetrainer training on the Vehicle Pursuit Policy and Spike Strip. The VIPD provided in-service training on additional policies during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013. The VIPD has not provided the OIM with a training report about these policies. Not satisfied. Although the VIPD has provided the OIM with attendance sheets and brief descriptions of Roll Call and Commanders Call training, the OIM needs more detailed information about the subject matter being covered. Likewise, the OIM cannot determine whether the VIPD has adequately incorporated competency-based training on policies into the Police Academy because the VIPD has not provided the OIM with a full set of lesson plans and related training materials for recruit training. Not satisfied. The VIPD has a contract with a contractor to analyze ballistics, but there is currently a backlog. Because of the backlog, several investigations into policeinvolved fatal shootings remain open. Satisfied, but additional work needed. The OIM received the VIPD’s Audit Report on January 17, 2014, which demonstrates that the Department has taken steps to implement the audit tools. The OIM will report more fully on the VIPD’s Audit Report in the next quarter.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 19 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | 16

By June 30, 2013, develop and implement a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to report uses of force or otherwise fail to follow the policy and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training. By June 30, 2013, ensure that audits audit the timeliness of completion of use of force investigations.
By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop and implement a process for identifying supervisors who neglect their responsibilities to investigate as required by policy and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of firearm discharge reporting).

Not satisfied. The VIPD has started to conduct audits relating to the Department’s use of force practices, but has not provided the OIM with documentation showing that it has consistently implemented such a process in both Districts. Satisfied, but additional work needed. The VIPD conducted audits in both Districts during the Fourth Quarter of 2013 that addressed the timeliness of use of force investigations. The OIM will report more fully on the VIPD’s Audit Report in the next quarter. Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation showing that the Department has implemented such a process.
Satisfied, but additional work needed. The OIM received the VIPD’s Audit Report on January 17, 2014, which demonstrates that the Department has taken steps to implement the audit tools. The OIM will report more fully on the VIPD’s Audit Report in the next quarter.

31. The VIPD will review and revise its use of force policies as necessary to: a) define terms clearly; b) define force as that term is defined in this Agreement; c) incorporate a use of force model that teaches disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements or calling in specialized units as appropriate responses to a situation; d) advise that, whenever possible, individuals should be allowed to submit to arrest before force is used; e) reinforce that the use of excessive force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and/or civil liability; f) ensure that sufficient less lethal alternatives are available to all patrol officers; and g) explicitly prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized. Once the DOJ has reviewed and approved these policies, the VIPD shall immediately implement any revisions.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 20 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 17
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 31 of the Consent Decree. Because ¶ 31 of the Consent Decree only requires the Department to develop a policy, Phase 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the VIPD is in substantial compliance with ¶ 31 of the Consent Decree.
32. The VIPD will require all uses of force to be documented in writing. The use of force report form will indicate each and every type of force that was used, and require the evaluation of each type of force. Use of force reports will include a narrative description of the events preceding the use of force, written by a supervisor or by the designated investigative unit. Use of force reports also will include the officer(s)’ narrative description of events and the officer(s)’ statement. Except in cases of use of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, the officer’s statement shall be audio- or videotaped.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 32 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 32 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at pages vi-vii.
OIM Report:
The VIPD has issued the Use of Force Policy, Reportable Use of Force Policy, and the Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy in partial satisfaction of ¶ 32 of the Consent Decree.
During the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the VIPD provided the Police Practices Experts with 12 closed use of force investigations and 11 closed citizen complaint investigations for review. This is a substantial improvement from last quarter, when the VIPD provided 3 closed use of force investigations. Moreover, as previously reported, the Police Practices Experts have requested remote access to IAPro and Blue Team, which would provide the Police Practices Experts with real-time access to closed investigations. However, because of technological issues, the VIPD has not yet been able to provide the Police Practices Experts with remote access to IAPro and Blue Team.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 21 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 18
Throughout the Report, certain statistics may be calculated from a number less than the total number of investigations received for the quarter (i.e. 12 closed use of force investigations and 11 closed citizen complaint investigations) because: (1) a Consent Decree requirement was not applicable to all investigations, in which case we used the total number of applicable investigations; or (2) the particular requirement was not assessed during the Fourth Quarter of 2013 by the Police Practices Experts. Because of the limited sample size, the statistics contained in this report may not ultimately prove to be representative of the VIPD’s performance overall. Notwithstanding these limitations, the statistics contained in this Report still provide insight into the Department’s progress.
For example, based on the Police Practices Experts’ review of the closed use of force investigations, the OIM concluded that VIPD personnel reported force using an RRR in 91% (10 out of 11) of the closed investigations reviewed during the Fourth Quarter of 2013; Supervisors described the events preceding the use of force and evaluated the appropriateness of each type of force used in 100% (12 out of 12) of the investigation files; 100% (12 out of 12) of the investigation files included the Officer’s description of events preceding the use of force; the RRRs in 100% (11 out of 11) of the investigation files indicated the type of force used; and 27% (3 out of 11) of the investigations were closed within the timeline required under Department policy. Based on the information provided in the investigation files, the Police Practices Experts determined that 80% (8 out of 10) of the uses of force were justified. For the uses of force that did not appear to be justified, one involved Officers that “drive stunned” (i.e., applied the TASER to the subject’s skin) an emotionally disturbed individual while he was handcuffed.12 In the second case, the OIM could not determine whether the use of force was justified because the VIPD did not interview all of the witnesses.
As we reported last quarter, the VIPD continues to struggle with completing investigations within the required timeline. During the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the Police Practices Experts reviewed several completed use of force investigations that were extremely delinquent. For example, in one investigation, Officers used a low level of force (a “forced take down”) to gain compliance of an individual who had stolen a fire extinguisher and was spraying people. While the corresponding use of force investigation should have been completed in two or three days, the investigation dragged from June 16, 2013 (the date the incident occurred) to August 8, 2013 (when the investigation was finally completed).13 Similarly, in another use of force investigation, Officers used O.C. Spray on a non-compliant individual (who was inebriated) at a bar. The incident took place on May 28, 2013, but the

12

See UOFT2013-0019.

13

See UOFT2013-0034.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 22 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | 19

corresponding use of force investigation was not completed until July 24, 2013.14
As previously reported, the Police Practices Experts remain concerned about the VIPD’s use of excessive force against individuals who are characterized by the VIPD as mentally or emotionally disturbed. Every quarter, the Police Practices Experts learn about new uses of force involving mentally or emotionally disturbed individuals. As discussed above, during the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the Police Practices Experts identified a use of force incident where Officers “drive stunned” an emotionally disturbed individual while he was handcuffed. Even if a subject is resisting arrest, there are very few circumstances where it would be appropriate (and constitutionally permissible) for law enforcement officers to use a TASER on a subject while in handcuffs. Based on the limited facts provided in the corresponding use of force investigation, it appears that the use of force was not justified. Despite previously raising our concerns about the VIPD’s use of force against mentally or emotionally disturbed individuals (and acknowledgment by the VIPD that this is an ongoing concern), the VIPD does not appear to have made much progress in this regard.
This case also highlights several recurring deficiencies that we have seen in other use of force investigations. For example, the Supervisor never responded to the scene; the Supervisor reported that a “carotid restraint” was used on the subject, but none of the Officers reported using a “carotid restraint” in their respective RRRs; and relevant evidence (the electronic report generated by the TASER) was not collected and evaluated.
Finally, although the VIPD’s force reporting practices have improved over the past several quarters, the Police Practices Experts reviewed an investigation during the Fourth Quarter of 2013 where none of the involved Officers completed an RRR or an incident report (Form 1A) documenting the incident.15 According to the investigation file, VIPD Officers confronted a street peddler who was allegedly selling bottled water on the waterfront. The VIPD Officers then asked for an Officer from the Department of Licensing and Consumer Affairs (“DLCA”) to assist. An Officer from the DLCA subsequently responded to the scene and approached the subject. The subject attempted to walk away by jumping onto a nearby ledge. According to the subject, the DLCA Officer followed the subject onto the ledge and threw him to the ground. The VIPD Officers then arrested the subject for disturbing the peace. Approximately one month later, the subject filed a citizen complaint alleging that he was beaten. The VIPD Officers never reported their interaction with the subject. In addition, the Police Practices Experts noted several problems with the VIPD’s underlying investigation, including failing to obtain statements from the DLCA

14

See UOFT2013-0041.

15

See CCT2013-0157.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 23 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 20
Officer and one of the VIPD Officers; failing to resolve inconsistencies (or at least try to do so) between the Officers’ statements and the subject’s statement; not obtaining hospital records relating to the subject’s injuries (he was taken to the hospital following the incident); and not adequately probing each of the witnesses. We also note that the underlying investigation was completed by the IAB. While IAB investigations are often well-done, we believe that the IAB is overburdened by tasks outside of its core areas of responsibility, including completing background investigations for new VIPD recruits and managing the Department’s EIP.
Recommendations:
In the last Quarterly Report, the OIM recommended that the VIPD examine its investigation of FX2013-0028 and use it as a learning opportunity to understand what went wrong and how to do better in the future. The VIPD should report on whether it followed that recommendation or plans to do so in the future. Similarly, the VIPD should examine each of the investigations identified above. The OIM is particularly concerned about the VIPD’s use of force against mentally and emotionally disturbed individuals. The VIPD should provide additional training to VIPD personnel in this regard, including techniques that could be used to de-escalate volatile situations. The OIM understands that the Department has conducted training regarding the use of force against the mentally ill on the St. Thomas/St. John District and plans to conduct similar training on St. Croix.
The Department should also seek to improve the timeliness of its use of force reporting. Under the Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of Force Policy, VIPD personnel are required to report uses of force, to the extent practicable, before the end of the tour during which force was used. Although the VIPD has improved its use of force reporting, VIPD personnel continue to report force on a delayed basis. Delays in the reporting process frustrate use of force investigations by effectively shortening the 50-day statute of limitations period and potentially rendering evidence stale or unavailable. The OIM understands and appreciates that both the Use of Force and Citizen Complaint working groups have committed to completing investigations within the timelines required by Department policies.
As we have stated previously, the full and timely reporting of force is a cornerstone requirement of the Consent Decree. The Use of Force working group, Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Chiefs, and Deputy Chiefs should continue to audit Arrest Reports and Form 1As to determine the extent to which force is being reported across the Districts. Based on those audits, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to report the use of force. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work with the Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, the IAB, and the Training Division to provide remedial training or other corrective action,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 24 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 21
including disciplinary sanctions, as necessary. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator, the Compliance Manager, and the OIM.
33. Officers shall notify their supervisors following any use of force [or]16 upon the receipt of an allegation of excessive force. Except in uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, supervisors will respond to the scene, examine the subject for injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain, and ensure that the subject received needed medical attention.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 33 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 33 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at pages vii-viii.
OIM Report:
The Police Practices Experts reviewed 12 completed use of force investigation files during the Fourth Quarter of 2013 to evaluate the Department’s use of force reporting practices. Among other things, that review showed that Officers timely notified Supervisors following a use of force in 63% (5 out of 8) of the investigations.
The VIPD reports that it anticipates holding promotional exams in April and May 2014. We are hopeful that the VIPD will be able to add a significant number of additional Supervisors to its ranks based on those examinations because the VIPD currently has too few Supervisors. The Territory (which is a party to the Consent Decree) and its governing authority (the legislature and the Governor) need to take responsibility for this issue and provide the VIPD with the funding necessary to provide adequate staffing and supervision. The Police Practices Experts have repeatedly advised the VIPD that when Supervisors assume command and control of an incident, there are typically fewer citizen complaints and less force is employed, yielding clear benefits to the VIPD and the public. Without additional qualified Supervisors, the OIM

16

During the First Quarter of 2013 the Parties jointly filed a motion to correct or amend

the Court’s Order, dated December 13, 2012, by inserting “or” into the first sentence of ¶ 33 of

the Consent Decree. The Court granted the Parties’ motion.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 25 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 22
does not believe that the VIPD will be able to achieve and/or maintain substantial compliance.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should proceed with its plan to hold promotional examinations in April and May 2014. In order to promote the best people, the Department should encourage high performing personnel who are eligible to take the promotional exams. Once the examinations are administered and the results determined, the VIPD should promptly proceed to promotions.
For the time being, however, the VIPD should do its best to ensure that Supervisors are responding to the scene of use of force incidents as required by VIPD policy. To the extent that a Supervisor is unable to respond to a particular use of force, the VIPD should document the circumstances that prevented a Supervisor from responding. That documentation will help the Department assess its supervisory needs and hold Supervisors accountable for their decisions. Responding to uses of force should be a high priority for Supervisors, and very few other duties will justify a Supervisor’s absence. Moreover, even though a particular Supervisor’s absence may be understandable under the circumstances, it will not excuse the Department from complying with this provision. It is the VIPD’s and the Territory’s obligation under the Consent Decree to provide adequate supervision, including allocating additional funding for that purpose.
Many of the deficiencies associated with the Department’s use of force investigations could be addressed, at least in part, by Supervisors responding to the scene of use of force incidents to oversee the early stages of the investigation, including canvassing for witnesses, taking witness statements, and collecting relevant evidence. In addition, Supervisors will generally be better equipped to review the quality of investigations and suggest appropriate follow-up if they have personal knowledge of the underlying facts and were involved at an early stage of the investigation.
The Use of Force working group, Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Chiefs, and Deputy Chiefs should continue to audit whether Officers are notifying their Supervisors following any use of force or allegation of excessive use of force. They should also continue to audit whether Supervisors are responding to the scene of a use of force in a timely manner, examining the subject for injury, interviewing the subject for complaints of pain, and ensuring that the subject receives needed medical attention. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator, the Compliance Manager, and the OIM.
34. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, will review, evaluate, and document each use of force, and will complete the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 26 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 23
narrative description section of the use of force report. The narrative description will include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer’s conduct. As part of this review, the supervisor or designated investigating officer/unit will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officer’s actions were within VIPD policy. An officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized conduct leading to the use of force or allegation of excessive force, or who was present during the incident, will not be eligible to review of investigate the incident.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 34 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 34 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at pages viii-ix.
OIM Report:
Based on the Police Practices Experts’ review of completed use of force investigations during the Fourth Quarter of 2013, we concluded that Supervisors included a narrative describing the facts and circumstances that justified or failed to justify the Officer’s conduct in 92% (11 out of 12) of the investigations. In 82% (9 out of 11) of the completed use of force investigations, Supervisors evaluated the basis for the use of force; in 91% (10 out of 11) of the investigations, Supervisors determined whether the Officer’s actions were within VIPD policy; and 100% (11 out of 11) of the investigations were conducted by Supervisors who were not directly involved in the use of force incident.
Despite improvements in the VIPD’s investigations of uses of force, the VIPD continues to commit certain errors, including failing to complete investigations in the timeframe required by Department policy, failing to collect all evidence, failing to interview all witnesses, or failing to report force. Currently, timeliness is the most common problem relating to the VIPD’s use of force investigations. While a majority of IAB investigations are completed on time, only a minority of Zone investigations are completed on time.
In evaluating uses of force, Supervisors should explicitly examine whether the force was “objectively reasonable” in light of the relevant facts and circumstances, including the threat, if any, posed by the subject and the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 27 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 24
various options that were available to the Officer, including containing the subject until backup arrives rather than engaging. The Supreme Court of the United States articulated that standard in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). The VIPD has provided training on Graham and other relevant case law. For each use of force investigation, Supervisors should provide a detailed analysis about the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the Officer’s conduct. Without that type of analysis, it is impossible for Commanders (or anyone else) to adequately review investigations (without reviewing the entire investigation file from scratch, which should not be necessary in most cases).
Recommendations:
The Use of Force working group, Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Chiefs, and Deputy Chiefs should continue to audit whether Supervisors are conducting adequate use of force investigations. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator, the Compliance Manager, and the OIM. They should also continue to audit Form 1As and Arrest Reports to determine the extent to which force is being reported across the Districts. Based on these audits, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to report uses of force. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work in concert with the Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, the IAB, and the Training Division to provide remedial training, or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions, as necessary. The Use of Force working group’s audits should also include a review of investigations by Supervisors or Commanders whose force reviews have previously failed to meet the requirements of ¶ 34.
35. The parties agree that it is improper interview procedure during use of force investigations to ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer’s conduct when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. In each review/investigation, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. The VIPD will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. The VIPD will train all of its supervisors and officers assigned to conduct use of force investigations in conducting use of force investigations, including in the factors to consider when evaluating credibility.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 35 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 28 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 25
discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 35 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at pages ix-x.
OIM Report:
The OIM was not able to assess the VIPD’s compliance with ¶ 35 of the Consent Decree during the Fourth Quarter of 2013 because the VIPD did not provide the Police Practices Experts with recorded witness statements or interviews. Without those recordings, we cannot evaluate, among other things, whether investigators used leading questions, whether there were material inconsistencies between witness statements, and whether any such inconsistencies were resolved appropriately.
The VIPD also reports that it has started to issue hand held recording devices to personnel to facilitate recording witness statements, but the OIM did not observe any VIPD personnel carrying any such devices during the Fourth Quarter of 2013. The VIPD should provide the OIM with documentation showing how the hand held recording devices were distributed throughout the Department and whether they are serving their intended purpose.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should provide the OIM with copies of any recorded witness statements or interviews relating to use of force and citizen complaint investigations. During the Third Quarter of 2013, the VIPD began video recording certain training programs at the OIM’s request. Given the size of those video recordings, the VIPD typically loads them onto an external hard drive to be delivered to the OIM (the external hard drive is then returned to the VIPD to be used again for the same purpose). The VIPD should use the same process to provide the OIM with recorded witness statements and interviews. In addition, the VIPD should clearly state on the investigative file whether video or audio witness statements were taken, and if so, who has custody of that material.
The VIPD should also require Supervisors to identify the universe of relevant evidence and document what each piece means to the case under review. We also recommend that the VIPD provide refresher training to Supervisors on making credibility determinations and drawing inferences from those determinations. It is also critical for the VIPD to follow-up with witnesses who may not initially be available because Supervisors cannot effectively evaluate uses of force without reviewing all of the relevant evidence.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 29 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 26
The Use of Force working group, Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Chiefs, and Deputy Chiefs should continue to audit use of force investigations to determine the extent to which Supervisors are complying with the requirements of ¶ 35 of the Consent Decree. Based on these audits, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work in concert with the Chiefs, the Deputy Chiefs, the IAB, and the Training Division to provide remedial training, or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions, as necessary.
36. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall conduct an investigation of all uses of force or injury resulting from a use of force by any officer under their command. This requirement does not apply to uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ. In an investigation, supervisors or designated investigating officers or units, shall interview all witnesses to a use of force or an injury resulting from a use of force. Consistent with the requirements of the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable law, VIPD supervisors or designated investigating officers or units shall ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all use of force reports for all levels of force identify all officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports for all levels of force indicate whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided, and whether the subject refused medical treatment. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports include contemporaneous photographs or videotapes taken of all injuries at the earliest practicable opportunity, both before and after any treatment, including cleansing of wounds.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 36 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 36 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at pages x-xi.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 30 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 27
OIM Report:
Based on the Police Practices Experts’ review of completed use of force investigations during the Fourth Quarter of 2013, we concluded that Officers who witnessed a use of force provided written statements in 100% (6 out of 6) of the completed use of force investigations. Officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred were identified in 90% (9 out of 10) of the investigations. In 50% (3 out of 6) of the investigations where an Officer or citizen was injured, the investigation file contained photographs of the injuries. Although IAB-led use of force investigation files tend to contain photographs of injuries, Zone-led investigations rarely do. Very few investigation files (from either the IAB or the Zones) contain hospital records relating to injuries sustained from use of force incidents.
Recommendations:
We understand that it may be difficult to obtain hospital records because of patient confidentiality protections. To address that issue, some law enforcement agencies ask complainants to complete voluntary confidentiality waivers for hospital records relating to the complaint. The VIPD should consider developing a similar voluntary waiver form. However, to the extent that a complainant declines to complete a voluntary waiver form, the VIPD should memorialize that declination, continue to investigate the complaint, and should not draw any negative inferences from the fact that the complainant declined to release his/her records.
The Use of Force working group should continue to audit investigations to determine the extent to which Supervisors are complying with the requirements of ¶ 36 of the Consent Decree. Based on these audits, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work in concert with the Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, the IAB, and the Training Division to provide remedial training, or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions, as necessary. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator, the Compliance Manager, and the OIM.
37. All investigations into use of force shall be reviewed by the Officer’s Commander and/or Director, or by a Commander and/or Director in the designated investigative unit, who shall identify any deficiencies in those reviews, and shall require supervisors, or designated investigative officers or units, to correct any and all deficiencies. Supervisors, and designated investigative officers or units, will be held accountable for the quality of their reviews. Appropriate non-disciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary action will be taken when a supervisor, or designated investigative officer or unit, fails to conduct a timely and thorough review, or neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action, or

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 31 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | 28

neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action. As provided by VIPD policy and approved by DOJ, designated command staff shall further review the Commander and/or Director’s reviews according to the level of force involved.

Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 37 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 37 of the Consent Decree.

VIPD Report:

See VIPD Report at Appendix A at page xi.
OIM Report:
Based on the Police Practices Experts’ review of closed use of force investigations during the Fourth Quarter of 2013, we found that 58% (7 out of 12) of the use of force investigations reviewed were complete. A “complete” investigation file generally consists of the following (to the extent applicable): Form 1A; Arrest Report; completed RRR; video or audio statements from witnesses; photos of injuries, weapons, etc.; the Supervisor’s investigative report with an analysis of the facts, evidence identified, and findings; evidence that the Department’s chain of command reviewed and approved the completed investigation file; and a disposition letter.

In 100% (12 out of 12) of the investigations, a Deputy Chief reviewed the investigative report and supporting documents, and concurred with the investigative findings, and in 18% (2 out of 11) of the investigation files, underlying problems and training needs were identified.

Commanders are continuing to overlook deficiencies in the investigations that they are charged with reviewing. Moreover, even when Commanders identify deficiencies and return investigations for further work, they are sometimes failing to follow up regarding those investigations. For example, during the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the Police Practices Experts reviewed a completed use of force investigation in which Officers used “hand techniques” (which can refer to various techniques at different points on the use of force continuum) to gain compliance of a subject who was being arrested for smoking marijuana.17 The Supervisor charged with investigating the use of force submitted an investigation report to the Commander within 48 hours, and the Commander subsequently returned the investigation to the Supervisor

17

See UOFT2013-0039.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 32 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 29
for further work. Unfortunately, the Commander failed to follow up regarding the investigation. As a result, although the use of force incident occurred on July 18, 2013, the VIPD did not complete its investigation until October 17, 2013. That outcome underscores how important it is for Commanders to actively keep tabs on the investigations being conducted by Supervisors under their command. The Deputy Chief appropriately admonished the Commander and placed a Letter of Caution in the Commander’s personnel file; we do not know if the Supervisor who allowed the investigation to linger was also disciplined.
Recommendations:
The Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs need to hold Supervisors and Commanders accountable for the quality and timeliness of use of force investigations. The VIPD’s efforts to implement a tracking form for Supervisors to follow the progress of the use of force investigations that are assigned to them is a step in the right direction. The form should identify everyone who worked on the investigation and specify the actions that they took. We previously requested that the VIPD keep the OIM updated about its experience using the new tracking form, but we have not yet received any reports from the VIPD.
The Use of Force working group, Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Chiefs, and Deputy Chiefs should continue to audit investigations to determine the extent to which Supervisors are complying with the requirements of ¶ 37 of the Consent Decree. In particular, they should continue to audit whether Supervisors are conducting adequate use of force investigations, and whether the Chiefs/Deputy Chiefs are reviewing investigations, identifying deficiencies, and forwarding closed cases to the IAB and Training Division (for review and archiving). Based on these audits, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work in concert with the Chiefs, the Deputy Chiefs, the IAB, and the Training Division to provide remedial training, or other corrective action, including disciplinary sanctions, as necessary. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator, the Compliance Manager, and the OIM.
38. The VIPD will investigate all critical firearm discharges. The VIPD will ensure that the investigation accounts for all shots and locations of all officers who discharged their firearms. The VIPD will conduct ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 33 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 30
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 38 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 38 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at pages xi-xii.
OIM Report:
During the Second Quarter of 2013, investigations into at least three critical firearms discharges, including two police-involved shootings, were unresolved due, in part, to outstanding ballistics reports.
During the Third Quarter of 2013, the OIM requested a status update from the VIPD about two police-involved shootings that occurred in 2011 and 2012, respectively. The VIPD did not complete those investigations during the Third Quarter of 2013.
During the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the VIPD provided the OIM with a ballistics report relating to the police-involved shootings involving Officers Colvin Georges and Aaron Hodge. It took the VIPD more than a year to complete the ballistics report. When the OIM asked the VIPD to explain the delay during a meeting in December 2013, the VIPD explained that the VIPD’s firearm and tool mark examiner had started to review the case shortly after the shooting, but was told to stop his work because former-Commissioner White wanted to send the ballistics to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (the “FBI”) for analysis. The FBI apparently declined to review the ballistics and Commissioner Querrard correctly told the firearm and tool mark examiner to resume his work. Now that the ballistics report is complete, the VIPD reports that the investigation file will be forwarded to the VIAG for a disposition.
The VIPD reports that its firearm and tool mark examiner recently completed the ballistics report for the second police-involved shooting referenced above, but acknowledges that it has not yet provided a copy to the OIM. The VIPD should promptly provide the OIM with a copy of the ballistics report.
Recommendation:
The VIPD must fully investigate all critical firearms discharges. This includes, as stated in the Consent Decree, “ballistic or crime analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate.” The

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 34 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 31
VIPD’s current system of relying on a single contractor for ballistics analysis is not working. The VIPD should identify additional outside resources and consider bolstering its in-house capabilities.
Once the VIPD clears the current backlog of investigations, the VIPD should provide the OIM with documentation that it is investigating all critical firearms discharges as required by ¶ 38 of the Consent Decree. In addition to the ballistics reports themselves (which are primarily inventories of the bullets that were recovered from the scene), the VIPD should provide the OIM with the corresponding investigative report detailing, among other things, the identity of each shooter, where each shooter was standing, the number of bullets that each shooter discharged, and where each bullet made impact. The VIPD should also provide the OIM with a status update about all of its outstanding investigations of critical firearms discharges. During the First Quarter of 2014, the Use of Force working group reported that it had inquired about the status of these cases and advised that they were close to completion.
39. VIPD shall complete development of a Use of Firearms policy that complies with applicable law and current professional standards. The policy shall prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition and shall inform officers that any such use may subject them to disciplinary action. The policy shall establish a single, uniform reporting system for all firearms discharges. The policy shall prohibit officers from obtaining service ammunition from any source except through official VIPD channels, and shall specify the number of rounds VIPD authorizes its officers to carry. The policy will continue to require that all discharges of firearms by officers on- or off-duty, including unintentional discharges, be reported and investigated.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued the Firearms Policy. Because ¶ 39 of the Consent Decree only requires the Department to develop a policy, Phase 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the VIPD is in substantial compliance with ¶ 39 of the Consent Decree.
40. The VIPD shall revise its policies regarding off-duty officers taking police action to: a) provide that off-duty officers shall notify on-duty VIPD or local law enforcement officers before taking police action, absent exigent circumstances, so that they may respond with appropriate personnel and resources to handle the problem; b) provide that, if it appears the officer has consumed alcohol or is otherwise impaired, the officer shall submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 35 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 32
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued the Off-Duty Official Action Policy. Because ¶ 40 of the Consent Decree only requires the Department to develop a policy, Phase 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the VIPD is in substantial compliance with ¶ 40 of the Consent Decree.
41. The VIPD shall continue to provide an intermediate force device, which is between chemical spray and firearms on the force continuum, that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The VIPD shall continue its policy regarding the intermediate force device, incorporate the intermediate force device into the force continuum and train all officers in its use on an annual basis.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 41 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 41 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at page xiii.
OIM Report:
While monitoring during the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the OIM observed that Officers continue to carry their intermediate weapons. However, as described in ¶ 32, the OIM is concerned that Officers repeatedly “drive stunned” an emotionally disturbed individual who was already in handcuffs.18 Based on the Police Practices Experts’ review of the investigation report, it appears that the Supervisor was disciplined for not responding to the scene, but the matter was not referred to the IAB or the VIAG for further review.
Recommendations:
With respect to UOFT-2013-0019, the VIPD should explain why it chose not to refer the matter to the IAB or the VIAG for further review. Based on the investigation file, it does not appear that the force was justified. The VIPD should consider providing additional training to all VIPD personnel on the

18

See UOFT-2013-0019.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 36 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 33
appropriate use of the TASER, and in particular, the extent to which it may be used in response to active or passive resistance from a subject.19
The Use of Force working group should continue to work with the Training Division to ensure that training programs are held on the Electronic Control Weapon (“ECW”) Policy on an on-going basis so that all Officers will ultimately be trained and authorized to use TASERs in lieu of more lethal force tools. The Use of Force working group should also work with the Director of Training to evaluate post-training examinations to help assess the degree to which VIPD personnel understand the policies and the lessons conveyed during training. The Use of Force working group and Director of Training should then schedule follow-up training (continuing in-service or Roll Call or Commanders Call training) based on the results of those post-training examinations. In addition, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate.
The Use of Force working group should also provide the OIM with documentation that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of the ECW Policy or that the Department has fully implemented the policy. Additionally, the Use of Force working group should provide documentation to the OIM showing the extent to which VIPD personnel are trained to use and equipped with TASERs.
Finally, the VIPD should download an electronic report from each TASER every time one is used. Among other things, the report would detail the number of cycles of duration. That information should be considered as part of every use of force investigation relating to a TASER. The Police Practices Experts have noted that the VIPD rarely includes electronic reports in the investigative file.

19

During the First Quarter of 2014, the Use of Force working group advised that it plans

to conduct further ECW training.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 37 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | 34

Citizen Complaint Process

Joint Action Plan Requirements

Joint Action Plan Requirements By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system) and periodically test proficiency with the policies. By November 30, 2012, offer competency-based training to Officers and Supervisors.
By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system) and periodically test Supervisors’ knowledge of the preponderance of the evidence standard. By November 30, 2012, offer competency-based training of all investigators.
On November 30, 2012, commence quarterly review of files in IAU and Zones to ensure compliance.
By November 30, 2012, monthly review of files to determine whether complainants are being notified and implementation of timelines for notification and sample notification letter. By December 31, 2012, implement tracking system to document 5-day requirement.

Status Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department has such a tracking system.
Not satisfied. The VIPD provided inservice training during the Second Quarter of 2013. The VIPD has not provided the OIM with a report about the number of Officers and Supervisors that have been trained on the policies. Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department has such a tracking system.
Not satisfied. The VIPD provided inservice training during the Second Quarter of 2013. The VIPD has not provided the OIM with a report about the number of investigators that have been trained on the policies. Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department has conducted these reviews. Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department has conducted these reviews.
Not satisfied. Although the VIPD has reported that complaints are referred to the IAB within the required 5-day period because the IAB retrieves complaints from drop-boxes located in each Zone, the VIPD has not provided

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 38 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | 35

By December 31, 2012, implement a tracking system for complaints referred to a Zone and a tracking system for notifying the Police Commissioner of complaints alleging excessive use of force. By January 31, 2013, offer refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and Roll Call/Commanders Call training. Incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy. By January 31, 2013, execute any contract(s) necessary to train Supervisors or others responsible for conducting ballistic or crime scene analyses. By January 31, 2013, all statements will be recorded. After January 31, 2013, bi-monthly review to ensure statements are being recorded. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of citizen complaint investigation files). Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, create a periodic report that analyzes patterns of violations of VIPD policy. Using the information gathered in the report, evaluate areas for policy modification or appropriate remedial action (e.g., training).
By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop a process for

any documentation demonstrating that the Department has such a tracking system. Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department has such a tracking system.
Not satisfied. The VIPD provided inservice training during the Second Quarter of 2013. The VIPD has not provided the OIM with a report about the number of Officers and Supervisors that have been trained on the policies. Not satisfied. The VIPD has not reported that the Department has executed any contracts for such training.
Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department has implemented such a review. Satisfied, but additional work needed. The OIM received the VIPD’s Audit Report on January 17, 2014, which demonstrates that the Department has taken steps to implement the audit tools. The OIM will report more fully on the VIPD’s Audit Report in the next quarter.
Satisfied, but additional work needed. The OIM received the VIPD’s Audit Report on January 17, 2014, which demonstrates that the Department has taken steps to analyze patterns of violations of VIPD policy. The OIM will report more fully on the VIPD’s Audit Report in the next quarter. Not satisfied. The VIPD continued to develop a process for identifying

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 39 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | 36

identifying Supervisors who are not using the preponderance of the evidence standard and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop a process for identifying supervisors who neglect their responsibilities to investigate as required by policy and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training. By June 30, 2013, monthly review of IAU files to ensure compliance.
By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, audit timeliness of completion of citizen complaint investigations.

Supervisors who are not using the preponderance of the evidence standard during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013.
Not satisfied. The VIPD continued to develop a process for identifying Supervisors who neglect their responsibilities to investigate during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013.
Not satisfied. The VIPD continued to work on its audit tools during the Second and Third Quarters of 2013. Satisfied, but additional work needed. The OIM received the VIPD’s Audit Report on January 17, 2014, which demonstrates that the Department has taken steps to audit the timeliness of citizen complaint investigations. The OIM will report more fully on the VIPD’s Audit Report in the next quarter.

42. The VIPD will develop and implement a program to inform persons that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any officer. This program will include distribution of complaint forms, fact sheets, informational posters, and public service announcements that describe the citizen complaint process.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has developed and implemented a program to inform citizens that they may file a complaint/compliment regarding the performance of an Officer. The VIPD has provided extensive documentation about its efforts to inform the community about the citizen complains process. The Police Practices Experts have also observed these efforts first hand. Because ¶ 42 only requires the Department to develop a program, Phases 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the Department is in substantial compliance with ¶ 42. The OIM will continue to assess the Department’s efforts to maintain compliance in future quarters.
43. The VIPD will make complaint forms and informational materials available at government properties such as VIPD district stations,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 40 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 37
substations, mobile substations, libraries, the Internet, and, upon request, to community groups and community centers. At each VIPD district station, substation, and mobile substation, the VIPD will permanently post a placard describing the complaint process and include the relevant phone numbers. These placards shall be displayed in both English and Spanish, and where deemed necessary, in French or French Patois, to account for diversity in the VI population. The VIPD will require all officers to carry informational brochures and complaint forms, in English and Spanish, and where deemed necessary, in French or French Patois, in their vehicles at all times while on duty. If a citizen objects to an officer’s conduct, that officer will inform the citizen of his or her right to make a complaint. Officers will not discourage any person from making a complaint.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies pertaining to the citizen complaint process and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 43.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at pages xiv-xv.
OIM Report:
During the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the VIPD provided the OIM with documentation showing that complaint forms and informational materials were generally available at VIPD offices and other government properties. However, the VIPD failed to provide documentation that the Department followed-up and replaced complaint forms and informational material at locations where they were missing.
Recommendations:
The Department should continue to periodically audit whether complaint forms and related informational materials are available at all required locations. Given the Department’s progress implementing the citizen complaint process, it may not be necessary for the VIPD to conduct weekly or bi-weekly inspections, but the Department should do what it deems appropriate to ensure that complaint process materials remain available and well stocked at all required locations.
As previously reported, the Department has revised its complaint form for complainants to indicate whether an Officer has discouraged them from filing a complaint. To eliminate any confusion, the Department should discard

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 41 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 38
any remaining complaint forms that do not include this revision. In addition, future public information campaigns should inform citizens what they can do if they are discouraged from making a complaint, including directing them to the revised portion of the complaint form. The OIM expects that the VIPD will continue to conduct audits to assess this requirement. The VIPD should provide documentation of these audits to the Compliance Coordinator, the Compliance Manager, and the OIM.
44. Complaints may be filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile or electronic mail. The duty officer at the front desk of each district station will be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints, which persons may file at any district station. Complaint intake officers may describe facts that bear upon a complainant’s demeanor and physical condition but may not express opinions regarding his/her mental competency or veracity. Each complaint will be resolved in writing. Upon receipt, each complaint will be assigned a unique identifier, which will be provided to the complainant. Each complaint will be tracked according to the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, improper search, etc.).
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies pertaining to the citizen complaint process and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 44.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at pages xv-xvi.
OIM Report:
The DOJ approved the Acceptance of Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. The policy reflects the requirements in ¶ 44 of the Consent Decree. During the Third Quarter of 2013, the VIPD reported that discourtesy to citizens accounted for a significant number of citizen complaints in both Districts. As a result, the Commissioner authorized VIPD personnel to attend customer service training to ensure that VIPD personnel respond to citizen complaints in accordance with VIPD policy and generally interact with the community in a courteous and professional manner. In addition, the VIPD has indicated that it plans to develop a tracking system by January 31, 2014 to ensure that all personnel are trained on the citizen complaint policies. Once the VIPD has developed this tracking system, the OIM will assess whether it sufficiently tracks that all personnel are trained on the citizen complaint policies.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 42 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 39
Recommendations:
The VIPD should continue to conduct audits to determine whether the required VIPD personnel are trained on the Department’s policies, whether all complaints are being resolved in writing, and whether complaint numbers are being provided to complainants. The VIPD should then provide documentation relating to those audits to the Compliance Coordinator, the Compliance Manager, and the OIM. The VIPD should offer Commanders Call training to all Commanders on the Acceptance of Citizen Complaint Policy, and document such training and provide the results of examinations administered after training to the OIM. In addition, the VIPD should audit complaint forms to ensure that complaint in-take Officers are not expressing their opinions regarding a complainant’s mental competency or veracity on the complaint forms. The VIPD should also develop a process for auditing that a complaint is forwarded to the IAB within the timeframe allotted under Department policy once it receives a VITEMA number.
45. Copies of all allegations of misconduct against the VIPD filed with the Zone Commands will be referred to Internal Affairs Unit (“IAU”) within five business days.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies pertaining to the citizen complaint policies and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 45.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at page xvi.
OIM Report:
The DOJ approved the Acceptance of Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. The policy reflects the requirements in ¶ 45 of the Consent Decree. The VIPD has reported that complaints are referred to the IAB within the required five-day period and that it has “initiated audits to gauge compliance with paragraph 45.” The VIPD has not provided the OIM with any documentation regarding any such audits.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should continue to audit whether copies of all allegations of misconduct are retrieved from drop boxes in the Zones and referred to the IAB within 5 business days. This should include accessing information from VITEMA to ensure that all complaints are forwarded. The Department should

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 43 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 40
then include this documentation in future audits and provide the audits to the OIM.
46. Complaints will be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, for which the Territory will develop and implement appropriate training.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 46.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at pages xvi-xvii.
OIM Report:
The VIPD has provided initial training on the preponderance of evidence standard. During the Second Quarter of 2013, the VIPD provided the OIM with documentation showing that Supervisors were tested on the preponderance of the evidence standard. According to the VIPD, a total of 45 Supervisors were tested on the preponderance of the evidence standard with a 67% passing rate (30 out of 45). Although initially requested in the Second Quarter of 2013, the VIPD still has not provided the OIM with any documentation demonstrating that the Supervisors who failed have been retrained, retested, and, if necessary, disciplined. This request remained outstanding during the Fourth Quarter of 2013.
Recommendations:
As stated during the Second Quarter of 2013, the OIM was disappointed that such a high percentage of Supervisors failed the VIPD’s competency test. The VIPD should provide additional training to those Supervisors and then retest their knowledge of the preponderance of the evidence standard using different test questions. In addition, the Training Division should re-examine its training relating to the preponderance of the evidence standard. The fact that so many Supervisors failed the Department’s competency test strongly suggests that the underlying training was inadequate. Further, the VIPD must provide documentation of post-training examinations on the preponderance of the evidence standard and audits of Supervisors’ compliance with the preponderance of the evidence standard should be forwarded to the Compliance Coordinator, the Compliance Manager, and the OIM.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 44 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 41
47. The VIPD will explicitly prohibit from investigating an incident any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to the injury to a person, or who authorized the conduct that led to these reportable incidents.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. Because ¶ 47 only requires the Department to develop a policy, Phases 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the Department has achieved substantial compliance with ¶ 47.
48. The VIPD will investigate every citizen complaint. The VIPD will establish a clear policy and procedure regarding the intake of any complaint, including anonymous and confidential complaints, against a VIPD officer. This policy and these procedures will include instructions to an officer for taking a complaint and prompt delivery to a supervisor.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 48.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at page xvii.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy on August 2, 2011. The IAB has conducted in-service and Roll Call and Commanders Call training addressing common mistakes made by Supervisors in citizen complaint investigations. The Police Practices Experts will continue to assess the quality of investigations completed in the Zones in subsequent quarters.
The VIPD has provided verbal updates about the status of overdue investigations and whether the two-week deadline to complete investigations was met, but has not provided documentation showing that all overdue investigations have been completed or whether disciplinary action was taken against all Officers who failed to meet the two-week deadline. The VIPD, however, provided documentation during the Fourth Quarter of 2013 demonstrating that the Deputy Chief for St. John issued a Letter of Caution to a Zone Commander who, among other things, failed to ensure that the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 45 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | 42

investigation file contained all required documents, including a Form 1A, Arrest Report, and a summary of all witness statements in the investigative report.20 In addition, the Deputy Chief noted that the Commander failed to concur (or not concur) with the findings of the investigating Supervisor to approve the use of force.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should continue to audit whether complaints are being adequately investigated within the allotted time period. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator, the Compliance Manager, and the OIM.
49. The VIPD will institute a centralized numbering and tracking system for all complaints and each complaint will receive a tracking number as quickly as possible. The IAU will be designated as the primary and centralized agency to determine whether the investigation will be assigned to zone (one of the seven zones located throughout the Virgin Islands), retained by the IAU, or referred for possible criminal investigation. If the IAU refers a complaint to a zone, copies of all documents, findings, and recommendations should be immediately forwarded to the IAU for tracking and monitoring. For complaints alleging the excessive use of force or violation of a person’s constitutional rights, the Police Commissioner should be notified no less than twentyfour hours after receipt of a complaint.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 49.
VIPD Report:

See VIPD Report at Appendix A at pages xvii-xviii.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy on August 2, 2011. That policy reflects the requirements of ¶ 49 of the Consent Decree. The VIPD currently relies on VITEMA to assign tracking numbers for each complaint when a complaint is filed at a Zone. The VIPD should ensure that each complaint (once assigned a complaint number by VITEMA) is entered into

20

See UOFT2013-0039.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 46 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 43
IAPro and forwarded to the IAB for investigation or referral to the Zones. The VIPD reports that it created a form to document when the Commissioner is notified about complaints pertaining to excessive use of force or violations of constitutional rights. The OIM has received limited documentation of these completed forms.
Recommendations:
As the OIM has recommended for several quarters, Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs should ensure that cases referred to the Zones for investigation by the IAB are investigated thoroughly in the time period required by Department policy, and that recommendations are immediately forwarded to the IAB for tracking and monitoring. Any deficiencies in investigations must also be corrected. The Department must train, and if necessary, discipline, managers and Supervisors who fail to satisfy these requirements. The VIPD should audit whether the Department has complied with the requirements of ¶ 49 of the Consent Decree, and, in particular, provide the OIM with documentation showing that the Commissioner was notified about complaints alleging excessive force or violations of constitutional rights. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator, the Compliance Manager, and the OIM.
50. The VIPD will adopt a single policy concerning the investigation of misconduct complaints, regardless of whether the investigation is conducted by the IAU or a zone.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. Because ¶ 50 only requires the Department to develop a policy, Phases 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the Department has achieved substantial compliance with ¶ 50.
51. The VIPD will establish policies and procedures and train all of its investigators on the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility; examination and interrogation of accused officers and other witnesses; identifying misconduct even if it is not specifically named in the complaint; and using the preponderance of the evidence standard as the appropriate burden of proof. VIPD investigators will ensure that all officers on the scene of an incident provide a statement regarding the incident. The policy will require that all interviews be mechanically recorded using an audio or video tape.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy and

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 47 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 44
provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 51.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at page xix.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. That policy reflects the requirements of ¶ 51 of the Consent Decree. The VIPD has provided initial training on the preponderance of evidence standard, but the VIPD has not provided documentation reflecting that VIPD personnel are proficient in the requirements of ¶ 51.
During the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the Police Practices Experts reviewed 11 closed citizen complaint investigations and concluded that Officers on the scene of an incident provided a statement regarding the incident in 88% (7 out of 8) of the investigations. In addition, 45% (5 out of 11) of the investigations included audio recorded witness statements.
Recommendations:
As previously recommended, the Citizen Complaint Process working group should continue to test whether VIPD personnel adequately understand the citizen complaint process. The VIPD should provide VIPD personnel with additional training on the citizen complaint process and then conduct and document periodic audits to ensure that VIPD personnel are complying with the relevant policies. The VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training as appropriate.
Specifically, the VIPD should audit whether investigators correctly: 1) evaluate complainant or witness credibility; 2) examine and interrogate accused Officers and other witnesses; and 3) identify misconduct. The audits should also evaluate whether VIPD investigators take statements from all Officers on the scene of an incident. Based on its audits, the VIPD should identify any trends or areas for improvement. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator, the Compliance Manager, and the OIM.
52. The policy will require that the investigative findings include whether: 1) the police action was in compliance with policy, training and legal standards, regardless of whether the complainant suffered harm; 2) the incident involved misconduct by any officer; 3) the use of different tactics should or could have been employed; 4) the incident indicates a

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 48 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 45
need for additional training, counseling or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and 5) the incident suggests that the VIPD should revise its policies, training, or tactics.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. Because ¶ 52 only requires the Department to develop a policy, Phases 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the Department has achieved substantial compliance with ¶ 52.
53. The policy will provide clear guidance to all investigators regarding the procedures for handling criminal misconduct allegations, referring them to the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office or other appropriate agency for possible criminal prosecution, and the entity or individual who should make the determination of whether the complaint should be investigated criminally. The policy shall continue to require the completion of an administrative investigation, irrespective of the initiation or outcome of criminal proceedings.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy. Because ¶ 53 only requires the Department to develop a policy, Phases 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the Department has achieved substantial compliance with ¶ 53.
54. In each investigation, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. There will be no automatic preference for an officer's statement over a non-officer's statement, nor will the VIPD completely disregard a witness' statement merely because the witness has some connection to the complainant. The VIPD will make efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 54.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at pages xx-xxi.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 49 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 46
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. That policy reflects the requirements of ¶ 54 of the Consent Decree. The Department has conducted initial training on this policy, and conducted in-service training during the Second Quarter of 2013. The VIPD, however, has not provided full documentation for this training, including a schedule of remedial training for Supervisors who failed the proficiency examination.
During the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the Police Practices Experts reviewed 11 closed citizen complaint investigations and concluded that evidence was preserved in 50% (2 out of 4) of the investigations; relevant evidence (including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence) was taken into consideration in 67% (4 out of 6) of the investigations; witness credibility determinations were made in 78% (7 out of 9) of the investigations; the officer did not give preference to an Officer’s statement in 82% (9 out of 11) of the investigations; a witness statement was not disregarded merely because the witness had some connection to the complainant in 90% (9 out of 10) of the investigations; and inconsistencies in witness statements were documented and addressed in 60% (3 out of 5) of the investigations.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should audit whether VIPD personnel consider all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible, in all investigations. Audits should also evaluate whether preference is given to an Officer's statement over a non-Officer's, and whether the VIPD makes efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. Based on its audits, the Citizen Complaint Process working group should identify any trends or areas for improvement. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator, the Compliance Manager, and the OIM.
55. During an investigation, all relevant police activity, including each use of force (i.e., not just the type of force complained about) will continue to be investigated. The investigation will also evaluate any searches or seizures that occurred during the incident. The VIPD will not close an investigation simply because the complaint is withdrawn or the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of injury or the complainant will not provide additional statements or written statements; rather, the investigating agency will continue its investigation as necessary to determine whether the original allegation(s) can be resolved based on the information, evidence, and investigatory procedures and techniques available. In each investigation, the fact that a complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense will not be

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 50 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 47
considered as evidence of whether a VIPD officer used or did not use a type of force, nor will it justify discontinuing the investigation.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 55.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at pages xxi-xxii.
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy on August 2, 2011. That policy reflects the requirements of ¶ 55 of the Consent Decree. The Department has conducted initial training on this policy and on-going in-service training, but it has not provided documentation demonstrating that Supervisors are proficient in the requirements of the policy.
During the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the Police Practices Experts reviewed 11 closed citizen complaint investigations and concluded that 100% (4 out 4) of the investigations were closed for reasons other than: the complainant withdrew the complaint; the complainant was uncooperative; the complainant was unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of injury; and the complainant pled or was found guilty of an offense. In addition, the Police Practices Experts concluded that apparent misconduct was adequately addressed in 75% (6 out of 8) of the investigations; and that the appropriateness of any searches or seizures was not evaluated in 100% (2 out of 2) of the investigations. The OIM will continue to assess this requirement in future quarters.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should audit whether VIPD personnel comply with ¶ 55 of the Consent Decree. The VIPD should also develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator, the Compliance Manager, and the OIM.
56. The complainant will be periodically kept informed regarding the status of the investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, the complainant will be notified of its outcome, including an appropriate

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 51 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 48
statement regarding whether any non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action was taken.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 56.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at page xxii.
OIM Report:
The VIPD has made progress towards compliance with the requirements of ¶ 56. During the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the Police Practices Experts reviewed 11 closed citizen complaint investigations and concluded that in 25% (1 out of 4) of the investigations the complainant was periodically informed about the status of the investigation. In addition, the complainant was notified of the outcome of the investigation in 75% (6 out of 8) of the investigations. The OIM will continue to assess this requirement in future quarters.
Recommendations:
The Citizen Complaint Process working group should continue to audit whether VIPD personnel adequately understand and comply with the complaint process. The Citizen Complaint Process working group should also evaluate whether complainants are kept informed about the status of their complaints and notified about the outcome. Based on its audits, the Citizen Complaint Process working group should identify any trends or areas for improvement, and develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply with these requirements, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator, the Compliance Manager, and the OIM.
57. Each allegation in an investigation will be resolved by making one of the following dispositions: a) “Unfounded,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that no facts to support that the incident complained of actually occurred; b) “Sustained,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person's allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the incident occurred and the actions of the officer were improper; c) “Not Sustained,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there are insufficient facts to decide whether the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 52 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 49
alleged misconduct occurred; and d) “Exonerated,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate VIPD policies, procedures, or training.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy and provided related training. The VIPD has also achieved Phase 3 compliance because the Police Practices Experts have observed that investigations are increasingly resolved with one of the four required findings. During the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the Police Practices Experts reviewed 11 closed citizen complaint investigations and concluded that each investigation was resolved with one of the four required findings.
58. Unit commanders will evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command to identify underlying problems and training needs. Any such problems or needs will be relayed in the form of a recommendation to the appropriate VIPD entity.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 58.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at page xxiii.
OIM Report:
The OIM has seen little progress towards compliance with the requirements of ¶ 58. During the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the Police Practices Experts reviewed 11 closed citizen complaint investigations and unit Commanders identified underlying problems and training needs in 18% (2 out of 11) of those investigations. There was no evidence, however, that these problems or training needs were relayed to the appropriate VIPD entity, or that any recommended corrective action was taken.
An investigation provided by the VIPD during the Fourth Quarter of 2013 underscores the importance of identifying underlying problems as areas for further training. In that investigation, Officers confronted a potential wanted

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 53 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | 50
subject at a bar, and transported him to his home to retrieve identification.21 Once the Officers concluded that the complainant was not the wanted subject, they transported him back to his original location. The complainant subsequently filed a complaint in hopes of receiving an apology. The investigation file, however, was incomplete because the Officers never filed the required Form 1As to document the police activity (i.e., asking the subject for his identification, detaining the subject, and transporting him to and from his home), and this deficiency was completely overlooked by the investigating Supervisor because only the alleged misconduct was evaluated.
Recommendations: The Department should audit whether VIPD personnel comply with ¶ 58. Unit Commanders must evaluate investigations to identify underlying problems and training needs. Commanders must then relay any problems or training needs to the appropriate VIPD entity. The VIPD should also develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply with requirements and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator, the Compliance Manager, and the OIM.
21 See CCT-2013-0094.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 54 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | 51

Management and Supervision

Joint Action Plan Requirements

Joint Action Plan Requirements Revisions to Disciplinary [Matrix] will be forwarded to DOJ by November 1, 2012.
Beginning on November 30, 2012, at least once per month, the Deputy Chief during Commanders Call, will address Decree compliance issues, including timely completion of use of force reports. Beginning on November 30, 2012, working group members will conduct regular reviews, but no less frequently than weekly, to ensure that all Blue Team programs are installed on all Zone Command computers and are also fully functioning.
By November 30, 2012, VIPD will provide DOJ with an action plan for achieving sufficient numbers of staff to input current and historic data or outlining how it intends to use existing staff to accomplish this task. The plan will include an implementation date subject to the agreement of the parties.
Working group members will conduct bi-monthly reviews commencing November 30, 2012 to ensure compliance with A through K [of Consent Decree ¶ 60]. Quarterly review commencing November 30, 2012 will be conducted to ensure compliance [with Consent Decree ¶ 65].

Status Satisfied. After receiving DOJ approval, the VIPD issued a revised version of the Disciplinary Policy and Matrix during the Third Quarter of 2013. Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation demonstrating compliance with this requirement.
Satisfied, but additional work needed. The VIPD has provided the OIM with documentation demonstrating that Blue Team is installed and functional throughout the Zones. However, the OIM has not received evidence of any follow-up when problems are identified. Satisfied, but additional work needed. On December 31, 2012, the DOJ provided comments on the VIPD’s action plan. Among other things, the DOJ sought clarification on what, if anything, the VIPD plans to do if there is a lack of funding for new Supervisors. The OIM has not received evidence that the VIPD has adequately addressed the DOJ’s concerns. Not Satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation demonstrating compliance with this requirement.
Not Satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation demonstrating compliance with this requirement.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 55 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | 52

Working group members will conduct bi-monthly reviews commencing November 30, 2012 to ensure compliance with a through g [of Consent Decree ¶ 66]. VIPD will maintain documentation of how it identified and addressed patterns of officer conduct based on existing databases and resources and provide this documentation on a quarterly basis to the Monitor, starting in the 3rd quarter of 2012. Finalize Audit Protocol and submit to DOJ by November 30, 2012.
Blue Team technical issues will be resolved, training will be ongoing, and all districts will receive a round of training by January 31, 2013.
Competency-based training of all staff by Feb. 15, 2013 and ongoing documented refresher training through in-services and Roll Call/Commanders Call. Auditors to attend training re: conducting audits by April 30, 2013.
By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. This ensures periodic quality checks on data entered. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

Not Satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation demonstrating compliance with this requirement.
Not Applicable. Because the Department appears to be relying solely on IAPro for risk management, this requirement is no longer applicable.
Satisfied. The VIPD issued the Audit and Inspection Policy during the Third Quarter of 2013. Satisfied. The VIPD provided the OIM with documentation regarding Blue Team training on the St. Thomas/St. John District during the First Quarter of 2013, and provided similar documentation for the St. Croix District in the Second Quarter of 2013. Based on documentation provided during the Fourth Quarter of 2013 and the First Quarter of 2014, the VIPD appears to have addressed the technical issues that previously hampered Blue Team. Not Satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation demonstrating compliance with this requirement.
Satisfied. Audit Training was held for both Districts during the Third Quarter of 2013. Satisfied, but additional work needed. The OIM received the VIPD’s Audit Report on January 17, 2014, which demonstrates that the Department has taken steps to implement the audit tools. The OIM will report more fully on the VIPD’s Audit Report in the next quarter.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 56 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | 53

Train staff regarding Audit Protocol by June 30, 2013.
Audit will commence by June 30, 2013.
By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies, including (but not limited to) review for inclusion of written Police Commissioner extension approval in investigatory files. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

Satisfied. Audit Training was held on both Districts during the Third Quarter of 2013. That training covered the Audit and Inspection Policy. Satisfied. The VIPD conducted audits during the Fourth Quarter of 2013 and submitted its Audit Report to the OIM on January 17, 2014. Satisfied, but additional work needed. The OIM received the VIPD’s Audit Report on January 17, 2014, which demonstrates that the Department has taken steps to implement the audit tools. The OIM will report more fully on the VIPD’s Audit Report in the next quarter.

59. The VIPD will develop and implement a risk management system to include a new computerized relational database or paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for supervision and management of the VIPD. Priority will be given to the VIPD obtaining any established program and system. The VIPD will regularly use this data to promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 59 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 59 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at pages xxiii-xxiv.
OIM Report:
As previously reported, the Department has made substantial progress implementing IAPro. The Joint Action Plan requires members of the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 57 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 54
Management and Supervision working group to “conduct regular reviews . . . to ensure that all Blue Team programs are installed on all Zone Command computers and are also fully functioning.” The Chairperson of the Management and Supervision working group initiated a process during the First Quarter of 2013 for the Department’s Management and Information Systems Unit (“MIS”) and the Zones to submit biweekly reports documenting the required reviews. Also during the First Quarter of 2013, the Management and Supervision working group issued a memorandum entitled “Blue Team Inspection Territory Wide,” which requires all Commanders to submit weekly Blue Team functionality reports. The VIPD provided documentation during the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2013 demonstrating that Commanders are generally submitting Blue Team functionality reports. Based on those reports, it appears that Blue Team is installed and generally functional throughout the Zones.
During the First Quarter of 2013, the VIPD provided the OIM with records for Blue Team and EIP training that took place in the St. Thomas/St. John District; the VIPD provided records for the same training in the St. Croix District during the Second Quarter of 2013. The records for the training conducted on St. Thomas contained, for the first time, a breakdown of the personnel who attended the training and those who did not. The VIPD provided follow-up training on the EIP during the Fourth Quarter of 2013.
The EIP is a cornerstone of the Consent Decree. When used properly, it provides Supervisors (and the rest of the VIPD’s leadership team) with the means to identify potentially problematic behavior and promptly intervene to address, and if necessary, correct, the behavior before any harm results from the behavior. The IAB is responsible for maintaining and administering the EIP. Among other things, the IAB generates reports on a regular basis, identifying potentially problematic conduct. Managers and Supervisors are also required to monitor the behavior of their subordinates on a daily basis using the “dashboard” feature in Blue Team.
When the EIP identifies potentially problematic behavior, the EIP coordinator notifies the employee’s immediate Supervisor and provide a Summary of Employee Performance Report (“SEPR”). After conducting an initial review, the Supervisor and his/her commanding Officer are required to meet to discuss the report and other relevant information, and determine if corrective action is appropriate. Corrective action can include reviewing the SEPR with the employee, requiring the employee to participate in Departmentauthorized training, referring the employee to various professionals for assistance (e.g., Department psychologist or counselor), or supervising the employee more closely in the future. After the Supervisor and his/her commanding Officer meet to discuss the SEPR, the Supervisor is required to complete a “Report of Action Recommendations” detailing the corrective action, if any, that must be undertaken.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 58 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 55
As reported, the EIP appears to be progressing at different rates across the Districts. While Supervisors on the St. Croix District made a good faith effort to implement the EIP during the Third Quarter of 2013, the Police Practices Experts have seen very limited effort by Supervisors on the St. Thomas/St. John District. During the Fourth Quarter of 2013, there was no documented activity on St. Croix.
During the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the OIM learned of an Officer on St. Thomas who received 12 citizen complaints in the prior 12 months; the average number of complaints for the same time period in the St. Thomas/St. John District was 1-3 complaints. That Officer accounts for 60% of the citizen complaints involving her unit. Notwithstanding those dramatic statistics, it does not appear that the Officer’s Supervisor (or anyone else in the chain of command) ever attempted to intervene. That fact demonstrates a complete failure of accountability by everyone involved. Unfortunately, that failure of accountability is not an isolated occurrence. The Police Practices Experts reviewed two other EIP cases from the St. Thomas/St. John District where potentially problematic behavior triggered an EIP review. Rather than trying to learn about the Officers’ underlying conduct (which is what a Supervisor is supposed to do), the Supervisor who reviewed both alerts stated that she had no knowledge of the underlying conduct and signed the SEPR without conducting any further investigation. The Supervisor’s Commander then signed the SEPR as well.
Based on the examples described above, there appears to be a systemic failure by the Department to hold Supervisors, Commanders, Deputy Chiefs, and Chiefs accountable for supporting the EIP. The Commissioner has correctly indicated on multiple occasions that accountability is important to him. This is an area in which accountability is especially wanting, and the Commissioner needs to make good on his promise.
Recommendations:
Even though the Department has implemented certain aspects of IAPro, the RMS Protocol needs to be fully implemented by, among other things, providing on-going training on the Department’s EIP. The VIPD should also use the Blue Team and EIP training records described above as a model for how to present training records to the OIM going forward. The VIPD should also consider modifying the PowerPoint presentation that it previously provided regarding the EIP program for use during Roll Call and Commanders Call training.
The VIPD also needs to document every step that it takes relating to the EIP process, including when IAPro first generated an alert, what the Department did in response to the alert (counseling, remedial training, discipline, etc.), and the outcome of the Department’s response. The St.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 59 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 56
Thomas/St. John District, in particular, needs to start documenting the EIP process. The OIM will continue to review the EIP process in future quarters, including EIP assessment and audit forms.
The OIM understands that the initial process of establishing and properly implementing the EIP is difficult. Once established and implemented, the EIP will play an integral role in making the VIPD a better department. The Commissioner, Chiefs, and Deputy Chiefs must acknowledge and embrace their roles in managing the EIP system.
60. The new risk management system will collect and record the following information: a) all uses of force; b) canine bite ratios; c) the number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers; d) all injuries to prisoners; e) all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with “resisting arrest,” “assault on a police officer,” “disorderly conduct,” or “obstruction of official business;” f) all critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty; g) all complaints (and their dispositions); h) all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the Territory and its officers, or agents, resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel; i) all vehicle pursuits; j) all incidents involving the pointing of a firearm (if any such reporting is required); and k) all disciplinary action taken against officers.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 60 of the Consent Decree and provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 60 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at pages xxiv-xxv.
OIM Report:
The VIPD’s Data Input Plan requires the Department to collect the data specified in ¶ 60 of the Consent Decree. The Management and Supervision working group reported at the end of the Fourth Quarter of 2012 that it was creating forms, drafting procedures, and developing a system to verify the accuracy of the data collected under subparagraphs a through k. The OIM has not received any documentation relating to those efforts.
During the First Quarter of 2013, the OIM learned that the VIPD continued to have problems accessing required information that was

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 60 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | 57

maintained by other government agencies. For example, the VIPD reported that it had limited access to information from the VIAG regarding court proceedings (criminal and civil) involving VIPD personnel and from VITEMA regarding vehicle pursuits.22 The VIPD’s Data Input Plan requires that such information be collected and entered into the RMS. During the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the VIPD made progress collecting information from the VIAG about court proceedings. The VIPD also drafted a new Motor Vehicle Accident Policy during the Fourth Quarter of 2013, which mandates that information regarding motor vehicle accidents be collected and entered into the RMS.
The OIM learned during the Second Quarter of 2013 that a Department audit of the RMS revealed that certain data sources were not being collected as required by the Data Input Plan. Specifically, the VIPD was not collecting information about canine bite ratios or the number of canisters of O.C. Spray being used by VIPD personnel. The OIM applauds the VIPD for identifying these deficiencies. Moreover, the fact that an internal VIPD audit identified these deficiencies underscores the important role that the Audit Unit can play in helping the VIPD achieve and maintain substantial compliance.
During the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the VIPD reported that it has started to collect information about canine bite ratios. Although the OIM has not received any such documentation, it is our understanding that canine deployments are being recorded in Form 1As and canine bites are being recorded in IAPro. We look forward to receiving documentation relating to the Department’s efforts to generate bite ratios in upcoming quarters.
The VIPD previously reported that it held training on the Data Input Plan during the Second Quarter of 2013 on both Districts. The VIPD provided training on the Department’s RMS Protocol and EIP at the same time. The VIPD provided the OIM with lesson plans for the EIP training, but has not provided complete documentation (similar to what the Department provided for Blue Team training) detailing who was eligible/should have attended the training, who attended the training, who passed any post-training competency tests, or who participated in any related re-training or was disciplined for not doing so or for not attending the original training.
During the Third Quarter of 2013, the VIPD provided the OIM with a document titled “Quarterly Patterns and Trending Data: 3rd Qtr 2013.” As its title suggests, the document provides various statistics relating to the Department’s use of force and citizen complaints. Going forward, VIPD managers and Supervisors should analyze patterns and trends by the Department. Generating documents like this and forwarding them to the OIM (while appreciated) is not enough. For example, during the Third Quarter of

22

In relevant part, subparagraph (h) requires the VIPD’s RMS system to record “all civil or

administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the Territory and its

officers, or agents, resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel.”

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 61 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 58
2013, one-third of all complaints from the St. Thomas/St. John District involved discourtesy. As a result, the Commissioner authorized VIPD personnel to attend customer service training to ensure that VIPD personnel respond to citizen complaints in accordance with VIPD policy and generally interact with the community in a courteous and professional manner.
Similarly, a high percentage of arrests in both Districts during the Third Quarter of 2013 were so called “discretionary arrests” for offenses such as disobeying police orders, disturbing the peace, and interfering with an officer. While those arrests may have been appropriate under the circumstances, the VIPD should consider whether similar behavior can be addressed without resorting to an arrest. The Department’s senior managers, including the Commissioner, should utilize the EIP and review the Department’s patterns and trends relating to uses of force and citizen complaints.
Recommendations:
Even though the Department has implemented certain aspects of IAPro, the RMS Protocol needs to be fully implemented by, among other things, collecting all of the information required by the Data Input Plan. The VIPD should also provide the OIM with documentation regarding its efforts to collect all of the information required by the Data Input Plan. Once the VIPD comes into compliance with the Data Input Plan, the Department should generate quarterly IAPro reports demonstrating that data from subparagraphs a through k are captured in the Department’s RMS.
The VIPD should continue to provide the OIM with pattern and trend data relating to uses of force and citizen complaints. The Department should also analyze that data and provide a summary of its conclusions and proposed remedial actions, if any, to the OIM.
With respect to complaints of discourtesy and “discretionary arrests,” the Department should determine whether such conduct is attributable to a concentrated group of personnel. To the extent that it is, the Department should try to correct that behavior through the EIP. The EIP is programmed to generate alerts when personnel receive 4 or more complaints in a twelve month period. We do not believe that the EIP is currently programmed to generate alerts regarding “discretionary arrests,” but the VIPD should consider adding excessive “discretionary arrests” as an alert.
61. The new risk management system will include, for the incidents included in the database, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (e.g., name, badge number, shift and supervisor) and civilian (e.g., race, ethnicity or national origin, if available).

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 62 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 59
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 61 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 61 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at pages xxv-xxvi.
OIM Report:
To help track VIPD personnel (who may change job functions, names, etc.), the Commissioner issued a directive during the Fourth Quarter of 2011 ordering that a permanent designator number (“PDN”) be assigned to all sworn personnel, including designated civilian personnel with assignments as agents, auxiliaries, and forensic technicians. The PDN is a four digit number assigned by VITEMA. Officers are required to use their PDNs (which they keep for their entire career) on all police reports, rather than their badge numbers as was the previous practice.
During the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the VIPD conducted limited audits to determine whether VIPD personnel had been assigned PDNs, and if so, whether they were including their PDNs on all VIPD reports. Based on those audits, the VIPD determined that one Officer did not have a PDN assigned. That deficiency was subsequently corrected.
We also understand that thirteen Police Academy cadets did not have PDNs in the weeks leading up to graduation. The VIPD should ensure that they have all been issued PDNs.
Recommendations:
The Department should audit whether Officers are using their PDNs on all police reports. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator, the Compliance Manager, and the OIM. In addition, the VIPD should provide the OIM with quarterly IAPro reports demonstrating that appropriate identifying information for each involved Officer and civilian is captured by the Department’s RMS, and a list of the PDNs assigned to all VIPD personnel.
62. Within 120 days of the implementation of the new risk management system, or later with the agreement of DOJ, the VIPD will prepare, for the review and approval of DOJ, a plan for including appropriate fields and values of new and historical data into the risk management system (the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 63 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 60
"Data Input Plan"). The Data Input Plan will identify the data to be included and the means for inputting such data (direct entry or otherwise), the specific fields of information to be included, the past time periods for which information is to be included, the deadlines for inputting the data, and the responsibility for the input of the data. The Data Input Plan will include historical data that is up-to-date and complete in the risk management system. The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final review and approval within 30 days after it is presented for approval.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued the Data Input Plan in compliance with ¶ 62 of the Consent Decree. Because ¶ 62 of the Consent Decree only requires the Department to develop a policy, Phase 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the VIPD is in substantial compliance with ¶ 62 of the Consent Decree.
63. The VIPD will, within 120 days, prepare for the review and approval of DOJ, and thereafter implement, a protocol for using the risk management system. The VIPD will submit for the review and approval of DOJ all proposed modifications to the protocol prior to implementing such modifications.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 63 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 63 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at page xxvi.
OIM Report:
After several years of work, the DOJ approved the Department’s RMS Protocol on October 2, 2012. As previously reported, the RMS Protocol provides various thresholds that trigger supervisory review. For example, if an Officer receives more than X number of complaints within Y period of time, IAPro will alert the Officer’s Supervisor (and other appropriate personnel) to the potential issue and need for review. When reporting arrest and use of force data, the Consent Decree requires that the VIPD use ratios based on the conduct of VIPD personnel (the number of arrests where force was used divided by the total number of arrests) to identify potentially problematic behavior.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 64 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 61
The VIPD is not currently capable of providing these ratios because its arrest records are not uniform or reliable. For several quarters, the VIPD has been working to consolidate all of its arrest records into a single database. The VIPD installed arrest database terminals in both Districts during the Fourth Quarter of 2013, but the Director of MIS still needs to test the databases. The Parties agree that the Department will not be in compliance with ¶ 63 until it implements a ratio-based RMS Protocol.
Recommendations:
Once the Department can rely on its arrest records, the VIPD should begin to use ratios, rather than numerical thresholds, as triggers for supervisory review of Officers’ conduct. The Department should also consider whether it needs to revise its RMS Protocol to rely on ratios going forward. The VIPD should also provide the OIM with audits documenting the Department’s compliance with ¶ 63 of the Consent Decree.
64. The protocol for using the risk management system will include the following provisions and elements: a) The protocol is comprised of the following components: data storage, data retrieval, reporting, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation and audit; b) The protocol will require the automated system to analyze the data according to the following criteria: (i) number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; (ii) average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and (iii) identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; c) The protocol will require the system to generate reports on a monthly basis describing the data and data analysis and identifying individual and unit patterns; d) The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors will review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, system reports, and will evaluate individual officer, supervisor, and unit activity; e) The protocol will require that VIM deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors initiate intervention for individual officers, supervisors and for units based on appropriate activity and pattern assessment of the information contained in the risk management system; f) The protocol will require that intervention options include discussion by deputy chiefs, managers, supervisors, and officers; counseling; training; and supervised, monitored, and documented action plans and strategies designed to modify activity. All interventions will be documented in writing and entered into the automated system (appropriate intervention options will be employed based on the evaluation described in subsection (e) above); g) The protocol will specify that actions taken as a result of information from the risk management system be based on all relevant and appropriate information, including the nature of the officer’s assignment, crime trends and crime

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 65 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 62
problems, and not solely on the number or percentages of incidents in any category of information recorded in the risk management system; h) The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors will promptly review the risk management system records of all officers recently transferred to their sections and units; i) The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors be evaluated on their ability to use the risk management system to enhance effectiveness and reduce risk; (j) The protocol will require that the system be managed and administered by the Internal Affairs Unit of the VIPD. The IAU of the VIPD will conduct quarterly audits of the system to ensure action is taken according to the process described above; k) The protocol will require regular reviews, at no less than quarterly intervals, by appropriate managers of all relevant risk management system information to evaluate officer performance territory-wide, and to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all VIPD units in order to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued the RMS Protocol in compliance with ¶ 64 of the Consent Decree. Because ¶ 64 of the Consent Decree only requires the Department to develop a policy Phase 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the VIPD is in substantial compliance with ¶ 64 of the Consent Decree.
65. The VIPD will maintain all personally identifiable information about an officer included in the risk management system during the officer’s employment with the VIPD for at least five years. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis will be maintained indefinitely in the risk management system. On an ongoing basis, the VIPD will enter information into the risk management system in a timely, accurate, and complete manner, and maintain the data in a secure and confidential manner.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 65 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 65 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at page xxviii.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 66 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 63
OIM Report:
The OIM did not assess the VIPD’s compliance with ¶ 65 of the Consent Decree during the Fourth Quarter of 2013. We will assess it during the First Quarter of 2014.
Recommendations:
The Department should continue to forward completed audits to the OIM.
66. The new risk management system will be purchased off the shelf and customized by VIPD. Alternatively, the new risk management system may be developed and implemented according to the following schedule: a) Within 150 days of the effective date of this Agreement, subject to the review and approval of DOJ, the VIPD will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP); b) Within 270 days of the issuance of the RFP, or later with the agreement of DOJ, the VIPD will select the contractor to create the risk management system; c) Within 150 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the VIPD will submit the protocol for using the risk management system to DOJ for review and approval. The VIPD will share drafts of this document with DOJ and the Monitor (a position described in Section VII) to allow DOJ and the Monitor to become familiar with the document as it develops and to provide informal comments on it. The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final approval within 30 days after it is presented for review and approval; d) Within 14 months of selecting the contractor, the VIPD will have ready for testing a beta version of the risk management system consisting of (i) server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the VIPD's existing automated systems; (ii) necessary data base software installed and configured; (iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and (iv) the use of force information system completed, including historic data. DOJ and the Monitor will have the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version using use of force data and test data created specifically for purposes of checking the risk management system; e) The risk management system computer program and computer hardware will be operational and fully implemented within 20 months of the selection of the risk management system contractor.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 66 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training. The VIPD has also achieved Phase 3 compliance because the Department relies on IAPro for risk management. Although the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 67 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 64
VIPD never conducted a formal “beta test” for IAPro (which is required by the Consent Decree), that requirement is now moot. “Beta tests” are supposed to be conducted around the time that a new system is made operational. IAPro has already been in use by the VIPD for several years. While we are reluctant to excuse the VIPD’s failure to conduct a formal “beta test,” we believe that the VIPD is in substantial compliance with ¶ 66 of the Consent Decree.
67. Prior to implementation of the new risk management system, the VIPD will continue to use existing databases and resources to the fullest extent possible, to identify patterns of conduct by VIPD officers or groups of officers.
Compliance Assessment:
Because the Department appears to rely on IAPro for risk management, this requirement is no longer applicable.
68. Following the initial implementation of the risk management system, and as experience and the availability of new technology may warrant, the VIPD may propose to add, subtract, or modify data tables and fields, modify the list of documents scanned or electronically attached, and add, subtract, or modify standardized reports and queries. The VIPD will submit all such proposals for review and approval by DOJ before implementation.
Compliance Assessment:
Because the Department has not yet proposed any changes to the RMS, this requirement is not yet applicable.
69. The VIPD will develop a protocol for conducting audits. The protocol will be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol will establish a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all VIPD zones.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 69 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 69 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at page xxxi.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 68 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 65
OIM Report:
The VIPD issued the Audit and Inspection Policy in September 2013, and provided related training in October 2013. Under the Territorial Audit Agenda, each working group was charged with conducting audits relating to their respective area of responsibility. While the working groups should have a role in audits, the VIPD’s current audit process is deficient because no single authority (unit or person) is responsible for managing the audit process and ensuring that audits comply with the VIPD’s Audit and Inspection Policy and audit tools.
Under the parties’ proposed Joint Action Plan, the VIPD committed to completing an initial round of audits by December 27, 2013. The VIPD reaffirmed its commitment to meeting that deadline when the Parties were in Court on November 18, 2013. The VIPD provided the OIM with a detailed report summarizing the Department’s audits on January 17, 2014. We will report on the Department’s audits in the First Quarterly Report of 2014, but we note that the Department has made a good faith initial effort to conduct internal audits relating to the Consent Decree.
Recommendations:
The VIPD should continue to conduct audits according to its approved audit protocol, including establishing a regular Territory-wide schedule of audits.
70. The VIPD will continue to utilize a disciplinary matrix to take into account an officer’s violations of different rules, rather than just repeated violations of the same rule. The VIPD will further revise this matrix to increase the penalties for uses of excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, or dishonesty, to reflect the seriousness of those infractions. The revised disciplinary matrix will provide the VIPD with the discretion to impose any appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes the officer’s misconduct exhibits a lack of fitness for duty. This revised matrix will be subject to the review and approval of DOJ.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 compliance because it has issued the Disciplinary Matrix in compliance with ¶ 70 of the Consent Decree. Because ¶ 70 of the Consent Decree only requires the Department to develop a policy, Phase 2 and 3 are not applicable. Therefore, the VIPD is in substantial compliance with ¶ 70 of the Consent Decree.
71. VIPD policy will continue to identify clear time periods by which the various steps of a complaint adjudication process should be completed, from complaint receipt to the imposition of discipline, if any. Absent

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 69 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 66
exigent circumstances, extensions will not be granted without the Police Commissioner's written approval and notice to the complainant. In the limited circumstances when an extension is necessary, appropriate tolling provisions will be outlined in the policy.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 71 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 71 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at page xxxii.
OIM Report:
Although the Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint Policy sets forth “clear time periods by which the various steps of a complaint adjudication process should be completed[,]” many of the Department’s citizen complaint investigations are overdue. Moreover, even when the investigation file indicates that a stay was granted, there is often too little information in the file to determine whether the stay was justified. Of the 11 closed citizen complaint investigations reviewed during the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the Police Practices Experts determined that 64% (7 out of 11) were completed on a timely basis.
In connection with this provision, the VIPD reported that it is working with the Police Benevolent Association (“PBA”) and the Law Enforcement Supervisors Union (“LESU”) to try to extend the 50-day statute of limitations during which the VIPD can impose discipline on VIPD personnel in violation of Department policy. While we encourage the VIPD to push to extend the statute of limitations, the outcome of those negotiations has no bearing on the Department’s ability to comply with internal investigative deadlines (though extending the 50-day statute of limitations would make it easier for the VIPD to hold personnel accountable for misconduct in light of the delays that often characterize the Department’s investigative process).
The OIM agrees with the Chairperson of the Management and Supervision working group and the IAB that the statute of limitations should be extended. While we favor the longer 120 working day period advocated by the IAB, a 90 working day period would be a vast improvement from the status quo. The VIPD should make this issue a priority in negotiating new contracts with the PBA and the LESU.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 70 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 67
Recommendations:
The Management and Supervision working group, together with the Citizen Complaint Process working group and the IAB, should continue to audit and document compliance by Department personnel with the relevant time periods. The VIPD should also hold Officers accountable for violating deadlines concerning the adjudication of investigations. The VIPD should provide the OIM with quarterly IAPro reports reflecting the status of all pending citizen complaint investigations so we can monitor the Department’s compliance with the required deadlines on a regular basis.
72. Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD will not take only nondisciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix indicates the imposition of discipline. In a case where discipline has been imposed on an officer, the VIPD must also consider whether nondisciplinary corrective action is required.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies in compliance with ¶ 72 of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the VIPD is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 72 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at pages xxxii-xxxiii.
OIM Report:
The OIM did not assess the VIPD’s compliance with ¶ 72 of the Consent Decree during the Fourth Quarter of 2013, but will do so in 2014. While the VIPD has provided the Police Practices Experts with the opportunity to observe disciplinary hearings, the VIPD has not regularly provided the OIM with written disciplinary decisions. Moreover, for the limited number of written disciplinary decisions that the Police Practices Experts have reviewed, there was often very little analysis explaining why a certain sanction (or no sanction at all) was imposed. This is particularly problematic where a Chief or Deputy Chief overrides the IAB’s recommendation, but does not explain his or her reasoning.
Recommendations:
The Management and Supervision working group should promptly implement the Disciplinary Matrix by providing corresponding training. In order to help the OIM evaluate the Department’s compliance with ¶ 72 of the Consent Decree, the VIPD should provide the OIM with documentation from

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 71 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 68
disciplinary hearings, including the charges, findings, and any discipline and/or non-disciplinary corrective action that was taken. Moreover, the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs should describe in writing the bases for their decisions. Documenting that process will help the OIM better evaluate the Department’s compliance with the Disciplinary Matrix and lend greater transparency to the disciplinary process.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 72 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | 69

Training

Joint Action Plan Requirements

Joint Action Plan Requirements By November 30, 2012, finalize Audit Protocol and submit to the DOJ and the Monitors’ subject matter experts.

Status Satisfied. On November 30, 2012, the VIPD submitted a final Audit and Inspection Policy to the DOJ for review. That policy was signed by the Commissioner during the Third Quarter of 2013.

By November 30, 2012, the Director of Training will develop and implement a tracking system to track training attendance and shall periodically test for proficiency on the policies.
By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system).
By November 30, 2012, and on an ongoing basis, provide Monitors’ subject matter experts with training curricula and schedules at least 15 days in advance of training, but preferably 30 days in advance.

Satisfied, but additional work needed. The VIPD has a rudimentary system for tracking attendance and whether participants passed posttraining proficiency examinations. However, the Department is not readily able to generate comprehensive training reports for all training. Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that the Department has such a tracking system. For example, the VIPD has not provided documentation showing that the VIPD has a systematic process for providing follow-up or remedial training to ensure that all VIPD personnel are adequately trained. Not satisfied. The VIPD has generally complied with this requirement for vendor-led training. For VIPD-led training, the VIPD typically does not provide lesson plans or curricula in advance of training.

Moreover, on at least two occasions, the VIPD made last minute changes to training schedules while the Police Practices Experts were monitoring without providing any advance notice. In both cases, the Police Practices Experts missed training that they specifically planned to observe.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 73 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | 70

By November 30, 2012, and on an ongoing basis, VIPD shall consult with VIAG to ensure that all use of force training and use of force policies are in compliance with applicable laws and VIPD policy.
By January 31, 2013, provide competency-based training of officers and supervisors on remaining policies.
By January 31, 2013, provide ongoing refresher training on policies through documented, periodic inservice and Roll Call training. Incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy. By January 31, 2013, provide competency-based training of supervisors on remaining policies (i.e. Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy).
By April 30, 2013, auditors will attend outside training regarding conducting audits.

Satisfied. The VIPD has developed a protocol for cooperation between the VIPD’s Training Director and the VIAG. The Police Practices Experts have also indicated that representatives from the VIAG are now signing force-related lesson plans after reviewing them. Satisfied, but additional work needed. The VIPD has conducted training that satisfies the most basic elements of this requirement. However, the VIPD should further develop its lesson plans, encourage more class participation, and include more practical exercises. Not satisfied. Although the VIPD has provided the OIM with attendance sheets and brief descriptions of Roll Call and Commanders Call training, the OIM needs more detailed information about the subject matter being covered. Satisfied, but additional work needed. The VIPD has conducted training that satisfies the most basic elements of this requirement. However, the VIPD should further develop its lesson plans, encourage more class participation, and include more practical exercises. Satisfied. The VIPD provided audit training in the Fourth Quarter of 2013.

By June 30, 2013, VIPD will implement systems to ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.
By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. Also ensure that lapses in

Not satisfied. The VIPD did not provide the OIM with documentation that such systems exist. However, the VIPD received DOJ approval for its audit tools during the Fourth Quarter of 2013, which is the first step towards implementing such a system. Satisfied, but additional work needed. The OIM received the VIPD’s Audit Report on January 17, 2014, which demonstrates that the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 74 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | 71

policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.
By June 30, 2013, train staff regarding Audit Protocol.

Department has taken steps to implement the audit tools. The OIM will report more fully on the VIPD’s Audit Report in the next quarter. Satisfied. The VIPD conducted audit training in the Fourth Quarter of 2013.

73. The VIPD will continue to coordinate and review all use of force policy and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy. The VIPD will conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually.
Compliance Assessment:
Phase 1 is inapplicable to this Consent Decree requirement. The Department has not achieved Phase 2 or Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 73 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at pages xxxiii-xxxiv.
OIM Report:
The VIPD first reported during the Third Quarter of 2012 that it would periodically review its use of force policies in consultation with the VIAG. The Use of Force working group reported during the First Quarter of 2013 that it planned to review one use of force policy every two weeks. The VIPD stopped that process because it determined that a Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”) was needed to guide the Department’s review. The Committee approved the SOP during the Third Quarter of 2013, and it was signed by the Commissioner during the Fourth Quarter of 2013. Also, during the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the Commissioner issued a directive setting deadlines for the review process and prioritizing the order in which the Department’s policies will be reviewed.
While the Department has developed a process to review its use of force policies, it has not developed a similar process to review use of force training. The VIPD reports that the Training Division and the VIAG review use of force lesson plans before the execution of related training. While those are positive steps, they are not sufficient. For example, the VIPD does not have a process in place to review and document the delivery of training.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 75 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 72
During the Fourth Quarter of 2013, one of the Police Practices Experts reviewed training documentation for the St. Thomas District. Based on her review, she identified training records indicating that an instructor had been replaced after leading the training. The Police Practices Expert also reviewed a separate set of documents indicating that the instructor received very poor reviews from participants at the training. When the Police Practices Expert asked the Training Director what happened, he confirmed that the instructor had been replaced because of poor performance. The OIM is pleased that the VIPD was monitoring that training and reacted appropriately; however, the VIPD should have documented what happened and its decision to remove the instructor.
Recommendations:
The VIPD must provide documentation to the OIM demonstrating that the VIPD has coordinated and reviewed all use of force policies at least annually, and that the VIPD has reviewed all training at least semi-annually.
74. The Director of Training, either directly or through his/her designee(s), consistent with applicable law and VIPD policy will: a) ensure the quality of all use of force training; b) develop and implement use of force training curricula; c) select and train VIPD officer trainers; d) develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service training; e) in conjunction with the Chiefs, develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures; f) establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and g) conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
Compliance Assessment:
Phase 1 is inapplicable to this Consent Decree requirement. The Department has not achieved Phase 2 or Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not in substantial compliance with ¶ 74 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at pages xxxiv-xxxv.
OIM Report:
Progress in achieving substantial compliance with ¶ 74 continues to be slow.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 76 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 73
74 a) Not satisfied. The VIPD previously reported that the Training Director reviews evaluations completed by Supervisors and Officers at the conclusion of training. Ensuring the quality of use of force training, however, requires more than just reviewing student evaluations. The Training Director must elicit feedback from instructors and the Training working group, aggregate and file all reviews and comments received, and implement any improvements prior to in-service and other training. The VIPD must document that it includes the VIAG in its systematic evaluation of use of force training. While the OIM is aware that the VIPD completes evaluation forms following each training, the VIPD has not demonstrated that it analyzes the comments received or reports any significant conclusions (e.g., need to revise course material) from those evaluations. As discussed in connection with ¶ 73, the Training Director should ensure that his staff is observing instructors firsthand to evaluate their effectiveness. In addition, training participants should be asked to evaluate the quality of their instructors. Instructor evaluations should be kept in each instructor’s training file; currently, each instructor’s folder only contains certifications relating to training that he or she has taken.
74 b) Satisfied, but additional work is required. The VIPD reports that the Department initially developed its use of force training curricula in March of 2011. That curricula needs to be reviewed for possible revisions in light of intervening legal developments or the Department’s identification of particular deficiencies. For example, the Police Practices Experts have noted that VIPD personnel frequently use “pattern language” when completing reports; “pattern language” refers to conclusory language that does not describe the underlying facts.23
74 c) Not satisfied. Although the VIPD provided some instructor training classes primarily focused on specific use of force skills, it has not provided the OIM with information about its instructor selection process. For two years, the VIPD has told the OIM that the selection process was being developed. We do not understand this delay. Appropriately vetting instructor candidates is a critical component of providing quality training.
74 d) Satisfied. The VIPD has complied with this requirement by taking steps to develop, implement, approve, and oversee in-service training. The VIPD conducted two separate in-service training sessions in 2013. The first was “regular” in-service training conducted during the Second Quarter of 2013. The second was a Peace Officer Standards and Training (“POST”) Council training session for multiple Virgin Islands law enforcement agencies and POST Council members. Consent Decree related training was covered in both

23

For example, the statement that a suspect was “acting aggressive” is pattern language.

Instead of writing that a suspect was “acting aggressive,” VIPD personnel should describe the

suspect’s behavior (e.g., “he ran towards me with clenched fists,” “he threw a punch,” etc.).

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 77 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 74
sessions. It appears that the VIPD has established and implemented an inservice training protocol that provides training opportunities to the entire force.
74 e) Not satisfied. The OIM is aware that the VIPD is conducting Roll Call and Commanders Call training on a regular basis, but our concern is that the training is completely decentralized. The OIM has seen no coordination between the Training Director and the Chiefs or other command Officers on the development, improvement, or conduct of Roll Call training. Although the Training Director has a record of Roll Call and Commanders Call training signin sheets, it is unclear what, if anything, the Training Director does with those records. This is a critical step in the development of a modern police training program and is necessary to achieve substantial compliance.
74 f) Not satisfied. The VIPD reported to the OIM that it has created a “Training Division Course Evaluation” form to evaluate all training. The Police Practices Experts have seen some completed evaluation forms. The Department, however, has not provided the Police Practices Experts with completed forms or any report summarizing the Department’s analysis of these evaluations.
74 g) Not satisfied. The VIPD reports that it maintains training folders for Officers, which include questionnaires that Officers complete after attending training to assess their understanding of the material presented. The VIPD, however, has not developed a process for reviewing and analyzing this information. A proper review process must analyze this information, in concert with other training data, so that the VIPD (and the OIM) can determine where improvements in training are required. In addition, the VIPD has limited any review of these evaluations to staff in the Training Division. The Department would benefit from including Supervisors and other managers and trainers in this review process.
Recommendations:
The VIPD needs to substantially improve the way in which it provides and evaluates the quality of the Department’s training. For example, the Department does not appear to have a system in place for selecting suitable candidates to serve as instructors. For the past two years, the OIM has requested a policy or procedure detailing how the Department selects instructor candidates, but the Department has not provided a substantive response. Previously, the OIM worked with the VIPD to develop a process for selecting suitable Field Training Officer candidates. We have recommended that the Department adopt that process to identify instructor candidates more broadly, but the Department has not implemented that recommendation.
The VIPD has reported (verbally) that members of the Training Division periodically observe training programs, but it needs to better document that

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 78 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 75
process. In addition to documenting the fact that an instructor was observed, the observer should also document any comments or suggestions relating to the training and then provide that feedback to the instructor. We have not received any documentation indicating that the Department follows this procedure. Finally, the Department should promptly forward any completed audits to the OIM because they will help to assess the VIPD’s compliance efforts.
75. The VIPD will continue to provide training consistent with VIPD policy, law, and proper police practices, and will ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by instructors. The VIPD will make best efforts to train each work shift as a team in their use of force training.
Compliance Assessment:
Phase 1 is inapplicable to this Consent Decree requirement. The Department has achieved Phase 2 compliance because it has provided training on Department policies, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not in substantial compliance with ¶ 75 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at page xxxv.
OIM Report:
The OIM has received lesson plans for Consent Decree related training, and applauds the VIPD on doing a much better job of including the VIAG in the lesson plan development process. However, the Police Practices Experts have noted that some “lesson plans” are little more than coversheets stapled to the relevant policy. For example, the lesson plans for the Impact Weapon Policy and the Disciplinary Policy and Matrix contain essentially the same content as their underlying policies, with only superficial changes. Lesson plans should contain information about training methodologies, practical exercises, and discussion topics, but very few of the Department’s lesson plans do.
The OIM reported in the Third Quarterly Report of 2013 that there was marked improvement in the quality of training by the VIPD. There remains, however, a distinct difference in the quality of training provided by training vendors and VIPD instructors. Generally, the VIPD’s training vendors (third parties hired on a contract basis to lead particular training programs) are very good. They have provided the OIM with fully developed lesson plans with multiple objectives, PowerPoint presentations, practical exercises, and participant quizzes and evaluations. The VIPD’s in-house instructors are much

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 79 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 76
less consistent and typically do not provide similar documentation for each training to the OIM.
Recommendations:
The OIM continues to recommend that the Training Division work in concert with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to arrange further training (inservice, Roll Call, and Commanders Call) on certain policies where compliance has been problematic, including the Use of Force Policy, Acceptance of Citizen Complaint Policy, Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy, and Off-Duty Official Action Policy. To ensure that post-training examinations serve their intended purpose, the OIM has recommended repeatedly that the VIPD develop multiple versions of the post-training examination for each training so that VIPD personnel cannot memorize the questions and answers. Although having multiple versions of an exam is a standard police practice, the VIPD has not adopted this recommendation. The Training Division also should work closely with the Use of Force, Citizen Complaint Process, and Management and Supervision working groups to identify areas that require additional training, either through additional in-service training or Roll Call and Commanders Call training, to ensure that VIPD personnel adequately understand their obligations. Lesson plans for all training programs should be vetted and approved by Department management and the VIAG in advance of training, and should be provided to the OIM with documentation sufficient to show that the lesson plans were reviewed by the VIAG.
76. The VIPD shall continue to keep adequate records of lesson plans and other training materials, such that the most current training documents are maintained in a central, commonly accessible file, and are clearly dated.
Compliance Assessment:
Phase 1 is inapplicable to this Consent Decree requirement. The Department has achieved Phase 2 compliance because the VIPD currently maintains training records, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not in substantial compliance with ¶ 76 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at pages xxxv-xxxvi.
OIM Report:
The VIPD has indicated for almost a year its intent to acquire software capable of producing the kind of information required by the Consent Decree. This area of compliance languishes behind other areas of the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 80 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 77
Although the VIPD has indicated that a new system (Power DMS) will be functional in the First Quarter of 2014, the OIM nevertheless expects that additional effort and resources will need to be devoted to installation and data transfer.
Under the Joint Action Plan, the VIPD is required to provide “training curricula and schedules at least 15 days in advance of training, but preferably 30 days in advance.” The Training Division, however, often provides notice of any upcoming Consent Decree training with only 15 days notice. This practice makes it difficult for the OIM to make proper arrangements to monitor training in-person. The Department should provide the OIM with as much notice about upcoming training as possible. Once the Department has scheduled training, there is no reason to wait to notify the OIM. Moreover, with respect to training curricula, the Department’s efforts are mixed. For training led by third-party vendors, the Department generally provides training curricula well in advance of the minimum 15-day requirement. However, for training led by in-house training personnel, the Department rarely provides training curricula in advance of the training. It is in the VIPD’s best interest to provide as much notice as possible so that the OIM can have every opportunity to evaluate the VIPD’s progress towards substantial compliance with ¶ 76.
Similarly, the VIPD does not provide training curricula within the required timeframe. During the Third Quarter of 2013, the OIM attended audit training, but did not receive the training curricula as required until arriving in the Territory and specifically requesting such material.
Recommendations:
The OIM is hopeful, but concerned, about the VIPD’s ability to make Power DMS functional in the First Quarter of 2014. The Police Practices Experts are familiar with Power DMS and believe that it will greatly help the Training Division better organize its training infrastructure. The VIPD should use Power DMS to its maximum, including using the system to publish directives, conduct training, and maintain training records.
While not required by the Consent Decree, the OIM continues to believe that the VIPD should take the lead in making the Territory’s POST Council a fully functioning entity. POST should develop minimum standards for all peace officers in the Territory, including, but not limited to, the VIPD. We are encouraged that the VIPD has taken positive steps in this regard. The VIPD should consult with other law enforcement agencies that have extensive experience with Power DMS. This collaboration should help the VIPD customize the software in a way that best suits the Department.
77. The VIPD shall continue to maintain training records regarding every VIPD officer that reliably indicate the training each officer has

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 81 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | 78

received. The training records shall, at a minimum, include the course description and duration, curriculum, and instructor for each officer.
Compliance Assessment:
Phase 1 is inapplicable to this Consent Decree requirement. The Department has achieved Phase 2 compliance since the VIPD reports that it maintains training records, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not in substantial compliance with ¶ 77 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:

See VIPD Report at Appendix A at page xxxvi.
OIM Report:
The VIPD’s training records do not currently capture the course description, length of training, curricula, or instructor information in a single consolidated format. During the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the VIPD reported that training attendance is documented on paper; the Department, however, acknowledged that “this system is currently not working as an appropriate measure of tracking [an] Officer’s attendance.”24 While the VIPD may be able to cobble together that information from different sources, it is not readily accessible. Power DMS should help the VIPD comply with this requirement.
Recommendations:
As discussed above, the VIPD should seek to promptly implement Power DMS and consult with other law enforcement agencies about its capabilities. Until that occurs, the Training Division should ensure that Officers and Supervisors are signing in and out of trainings, and notations should be made in the event that an Officer or Supervisor leaves the training early and does not return. Additionally, individuals who hold positions in specialized units outside the VIPD (such as High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area and Dignitary Protection) should be scheduled for the appropriate required training. The Training Division should also promptly reschedule Officers and Supervisors who were excused from training.
78. The Training Director will review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure compliance with applicable laws and Virgin Islands Police Department policy. The Training Director will consult with the Attorney General’s Office on any additions, changes and/or modifications regarding use of force training or policies to ensure compliance with applicable laws.

24

See VIPD Audit Report at page 38.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 82 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 79
Compliance Assessment:
Phase 1 is inapplicable to this Consent Decree requirement. The Department has achieved Phase 2 compliance since the VIPD reports that the Training Director reviews all training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not in substantial compliance with ¶ 78 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at pages xxxvi-xxxvii.
OIM Report:
As described above, the VIPD has a process in place to facilitate the periodic review of use of force policies, including a schedule for when various policies will be reviewed. However, we have not received documentation indicating that the VIPD has a similar process in place for the review of use of force training. While we have received documentation that the VIAG revised and approved use of force training, that is not enough. In addition to addressing any legal developments and/or changes to the relevant policies, the Training Division should use the review process to identify training deficiencies and make corresponding revisions to use of force training.
Recommendations:
The Department should develop a systematic process for the periodic review of use of force training and then share that process with the OIM. The VIPD should also provide the OIM with a status update regarding its use of force policy review process.
As with the critical review of use of force policies, the Training working group should solicit feedback about the quality of training and instructors. The results should be reviewed by a high-level committee that will subsequently suggest improvements. In addition, personnel from the Training Division should observe each instructor the first time that he or she leads a training and then periodically afterward to ensure that each instructor is following the lesson plan and holding the participants’ attention.
79. The VIPD will continue to provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on use of force. Such training will include and address the following topics: a) the VIPD’s use of force model, as described in this Agreement; b) proper use of force decision making; c) the VIPD’s use of force reporting requirements; d) the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements; e) examples of scenarios faced by VIPD officers that illustrate proper use of force decision-making; f) interactive exercises that emphasize proper use of force decision-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 83 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 80
making; g) de-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without using force, and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest maybe the appropriate response to a situation even when the use of force would be legally justified; h) threat assessment; i) appropriate training on conflict management.
Compliance Assessment:
Phase 1 is inapplicable to this Consent Decree requirement. The Department has not achieved Phase 2 or Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not in substantial compliance with ¶ 79 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at pages xxxvii-xxxviii.
OIM Report:
a) Satisfied, but additional work is required. The VIPD has incorporated a use of force model into its Use of Force Policy and has provided corresponding training. Given the importance of the use of force model, the VIPD should seek to reinforce it through further in-service, Roll Call, and Commanders Call training.
b) Satisfied. The VIPD has conducted training on proper use of force decision making. During the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the VIPD used simulators in each District to teach use of force decision making. The VIPD should provide the OIM with a report describing that experience, including any common issues or deficiencies.
c) Satisfied, but additional work is required. The VIPD has provided inservice, Roll Call, and Commanders Call training on use of force reporting. The VIPD has improved its use of force reporting since the inception of the Consent Decree. However, there are persistent issues with timeliness and the use of pattern language in RRRs.
d) Satisfied, but additional work is required. Topics including the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements have been addressed in previous training provided by the Department. However, the OIM has not received any evidence that the VIPD evaluates whether its personnel complies with the Fourth Amendment or other constitutional protections.
e) Satisfied. The Police Practices Experts have observed that the VIPD has started to place more emphasis on scenario-based training. This is a

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 84 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 81
positive development since much of the training previously observed by the Police Practices Experts was a recitation of the policy. However, instructors should detail each scenario that they plan to discuss during training in their lesson plans so they can be reviewed by other instructors (and subsequently incorporated into similar trainings).
f) Satisfied, but additional work is required. One of the Police Practices Experts observed training during the Fourth Quarter of 2013 that utilized the Department’s new simulator on St. Croix. The OIM was impressed by the VIPD’s initial steps to simulate proper use of force decision making. The simulators created the proper amount of stress and realism. The OIM particularly applauds the VIPD on having each participant take part in a debriefing exercise relating to his or her scenario; these debriefing exercises appeared to be of great value. The OIM would like to see the Department utilize its training simulators with greater frequency.
g) Not satisfied. As of the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the OIM has seen very limited scenario-based training on de-escalation techniques, including encouraging officers to make arrests without using force, or instructing on disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest. We encourage the VIPD to implement scenario-based training more widely.
h) Not satisfied. Although the VIPD is aware that the VIPD’s SWAT team has received threat assessment training, the VIPD has not provided the OIM with documentation showing that it has provided threat assessment training to all VIPD personnel.
i) Not satisfied. The VIPD has not provided the OIM with lesson plans that focus specifically on conflict management. We are aware that the VIPD plans to conduct Crisis Intervention Training in 2014.
Recommendations:
We previously recommended that the Training Division work closely with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to arrange further training (in-service, Roll Call, and Commanders Call) on certain policies for which compliance has been problematic based on the results of post-training examinations, Department audits, and OIM audits. The Training Division also should work closely with the Use of Force, Citizen Complaint Process, and Management and Supervision working groups to identify areas that require additional training, either through additional in-service training or Roll Call and Commanders Call training, to ensure that VIPD personnel adequately understand their obligations. VIPD management needs to use information attained from the EIP to identify training needs. The VIPD has not provided the OIM with any indication that the Training Division has formalized or documented its relationship with the Chiefs

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 85 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 82
in both Districts to coordinate Roll Call training. To the extent that the VIPD has undertaken such a process, it should explain what training has been held as a result of this joint effort.
The OIM strongly believes that the VIPD’s management team, including the Training Director, would benefit from forging a closer relationship with other comparably-sized law enforcement agencies. We especially recommend that the VIPD contact departments that (1) have successfully complied with a consent decree, memorandum of understanding, or similar agreement, and (2) have been accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies.
80. The VIPD will continue to provide training to all its officers on the VIPD citizen complaint process. The VIPD will develop a protocol for all its officers on appropriate conduct and responses in handling citizens’ complaints and will train officers in the protocol.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies consistent with the citizen complaint process requirements of the Consent Decree and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 80 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at page xxxviii.
OIM Report:
During the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the VIPD conducted in-service training regarding the Citizen Complaint process. However, the VIPD has not provided documentation confirming that all required personnel attended the trainings, and if not, that corrective action was taken.
The Department has also conducted a number of Roll Call and Commanders Call trainings relating to the citizen complaint process. Records for Roll Call and Commanders Call training, like all Department training, should document which Officers attended training, which Officers did not attend, and what efforts the Department has undertaken to train any “no shows.” The Training Division, in coordination with the Chiefs from both Districts, must ensure that Roll Call and Commanders Call training is implemented and documented systematically.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 86 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 83
Recommendations:
The VIPD has made significant progress issuing the Acceptance of Citizen Complaints Policy and the Investigating Misconduct and Citizens Policy. The VIPD should continue to provide Officers and Supervisors with additional training on the citizen complaint process and then conduct and document periodic audits to ensure that VIPD personnel are complying with the relevant policies. The VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to demonstrate knowledge of the policy, and provide remedial training or discipline as appropriate. The Training Division also should document training and testing in connection with Roll Call and Commanders Call training.
81. The VIPD will provide training on appropriate burdens of proof to all supervisors, as well as the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility (to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform, and legally appropriate). The VIPD will also continue to provide training to supervisors on leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training will be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities, and will be made part of annual in-service training.
Compliance Assessment:
The Department has achieved Phase 1 and 2 compliance because it has issued policies consistent the requirements of ¶ 81 and has provided related training, but it has not achieved Phase 3 compliance as discussed below. Therefore, the Department is not yet in substantial compliance with ¶ 81 of the Consent Decree.
VIPD Report:
See VIPD Report at Appendix A at pages xxxviii-xxxix.
OIM Report:
The VIPD has provided training on the appropriate burdens of proof; however, it has not provided documentation confirming that all Supervisors have been trained.
The VIPD also reports that it anticipates conducting promotional exams in April and May 2014. In preparation for these promotions, the VIPD has contracted with a third-party vendor to hold leadership training in March and June 2014. The OIM was pleased to learn that the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 87 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 84
attended a leadership training program in Sturbridge, Massachusetts for police executives during the Fourth Quarter of 2013.
Recommendations:
The Training Division should work with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs to conduct Commanders Call training on the preponderance of the evidence standard, document such training and attendance by Supervisors, and record the results of any examinations administered following training. Additionally, the VIPD should develop a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to comply with Department policy. Once those individuals are identified, the working group should work with the Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, the IAB, and the Training Division to provide remedial training or other corrective action. All audits should be documented and shared with the Compliance Coordinator, the Compliance Manager, and the OIM.
The VIPD should also consider providing additional training to senior personnel (e.g. directors, captains, Deputy Chiefs, and Chiefs) regarding command accountability. Many of the deficiencies noted in this Report could (and should) have been identified as part of the Command review process. In addition to identifying deficiencies, senior personnel must feel empowered and comfortable to take corrective action, including discipline, as appropriate. This should be a priority for the VIPD.
100. The Territory of the Virgin Islands and the VIPD shall implement each and every provision of this Agreement as that term defined in Paragraph 30 of this Agreement.
101. The VIPD shall implement immediately all provisions of this Agreement that involve the continuation of current VIPD policies, procedures, and practices. The remaining provisions shall be implemented either by the specified implementation date or, for those provisions that have no specified implementation date, as soon as is reasonably practicable and no later than 150 days after this Agreement’s effective date.
OIM Report:
As explained earlier in the Report, the OIM will assess whether the Department is consistently applying the policies and protocols required by ¶¶ 31, 39, 40, 47, 50, 52, 53, 62, 64 and 70 in connection with ¶¶ 100 and 101. The VIPD has not achieved substantial compliance with the implementation requirement of ¶¶ 100 and 101 because, among other things, the Department has not provided documentation demonstrating that VIPD personnel are proficient with the Department’s policies.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 88 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 85
On November 14, 2013, the OIM provided the VIPD with a chart that identifies the materials that the Department and the Territory should produce to the OIM to help demonstrate substantial compliance with the Consent Decree (the “Data Sources Chart”). Under the Data Sources Chart (which has been substantially incorporated into the Joint Action Plan), to demonstrate substantial compliance with the Consent Decree, the VIPD should provide the OIM with audits that demonstrate that:
 All uses of force comply with VIPD policies and applicable law.
 As appropriate, Officers disengaged, contained the area, conducted surveillance, waited out the subject, and/or called in specialized units.
 When feasible, an individual is allowed to submit to arrest before force is used.
 In use of force incidents, the use of force review concludes that sufficient less lethal alternatives were used where appropriate based on the totality of circumstances.
 Patrol and other applicable officers carry less lethal alternatives at all times.
 In use of force incidents, choke holds and similar carotid holds were not used, except where deadly force was authorized.
 In use of force incidents where the use of force review concluded that the use of choke holds or similar carotid holds were not authorized, the VIPD took corrective and/or disciplinary action against the Officer who used a choke hold or other carotid hold.
 Sworn personnel do not possess or use unauthorized firearms or ammunition.
 In cases where an officer is found to be in possession of unauthorized firearms or ammunition, there is evidence that an investigation was conducted and appropriate corrective action was taken.
 Critical Firearm Discharges are documented in an RRR.
 In reported incidents involving off-duty Officers taking police action, the off-duty Officer’s conduct comports with policies regarding off-duty Officers taking police action and ¶¶31 (a) – (g) of the Consent Decree.
 Off-duty Officers notified on-duty sworn personnel or local law enforcement Officers before taking police actions, except in exigent circumstances.
 In incidents where an off-duty Officer taking police action appeared to have consumed alcohol, the off-duty Officer submitted to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 89 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 86
 In reportable use of force incidents, the investigating Supervisor had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he/she was not involved in the use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize conduct leading to the use of force incident).
 Use of force investigations include documented findings of all of the considerations required by ¶ 52.
 When administrative investigations are referred to the VIAG or other appropriate agency, the VIPD has documentation that it has completed, to the extent possible, its own administrative investigation.
 RMS reports are generated and distributed to appropriate sworn personnel (e.g., Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, and supervisors) on a monthly basis.
 The VIPD is utilizing the EIP. Underlying documentation should include documentation of EIP meetings, the Early Intervention Unit Action Plan and Early Intervention Unit Assessment, attendance records of VIPD personnel and all follow-up documentation for completed intervention.
 Deputy Chiefs, managers and Supervisors have initiated EIP interventions based on activity and pattern assessment contained in the RMS.
 EIP interventions are based on all relevant and appropriate information, including the nature of the Officer’s assignment, crime trends and crime problems, and not solely the number or percentages of incidents in any category of information recorded in the risk management system.
 In instances when Officers are transferred to a new section or unit, Deputy Chiefs, managers and Supervisors for the relevant section or unit promptly review the RMS records of such officers.
 The VIPD has established a protocol for evaluating whether Deputy Chiefs, managers and Supervisors are able to use the RMS effectively.
 Disciplinary penalty decisions are consistent with the penalties set forth in the Disciplinary Matrix.
In the next Report, the OIM hopes to provide a more detailed analysis of the steps that the VIPD has taken towards implementing each applicable provision of the Consent Decree based on its responses to the Data Sources Chart.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 90 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | 87
Conclusion
While the VIPD continues to make progress in certain areas, work remains, particularly with respect to the Department’s use, reporting, and investigation of force. The Department should conduct further training to emphasize the requirements of its revised use of force policies, which are at the heart of the Consent Decree.
In order to achieve substantial compliance (and demonstrate substantial compliance to the OIM), the Department must (among other things) put in place a rigorous audit process to determine whether VIPD personnel are complying with the Department’s policies, and to memorialize the VIPD’s progress towards substantial compliance. This will require the Audit Unit to be fully functional and to work with the Training Division, the IAB, and the working groups. As we have previously reported, a robust auditing function is essential to the Department’s ability to ensure that policies are implemented, that personnel understand and comply with Department policies, and that remedial training or other required action is taken to ensure that VIPD personnel are equipped to carry out Department policies and procedures in their daily policing activities. While audits conducted by the working groups can supplement the Audit Unit’s work, they will generally be more narrowly tailored than audits conducted by the Audit Unit and not a substitute for the Audit Unit’s work.
The VIPD has the opportunity in 2014 to achieve substantial compliance with a number of Consent Decree paragraphs. The path forward requires a strong commitment from the top (especially with respect to accountability by Supervisors), an active review and precise response by the working groups to the issues and recommendations raised in the OIM’s Reports, and a robust audit function to confirm substantial compliance or direct the VIPD to the specific issues it needs to surmount to get there.
With a concerted, multi-dimensional effort by the VIPD, continued active involvement by the Court, and financial support by the Territory, we are cautiously hopeful that substantial progress can be made in 2014. However, it will require a serious and sustained effort as a significant amount of work remains for the VIPD to achieve substantial compliance.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 91 of 157

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 92 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | i
Appendix A VIPD Report for the Fourth Quarter of 2013
CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS AND THE
VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT
STATUS REPORT Issued January 7, 2014
Virgin Islands Police Department Status Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 93 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | ii
Introduction
In March 2004, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) initiated an investigation of an alleged pattern or practice of excessive force throughout the Virgin Islands Police Department (“VIPD”) under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (“Section 14141”). Virgin Islands officials met with DOJ officials to facilitate the Virgin Islands’ cooperation with the Department of Justice investigation and craft a consent decree addressing all the parties’ concerns. The consent decree (“CD”) is the result of a cooperative effort that evinces a commitment to constitutional policing on the part of the Department of Justice; the Territory of the Virgin Islands; and the Virgin Islands Police Department.
This progress report is the seventeenth submitted by the Virgin Islands Police Department’s (VIPD) Compliance Monitoring Team (CMT). The CMT was created to ensure the timely implementation of and compliance with the Consent Decree (CD) [United States of America v. The Territory of the Virgin Islands; and the Virgin Islands Police Department; 08-CV-00158; dated March 24, 2009].
This report focuses on the work completed this quarter, and on the paragraphs of the CD which have “substantive” requirements that either VIPD or the Virgin Islands Government is responsible for complying with. A status is provided for each of these provisions as well as a summary of the steps taken by VIPD during this quarter in order to comply with the Agreement.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TRAINING
The Training Bureau conducted in service trainings for Officers and Supervisors in both Districts October-November 2013, which included trainings in the following specific areas: Defensive Tactics and scenario based trainings with the use of the Simulator, Constitutional Law Update, TASER, OC Spray, Disciplinary Matrix, Domestic Violence, Roll Call Policy, Preponderance of the Evidence Standard and Dealing with the Mentally ill.
OIM was provided a listing of all Officers in the St.Thomas/St. John District scheduled to attend in-service trainings during this reporting quarter. Use of force and force related lesson plans were reviewed by the VIAG prior to the execution of in- service trainings and copies of lesson plans were also submitted to OIM. Additional trainings coordinated during this reporting quarter by the Training Bureau included Law Enforcement Audit and Inspection, conducted October 14- 18 and 21-25, 2013 respectively in both Districts by MTAG (Marine Tactical Applications Global). Participants in this training in both Districts included Sworn and Civilian personnel in capacities of Managers, Directors, Deputy Chiefs and members of the respective working groups. Competency test was administered and a mock audit was done in both Districts, a copy of which was

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 94 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | iii
submitted to OIM to include an After Action Report by MTAG Instructors, which included the test scores of each class participant.
The Training Bureau also coordinated Integrated Use of Force Instructor training that was delivered by an outside vendor namely MTAG during this reporting quarter. A copy of the course outline for this training was submitted to OIM October 17, 2013. Also, a hard drive containing video footage of the Integrated Use of Force training was provided to a members of OIM during a site visit October 2013, to include Instructor certifications. Other trainings conducted during this reporting quarter specifically are Tactical Communication & Debriefing November 4-5 (St. Croix District) and 11-12 (St.Thomas/St .John District) and Patrol Response to Hostage & Barricaded situations ( St. Croix District) November 6-7 and (St.Thomas/St. John District) 13-14, 2013.
Also, efforts continue during this reporting quarter to implement Power DMS to facilitate the VIPD’s training data base discussed previously and as a follow-up, communication meetings were held between representatives of Power DMS, Training Bureau and MIS. Since Power DMS is web base there isn’t an actual physical software to install, so the communication meetings were more about procedural steps towards accessibility to the Power DMS site. The projected date for the actual implementation of Power DMS is the end of January 2014 and more will be reported in future quarterly reports concerning Power DMS’s implementation.
CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS
Informational materials on the complaint and compliment process continue to be available in both Districts at designated locations as required by the consent decree. Documented inspections for the availability of informational materials were submitted to OIM for the months of September, October, November and December for both Districts during this reporting period. Hand held audio recorders were procured and disseminated to Commanders in both Districts to facilitate the recording of statements as part of the complaint investigation process and reports continue to be generated and disseminated by IAB providing information on completed and outstanding complaint investigations.
Annual in-service trainings conducted in both Districts October-November 2013, included among other disciplines, training on Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints as well as the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard taught by an Attorney in each District from the VIAG. Copies of the training schedules for this in-service training were provided to OIM.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 95 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | iv
Additionally, audits were initiated by working groups of their respective areas of the consent decree and completed audit reports are expected by December 27, 2013. A copy of the Territorial Audit agenda identifying areas to be audited by each working group was submitted to OIM during this reporting period. Going forward audits will be conducted on a quarterly basis and copies of all audit reports will be shared with OIM.
The Police Commissioner authorized the attendance and participation of Sworn and Civilian employees in both Districts in Customer Service training coordinated through the local USVI Office of Tourism during the month of November 2013, and copies of the attendance sheets for both Districts were provided to OIM. This decision was made in response to the incidence of discourtesy complaints evident in reports generated by IAB regarding complaints received, and further establishes an example of reviews of reports generated and acted upon or responded to by providing appropriate training where deemed necessary.
RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
The MIS Bureau completed the arrest data base installation during the latter part of December 2013, and has configured same so that Officer’s name and PDN will automatically be included on the arrest report generated. More will be reported in future quarterly reports concerning the arrest data base as it is being implemented.
The IAB conducted an EIP PowerPoint presentation on November 4, 2013 that included both Districts via video conference and was given to Directors, Managers,’ Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs in both Districts. The presentation outlined the steps of the EIP process and the role of the Chain of Command specific to actions necessary pursuant to the EIP process. Also, during in-service trainings October-November 2013, among other trainings conducted, training was also conducted on the Disciplinary Matrix and policy which included the administering of a post competency exam a copy of which including the lesson plan was submitted to OIM.
Additionally, in order to facilitate an easier and more user friendly means of completing the required Blue Team Weekly Inspection reports regarding the operation of Blue team, the Blue Team Inspection Report form was revised to include check boxes and the form was also produced in an electronic format. A copy of the revised form was submitted to OIM to include a listing that identifies all the locations where the Blue Team software is installed in both Districts.
As it relates to the consent decree requirement specific to the collection and recording of all civil suits against the VIPD and the Government of the USVI, the VIAG submitted during this reporting period to the IAB civil suit cases from 2009 to present for both Districts. These cases are currently being reviewed, sorted and entered into IAPRO by IAB. Also, included among the civil suit cases were also vehicle accidents. Once IAB has

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 96 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | v
completed their review and sorting of the submitted cases OIM and USDOJ will be afforded copies.
Use of Force
The Police Commissioner approved the SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) for the critical review of policies, which became effective November 25, 2013. This SOP delineates the procedural steps in the policy review process to ensure a consistently implemented process for each annual review of policies. Following the approval of this SOP, the Commissioner also issued a Commissioner’s directive dated December 18, 2013, that directed the initiation of the policy review process by first identifying all the use of force policies for review and providing due dates for department wide input in both Districts regarding each use of force and force related policy up for review. At the end of the review process OIM and USDOJ will be afforded copies of any revised Use of Force, force related or any other consent decree policy revised during this review process.
The IAB continues during this reporting quarter to generate and disseminate to the Chain of Command reports that identifies active and completed use of force cases, which is particularly significant as the department is preparing for the completion of the annual Use of Force report for the year 2013.
Also, during this reporting quarter, in-service trainings conducted October –November 2013, in both Districts included Defensive Tactics, Scenario based trainings utilizing the Simulator, Constitutional Law Update, TASER and OC Spray.
Additionally, audits are currently ongoing by working group of their respectively assigned areas to include the use of force working group as it relates to the use of force mandates of the consent. Completed audit reports are expected December 27, 2013 and will be shared with OIM and USDOJ as requested. The Police Commissioner has indicated that copies of audit reports could be shared with OIM and USDOJ as early as January 2014.
1. Compliance Summary
CD Paragraphs
I. INTRODUCTION
II. USE OF FORCE POLICIES

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 97 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | vi
Paragraph 31- The VIPD will review and revise its use of force policies as necessary to: a. define terms clearly; b. define force as that term is defined in this Agreement; c. incorporate a use of force model that teaches disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements or calling in specialized units as appropriate responses to a situation; d. advise that, whenever possible, individuals should be allowed to submit to arrest before force is used; e. reinforce that the use of excessive force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and/or civil liability; f. ensure that sufficient less lethal alternatives are available to all patrol officers; and g. explicitly prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized. Once the DOJ has reviewed and approved these policies, the VIPD shall immediately implement any revisions.
* The OIM has determined that the VIPD has achieved phase 1 compliance with paragraph 31 of the consent decree and that phase 2 and 3 are not applicable to this specific paragraph. The VIPD is currently preparing for the annual review of all Use of Force and force related policies. Thus far, the Police Commissioner has issued in both Districts, a directive identifying the policies for annual review and specific timelines for department personnel to submit their feedback concerning the identified policies for review. More will be reported in future quarterly reports as the annual reviews are initiated and progresses.
II. EVALUATION, DOCUMENTATION, AND REVIEW OF USE OF FORCE
A. General Use of Force Incidents (AMENDED)Paragraph 32 – The VIPD will require all uses of force to be documented in writing. The use of force report form will indicate each and every type of force that was used, and require the evaluation of each use of force. Use of force reports will include a supervisor’s narrative description of the events preceding the use of force, written by a supervisor or by the designated investigative unit. Use of force reports also will include the officer(s)narrative description of events and the officer(s) statement. Except in cases of use of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, the officer’s statement shall be audio or videotaped.
*As part of the implementation phase towards compliance with paragraph 32 of the consent decree, the VIPD during this reporting quarter has authorized and initiated audits by working groups of their respective areas. After having completed a weeklong onsite training by MTAG (Marine Tactical Application Global) in both Districts during the month of October 2013, in conducting audits,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 98 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | vii
the working groups are now equipped with the basics of conducting an audit and have begun during this reporting quarter to conduct the necessary audits of their respective areas.
In a memo dated November 16, 2013, and subsequently submitted to OIM 11/21/13 via email, the Chair person of the Audit Group secured the Police Commissioner’s approval of the “Territorial Audit Agenda” that delineated areas to be audited by the respective working groups. The audits will span the third quarter of 2013 and completed audit reports are expected by December 27, 2013 to the Chair person of the Audit Group, who will review and compile the reports for submission to the Police Commissioner.
As it relates to the use of force working group, the areas to be audited as outlined in the Territorial Audit Agenda are as follows: Assess whether Officers who failed to follow policy or who used force receive remedial training; Assess whether Officers who fail to follow policy or who used force incorrectly are disciplined; Determine whether supervisors are investigating use of force as required by policy; Determine whether use of force investigations are being completed in a timely manner; Verify whether supervisors who neglect to perform their responsibilities to investigate have been disciplined and or received remedial training; Ensure that vipd has developed and implemented a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to report uses of force or otherwise fail to follow the policy and provide and document discipline and /or remedial training; Ensure that the VIPD conducts use of force review on a quarterly basis; Verify that audit tools are implemented to ensure staff are complying with policies(i.e, review of sample 1A’s and arrest reports to ensure RRR’s are completed); timeliness of completion of use of force investigations audits; Ensure that vipd has developed and implemented a process for identifying supervisors who neglect their responsibilities to investigate as required by policy and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training; Conduct equipment inspections of personnel for less lethal weapons with report on quarterly basis ; and Ensure that arrest reports and use of force reports are properly completed by those Officers involved in the arrest/force incidents and reviewed by Supervisors who were not involved in the arrest/force incidents.
These audits will follow the procedures as set forth in the Audit Action Plan developed in collaboration with the USDOJ and VIAG. Copies of all completed audit reports will be shared with OIM to include USDOJ as requested.
(AMENDED)Paragraph 33 – Officers shall notify their supervisors following any use of force upon the receipt of an allegation of excessive force. Except in uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, Supervisors will respond to the scene, examine the subject for

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 99 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | viii
injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain, and ensure that the subject receives needed medical attention.
*The VIPD during this reporting quarter has initiated audits that are anticipated to gauge the department’s compliance or non compliance with established policies and procedures related to use of force reporting and other areas of the consent decree. As part of phase 3 or the implementation phase, these audits and or inspections will be conducted on a quarterly basis to ensure consistency in the implementation of the department’s policies and procedures in both Districts. As these audits are completed to include the requirements of paragraph 33 of the consent decree, the audit reports will be shared with OIM and USDOJ.
The VIPD expects all of its’ first line Supervisors in particular and the Chain of Command in general to be keen in their review of all documents submitted to them for review on a daily basis, as this will undoubtedly ensure that deficiencies are identified and corrected at the first line level prior to audits being conducted.
While on the subject of first line Supervisors, the VIPD has initiated steps which include the ordering of test materials necessary to administer promotional exams anticipated to take place in the first quarter of 2014. Promotional exams will be initiated for the ranks of lieutenant and captain on tentatively scheduled dates of April 7 through April 11, 2014 according to a memorandum from the Director of Personnel, Government of the Virgin Islands dated December 20, 2013, a copy of which was submitted to OIM December 27, 2013. Also, promotional exam for Police Sergeant have been tentatively scheduled for the week of May 19-23, 2013 and sign up for this exam begins on Monday, February 3, 2014. A copy of the memorandum from the Division of Personnel dated December 24, 2013, announcing this promotional exam was also forwarded to OIM.
The Supervisory ranks within the VIPD requires bolstering, so as to facilitate the execution of Supervisory rank specific functions particularly those mandated by the consent decree; further it has been established that Supervisory ranks in the VIPD has depleted over the years attributable to attrition and other factors, as such adequate levels of Supervision are essential to achieving compliance with paragraph 33, as well as all the other mandates of the consent decree and for normal police operations in general.
(AMENDED)Paragraph 34 – Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, will review, evaluate, and document each use of force, and will complete the narrative description section of the use of force report. The narrative description will include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer’s conduct. As part

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 100 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | ix
of this review, the supervisor or designated investigating officer/unit will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officer’s actions were within VIPD policy. An officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized conduct leading to the use of force or allegation of excessive force, or who was present during the incident will not be eligible to review or investigate the incident.
*The VIPD during this reporting quarter has initiated audits that will gauge the department’s compliance or non compliance with established policies and procedures related to use of force reporting and other areas of the consent decree. As part of phase 3 or the implementation phase, these audits and or inspections will be conducted on a quarterly basis to ensure consistency in the implementation of the department’s policies and procedures in both Districts. Also, as these audits are completed to include specific requirements of paragraph 34 of the consent decree as indicated above, the audit reports will be shared with OIM and USDOJ.
The VIPD expects all of its first line Supervisors in particular and the Chain of Command in general to be keen in their review of all documents submitted to them for review by Officers, so as to ensure that deficiencies are identified and corrected at the first line level, thus overall enabling the department to maintain a standard consistent with best police practices. These anticipated ongoing audits will help in identifying among other things, Supervisors who are performing below par in their daily Supervisory roles.
(AMENDED)Paragraph 35 – The parties agree that it is improper interview procedure during use of force reviews to ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer’s conduct when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. In each review/investigation, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. The VIPD will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. The VIPD will train all of its supervisors and officers assigned to conduct use of force investigations, including in the factors to consider when evaluating credibility.
*As have been established, Use of Force and force related policies have been developed, approved, disseminated and trained on and continues to be trained on during ongoing annual in-service trainings. Select personnel in each District have received Use of Force Instructor Certification training at FLETC, Glenco Georgia and the VIPD during this reporting quarter has initiated audits that is expected to gauge the department’s compliance or non compliance with established policies and procedures related to Use of Force reporting and other

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 101 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | x
areas of the consent decree. As part of phase 3 or the implementation phase, these audits and or inspections will be conducted on a quarterly basis to ensure consistency in application of department’s policies and procedures in both Districts. As these audits are completed to include specific requirements of paragraph 35 of the consent decree, the audit reports will be shared with OIM and USDOJ.
(AMENDED)Paragraph 36 – Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall conduct an investigation of all uses of force or an injury resulting from a use of force by any officer under their command. This requirement does not apply to uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ. In an investigation, supervisors or designated investigating officers or units, shall interview all witnesses to a use of force or an injury resulting from a use of force. Consistent with the requirements of the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable law, VIPD supervisors or designated investigating officers or units shall ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all use of force reports for all levels of force identify all officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports for all levels of force indicate whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided, and whether the subject refused medical treatment. Supervisors,or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports include contemporaneous photographs or videotapes taken of all injuries at the earliest practicable opportunity, both before and after any treatment, including cleansing of wounds.
*The VIPD continues to investigate use of force as mandated by paragraph 36 of the consent decree, and as established by department approved force policies i.e Use of Force and Reporting Review and Investigation of Use of Force. Completed investigations are submitted through the Chain of Command to IAB for review and any investigation that does not meet established policy standards are returned. The IAB further generates through the use of IAPRO reports at varying intervals specifically on a weekly, monthly and quarterly basis listing active and completed Use of Force cases in both Districts. Among the information listed in these reports are the IA case number, date incident occurred, Supervisor or Investigative Unit assigned to investigate the case, when the case was received by IAB, when the completed investigation is due for submission to IAB and case status. The IAB also continues to provide OIM a listing of Use of Force and case summaries, affording them the opportunity to determine which completed investigations to review.
Also, during this reporting quarter the VIPD has initiated audits to gauge the department’s compliance or non compliance with established policies and

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 102 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xi
procedures related to use of force reporting and other areas of the consent decree. As these audits are completed to include specific requirements of paragraph 36 of the consent decree, the audit reports will be shared with OIM and USDOJ.
* (AMENDED)Paragraph 37 – All investigations into use of force shall be reviewed by the Officer’s Commander and /or Director, or by a Commander and /or Director in the designated investigative unit, who shall identify any deficiencies in those reviews, and shall require supervisors, or designated investigative Officers or units, to correct any and all deficiencies. Supervisors, and designated investigative Officers or units, will be held accountable for the quality of their reviews. Appropriate non-disciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary action will be taken when a Supervisor , or designated investigative Officer or unit, fails to conduct a timely and thorough review, or neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action, or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action. As provided by VIPD policy and approved by DOJ designated command staff shall further review the commander and/or Director’s reviews according to the level of force involved.
* The VIPD during this reporting quarter has initiated audits that are expected to gauge the department’s compliance or non compliance with established policies and procedures related to use of force reporting and other areas of the consent decree. As part of phase 3 or the implementation phase, these audits and or inspections will be conducted on a quarterly basis to ensure consistency in the application of department’s policies and procedures in both Districts. As these audits are completed to include specific requirements of paragraph 37 of the consent decree, the audit reports will be shared with OIM and USDOJ.
The VIPD However, expects all of its first line Supervisors including Commanders and Directors in particular as specified in paragraph 37 and the Chain of Command in general to be keen in their review of all documents submitted to them for review, so as to ensure that deficiencies are identified and corrected before submission to the next level of review. As audits are executed on an ongoing basis, the VIPD will be able to identify areas of strength and weaknesses and implement the appropriate corrective measures as necessary.
(AMENDED)Paragraph 38 – The VIPD will investigate all critical firearm discharges. The VIPD will ensure that the investigation accounts for all shots and the locations of all officers who discharged their firearms. The VIPD will conduct all ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate.
*As reported prior, the VIPD continues to maintain a contract with an outside vendor located in the St. Croix District, to provide Ballistic services related to firearms discharges and during this reporting quarter the VIPD is pleased to

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 103 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xii
report that the Ballistic report for the two Officer involved shootings have been completed. Also, during this reporting period and specifically on Wednesday December 11, 2013, one of the two Ballistic reports requested by OIM for Police involved shootings was submitted via email to OIM. The other Ballistic report requested by OIM is being finalized and will be submitted likewise at the end of this reporting quarter or January 2014.
The VIPD’s IAB also continues as required by paragraph 38 of the consent decree to investigate all critical firearms discharges and the department also continues to provide training in Crime Scene Investigations as was evident in the first quarter of 2013 and also evident in the 2014 training calendar that has identified Crime Scene Investigation training in both Districts scheduled for July 2014. There were however, no critical firearms discharges for this reporting period.
The initiation of audits during the 4th quarter of 2013 and the expected periodic execution of audits henceforth on a quarterly basis is anticipated to establish the extent of compliance or non -compliance with paragraph 38 as well as other areas of the consent decree and as these audits are completed OIM and USDOJ will be afforded the opportunity to review the audit reports.
Specific Force Policies
Paragraph 39 – VIPD shall complete development of a Use of Firearms policy that complies with applicable law and current professional standards. The policy shall prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition and shall inform officers that any such use may subject them to disciplinary action. The policy shall establish a single, uniform reporting system for all firearms discharges. The policy shall prohibit officers from obtaining service ammunition from any source except through official VIPD channels, and shall specify the number of rounds VIPD authorizes its officers to carry. The policy will continue to require that all discharges of firearms by officers on or off-duty, including unintentional discharges, be reported and investigated.
* The OIM has determined that the VIPD has achieved phase 1 compliance with paragraph 39 of the consent decree and that phase 2 and 3 are not applicable to this specific paragraph. The VIPD continues however, to provide training in both Districts on an ongoing basis, particularly during annual in-service trainings and roll call training sessions on the firearms policy as well as other disciplines.
Paragraph 40 – The VIPD shall revise its policies regarding off-duty officers taking police action to:
a. provide that off-duty officers shall notify on-duty VIPD or local law enforcement officers before taking police action, absent exigent

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 104 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xiii
circumstances, so that they may respond with appropriate personnel and resources to handle the problem; b. provide that, if it appears the officer has consumed alcohol or is otherwise impaired, the officer shall submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.
* The OIM has determined that the VIPD has achieved phase 1 compliance with paragraph 40 of the consent decree and that phase 2 and 3 are not applicable to this specific paragraph. The VIPD’s Off Duty Official Action policy continues to be in effect and training continues on this as well as other consent decree policies during annual in- service trainings and roll call training sessions.
Paragraph 41 – The VIPD shall continue to provide an intermediate force device, which is between chemical spray and firearms on the force continuum, that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The VIPD shall continue its policy regarding the intermediate force device, incorporate the intermediate force device into the force continuum and train all officers in its use on an annual basis.
* Consistent with the requirement to provide training, the VIPD conducted training during in-service trainings in both Districts October –November 2013, of this reporting period on TASER and the TASER policy by certified VIPD TASER Instructors.
The VIPD also, during this reporting quarter has initiated audits that are expected to gauge the department’s compliance or non compliance with established policies and procedures related to use of force reporting and other areas of the consent decree. As part of phase 3 or the implementation phase, these audits and or inspections will be conducted on a quarterly basis to ensure consistency in application of department’s policies and procedures in both Districts. As these audits are completed to include specific requirements of paragraph 41 of the consent decree, the audit reports will be shared with OIM and USDOJ.
IV. CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS
A. Public Information Paragraph 42 - The VIPD will develop and implement a program to inform persons that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any officer. This program will include distribution of complaint forms, fact sheets, informational posters, and public service announcements that describe the citizen complaint process.
* The OIM has determined that the VIPD has achieved phase 1 compliance with paragraph 42 of the consent decree and that phase 2 and 3 are not applicable to this specific paragraph. However, the VIPD continues to promote the complaint

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 105 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xiv
and compliment public information program through various means as identified in paragraph 42. Radio and television commercials on the complaint and compliment process continues on several local TV and Radio Stations, printed informational materials including Brochures, compliment and complaint forms in English, French and Spanish continue to be made available at Zones, Substations Libraries, Internet, in all marked and unmarked Police vehicles and inspections continue to take place to ensure the continued availability of the informational materials consistent with consent decree requirements, as specified pertaining to paragraph 42.
(AMENDED)paragraph 43 – The VIPD will make complaint forms and informational materials available at government properties such as VIPD district stations, substations, and mobile substations, libraries, the Internet, and, upon request, to community groups and community centers. At each VIPD district station, substation, and mobile substation, the VIPD will permanently post a placard describing the complaint process and include the relevant phone numbers. These placards shall be displayed in both English and Spanish, and where deemed necessary, in French or French Patois, to account for diversity in the VI population. The VIPD will require all officers to carry informational brochures and complaint forms in English and Spanish, and where deemed necessary, in French of French Patois, in their vehicles at all times while on duty. If a citizen objects to an officer’s conduct, that officer will inform the citizen of his or her right to make a complaint. Officers will not discourage any person from making a complaint.
*The VIPD continue during this reporting quarter to ensure that the required informational materials on the complaint and compliment process are available at all locations as required. The required documented inspections continues to be submitted to OIM as was evident during the months of September, October, November and December of this quarter, when copies of documented inspections (both Districts) for informational materials at designated locations as mandated were emailed to OIM.
The VIPD revised the inspection form to include check boxes making it easier and less time consuming to complete as the OIM will notice going forward as the inspection forms continue to be submitted. The form is also in an electronic format so that it could be completed on the computer and emailed, eliminating the need to fax or scan the completed forms. The VIPD also, although not a consent decree requirement translated the compliment form into Spanish and now the compliment form like the complaint form is also available in all three languages, English, French and Spanish. The department has already received the revised version of completed complaint forms where complainants answered the questions relative to Officers advising them of their right to make a complaint

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 106 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xv
and whether or not Officers discouraged them from filing a complaint. This information will aid the VIPD in assessing to what extent Officers are complying with those specific requirements of the consent decree.
As stated earlier in this report, the VIPD has initiated audits by working groups of their respective areas and as these audits are completed and reported, the VIPD will have a much clearer picture of strengths and weaknesses and the steps necessary to remediate identified deficiencies.
Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints
Paragraph 44 - Complaints may be filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile or electronic mail. The duty officer at the front desk of each district station will be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints, which persons may file at any district station. Complaint intake officers may describe facts that bear upon a complainant’s demeanor and physical condition but May not express opinions regarding his/her mental competency or veracity. Each complaint will be resolved in writing. Upon receipt, each complaint will be assigned a unique identifier, which will be provided to the complainant. Each complaint will be tracked according to the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, improper search, etc.).
*The VIPD continues this reporting quarter to comply with the requirements of paragraph 44 ensuring that complaints could be received in the various means as identified in paragraph 44, that each complaint continues to be resolved in writing, and is assigned a complaint number which is provided to the complainant. The VIPD has provided OIM with sample letters of complainant update on investigation as well as complaint disposition, as was acknowledged by OIM in their third quarter report for 2013 and these letters are also included in investigative files reviewed by OIM.
The VIPD during this quarter has implemented the audit phase where all areas of the consent decree to include the requirements of paragraph 44 will be audited and OIM as well as USDOJ will be afforded copies of all audit reports.
The citizen complaint process working group has identified audit items in the Territorial Audit Agenda approved by the Police Commissioner including the following: Assess whether Officers are familiar with the citizen complaint process and are complying with policy, Determine whether there are patterns of violation

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 107 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xvi
of policy, Determine whether citizen complaints investigations are being completed in a timely manner and Determine whether each complaint was assigned a unique identifier upon receipt, and whether the identifier was provided to the complainant.
These audits are expected to be completed by December 27, 2013 and forwarded to the Chairperson of the Audit group for review, compilation and submission to the Police Commissioner.
Paragraph 45- Copies of all allegations of misconduct against the VIPD filed with the Zone Commands will be referred to Internal Affairs Unit (“IAU”) within five business days.
*Through policies developed (Acceptance and Processing Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct) and approved, the requirements of paragraph 45 have been established and these policies as reported prior have been trained on department wide in both Districts during annual in-service, roll call and Commander’s call trainings. As part of the implementation phase or phase 3 of a three phase process, the VIPD has initiated audits to gauge compliance with paragraph 45 as well as other consent decree requirements. These audits going forward will be conducted on a quarterly basis and the audit reports will be shared with OIM and USDOJ starting with the first audit representing the third quarter of 2013, that is expected to be completed by December 27, 2013.
Investigation of Complaints
Paragraph 46 - Complaints will be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, for which the Territory will develop and implement appropriate training.
* The VIPD continues to provide training on the Preponderance of Evidence Standard on an ongoing basis, as was evident during in- service trainings in both Districts October –November 2013, in which Supervisors in both Districts received instructions on the Preponderance of Evidence Standard by Attorneys assigned to the Attorney General’s Office. During that same in-service training period Supervisors as well as Officers, also received training on Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint policy. Copies of lesson plans for this period of in-service trainings were provided to OIM during this reporting period. All participants in department authorized trainings are required to sign an attendance sheet indicating time arrived and time left. Through this attendance sheet the department is able to track who attended the training and who did not. The

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 108 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xvii
department will continue to utilize multiple approaches to provide training including roll call /Commander’s call sessions, and in-service training sessions.
Audits are currently in progress by the respective working groups and OIM will be afforded copies of the audit reports that will reflect the degree of compliance with paragraph 46, as well as other areas of the citizen complaint process.
Paragraph 47 - The VIPD will explicitly prohibit from investigating an incident any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to the injury to a person, or who authorized the conduct that led to these reportable incidents.
*The OIM has determined that the VIPD has achieved phase 1 compliance with paragraph 47 of the consent decree and that phase 2 and 3 are not applicable to this specific paragraph.
Paragraph 48 - The VIPD will investigate every citizen complaint. The VIPD will establish a clear policy and procedure regarding the intake of any complaint, including anonymous and confidential complaints, against a VIPD officer. This policy and these procedures will include instructions to an officer for taking a complaint and prompt delivery to a supervisor.
. * Working groups have begun to audit their respective areas and their audit report is expected by December 27, 2013 to the Chair person of the Audit Group. The IAB however, continues to generate reports of complaints received and complaint investigation status as far as complaint investigations completed and outstanding. These reports are forwarded to the Chain of Command weekly, monthly and quarterly, so appropriate actions could be initiated by Zone Commanders in cases where investigations may be outstanding in their respective Zone.
Paragraph 49 - The VIPD will institute a centralized numbering and tracking system for all complaints, and each complaint will receive a tracking number as quickly as possible. The IAU will be designated as the primary and centralized agency to determine whether the investigation will be assigned to zone (one of the seven zones located throughout the Virgin Islands), retained by the IAU, or referred for possible criminal investigation. If the IAU refers a complaint to a zone, copies of all documents, findings, and recommendations should be immediately forwarded to the IAU for tracking and monitoring. For complaints alleging the excessive use of force or violation of a person’s constitutional rights, the Police Commissioner should be notified no less than twenty-four hours after receipt of a complaint.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 109 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xviii
*The VIPD continues to implement the requirements of paragraph 49 to include in particular the numbering and tracking of all complaints received and notification to the Police Commissioner within twenty four hours or less for specific violations. The VIPD has provided OIM with complaints with assigned complaint numbers, copy of investigative check sheet utilized by IAB to indicate date and time of notification to the Police Commissioner for cases of excessive force or allegations of constitutional rights violations and this practice of documentation continues.
The IAPRO software that has been purchased and installed and that continues to be utilized by the VIPD, generates complaint numbers for each complaint entered, therefore, the VIPD does not “rely on VITEMA to assign tracking numbers for each complaint”. Infact, the only scenario under which the VIPD relies on VITEMA to assign a complaint number is one where a complainant files a complaint at a Zone or Substation, in which case the Officer and or Supervisor taking the complaint is required to contact VITEMA, provide a brief synopsis of the complaint before receiving a complaint number; thus allowing the complainant to leave with a copy of their complaint with a complaint number, as required by the consent decree. The complaint then could either be forwarded manually to IAB in cases where Blue Team is not operational to be entered into IAPRO or entered into Blue Team at the Zone or Substation where it is uploaded to IAPRO and assigned a number in IAPRO that is further linked with the VITEMA assigned number, thus enabling the complaint to be tracked by either number in IAPRO. As already established, complaints received in either of the means identified by the consent decree are assigned a complaint number once entered into IAPRO.
During this reporting period the following case(s) were provided to a member of OIM during a site visit to the St.Thomas/St. John District October 15, 2013 and were also sent electronically to OIM October 16, 2013; case # 2013-0094, which included among other documents in the investigative case file, the complaint, complaint Disposition, Investigative check sheet, letter to the complainant, receipt of complaint letter and referral to Command.
The initiation of audits during this reporting quarter and going forward on a quarterly basis by working groups of their respective areas of responsibility is an essential and required step in determining the extent of compliance or non compliance with paragraph 49 and other areas of the consent decree. Any deficiencies disclosed as a result of these audits will be addressed to ensure that established policies and procedures are consistently being adhered to and further to ensure that the VIPD maintains standards consistent with best police practices.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 110 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xix
Paragraph 50 - The VIPD will adopt a single policy concerning the investigation of misconduct complaints, regardless of whether the investigation is conducted by the IAU or a zone.
* The OIM has determined that the VIPD has achieved phase 1 compliance with paragraph 50 of the consent decree and that phase 2 and 3 are not applicable to this specific paragraph. The Acceptance and Processing of Citizen Complaints and the Investigating Misconduct policies continues to be trained on and efforts are ongoing to fully implement both policies.
Paragraph 51 - The VIPD will establish policies and procedures and train all of its investigators on the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility; examination and interrogation of accused officers and other witnesses; identifying misconduct even if it is not specifically named in the complaint; and using the preponderance of the evidence standard as the appropriate burden of proof. VIPD investigators will ensure that all officers on the scene of an incident provide a statement regarding the incident. The policy will require that all interviews be mechanically recorded using an audio or video tape.
* As stated earlier in this report on a continuing basis, the VIPD has provided training on the Citizen Complaint Process and Investigating misconduct as well as the Preponderance of Evidence Standard instructed by the VIAG in both Districts during in- service trainings, which was again conducted October-November 2013 of this reporting quarter. Attendance sheets are maintained for all of these trainings and competency exams are administered at the end of each in- service training class.
As was previously reported, the VIPD in addition to the installation of web based video/audio cameras on desk top computers at all Zones and Substations in both Districts, also has purchased and disseminated during this reporting quarter, hand held audio recorders for recording interviews.
The VIPD is currently conducting audits to gauge compliance with paragraph 51 as well as other applicable areas of the consent decree and audit reports are expected to be completed and submitted December 27, 2013 to the Chair person of the Audit Group.
Paragraph 52 - The policy will require that the investigative findings include whether: 1) the police action was in compliance with policy, training and legal standards, regardless of whether the complainant suffered harm; 2) the incident involved misconduct by any officer; 3) the use of different tactics should or

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 111 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xx
could have been employed; 4) the incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and 5) the incident suggests that the VIPD should revise its policies, training, or tactics.
* The OIM has determined that the VIPD has achieved phase 1 compliance with paragraph 52 of the consent decree and that phase 2 and 3 are not applicable to this specific paragraph.
Paragraph 53 - The policy will provide clear guidance to all investigators regarding the procedures for handling criminal misconduct allegations, referring them to the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office or other appropriate agency for possible criminal prosecution, and the entity or individual who should make the determination of whether the complaint should be investigated criminally. The policy will be revised to require the completion of an administrative investigation, irrespective of the initiation or outcome of criminal proceedings.
* The OIM has determined that the VIPD has achieved phase 1 compliance with paragraph 53 of the consent decree and that phase 2 and 3 are not applicable to this specific paragraph.
Paragraph 54 - In each investigation, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. There will be no automatic preference for an officer’s statement over a non-officer’s statement, nor will the VIPD completely disregard a witness’ statement merely because the witness has some connection to the complainant. The VIPD will make efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.
* As have been established through policy for which training have been and continues to be provided and as determined by OIM that phase 1 and 2 have been satisfied, VIPD’s phase 3 efforts includes ongoing audits to assess substantial compliance with paragraph 54, as well as other areas of the consent decree. Through policies developed (Acceptance and Processing Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct) and approved, the requirements of paragraph 54 have been established and these policies as reported prior have been trained on department wide in both districts during annual in-service, roll call and commander’s call trainings. As part of the implementation phase or phase 3 of a three phase process, the vipd has initiated audits to gauge compliance with

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 112 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xxi
paragraph 54, as well as other consent decree requirements. These audits will be conducted periodically on a quarterly basis and the audit reports will be shared with oim starting with the first audit representing the third quarter of 2013 that is expected to be completed by December 27, 2013.
Paragraph 55 - During an investigation, all relevant police activity, including each use of force (i.e., not just the type of force complained about) will be investigated. The investigation will also evaluate any searches or seizures that occurred during the incident. The VIPD will not close an investigation simply because the complaint is withdrawn or the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of injury or the complainant will not provide additional statements or written statements; rather, the investigating agency will continue its investigation as necessary to determine whether the original allegation(s) can be resolved based on the information, evidence, and investigatory procedures and techniques available. In each investigation, the fact that a complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense will not be considered as evidence of whether a VIPD officer used or did not use a type of force, nor will it justify discontinuing the investigation.
*Through policies developed (Acceptance and Processing Citizen Complaints/ Investigating Misconduct) and approved, the requirements of paragraph 55 have been established and these policies as reported prior have been trained on department wide in both districts during annual in-service, roll call and commander’s call trainings. As part of the implementation phase or phase 3 of a three phase process, the vipd has initiated audits to gauge compliance with paragraph 55 as well as other consent decree requirements. These audits will be conducted on a quarterly basis and the audit reports will be shared with oim starting with the first audit representing the third quarter of 2013 that is expected to be completed by December 27, 2013.
As have been reported, the IAB continues to be the “clearing house” for all complaints received and their review includes checking for adherence in particular to consent decree mandates to include the mandates as represented in paragraph 55. The IAB continues to generate reports periodically that among other things identifies active and completed investigations, identifies the types of complaints received and the percentage of each complaint type, thus enabling the VIPD to make decisions based upon analysis of these reports as was evident during this reporting quarter where reports generated disclosed that most complaints received were associated with discourtesy. As a result of this disclosure, select personnel of the VIPD were assigned to participate in Customer Service trainings hosted by the USVI Department of Tourism, which took place during the month of November 2013, in both Districts. A listing of the Officers

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 113 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xxii
and Civilian employees in both Districts that participated in this training was submitted to OIM during this reporting quarter.
Paragraph 56 - The complainant will be periodically kept informed regarding the status of the investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, the complainant will be notified of its outcome, including an appropriate statement regarding whether any non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action was taken.
*Although the VIPD continues to comply with the requirements of paragraph 56, an essential part of this process is the audit function that requires a systematic review and analysis of department activities to determine to what extent established policies and or procedures are consistently being followed. This audit function was initiated during this reporting quarter in both Districts and included several areas of the consent decree. The VIPD will forward to OIM and USDOJ, copies of completed audit reports that are expected to reflect in both Districts the departments’ status as it relates to substantially complying with the mandates of paragraph 56.
Paragraph 57 - Each allegation in an investigation will be resolved by making one of the following dispositions: “Unfounded,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that no facts to support that the incident complained of actually occurred; “Sustained,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person’s allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the incident occurred and the actions of the officer were improper; “Not Sustained,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred; and “Exonerated,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate VIPD policies, procedures, or training.
* The requirements of paragraph 57 are established in Department approved policy and training continues on said policy in both Districts satisfying phase 1 and 2 as determined by the OIM. However, the VIPD has advanced towards phase 3 or the implementation phase and as part of the implementation phase the department has initiated audits during this reporting quarter to assess compliance not limited just to paragraph 57, but to the other areas of the consent decree as represented by the Territorial Audit Agenda that was approved by the Police Commissioner and was submitted to OIM identifying all the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 114 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xxiii
mandates being audited. After the completion of these audits, copies of the various audit reports from the respective working groups will be submitted to OIM and USDOJ.
Paragraph 58- Unit Commanders will evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command to identify underlying problems or training needs. Any such problems will be relayed in the form of a recommendation to the appropriate VIPD entity.
* The requirements of paragraph 58 are established in Department approved policy and training continues on said policy in both Districts satisfying phase 1 and 2 as determined by the OIM. However, the VIPD has advanced towards phase 3 or the implementation phase and as part of the implementation phase the department has initiated audits during this reporting quarter to assess compliance not limited just to paragraph 58, but to the other areas of the consent decree as represented by the territorial audit agenda that was submitted to oim identifying all the mandates being audited. After the completion of these audits, copies of the various audit reports from the respective working groups will be submitted to OIM and USDOJ.
MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
A. Risk Management system Paragraph 59 - The VIPD will develop and implement a risk management system to include a new computerized relational database or paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for supervision and management of the VIPD. Priority will be given to the VIPD obtaining any established program and system. The VIPD will regularly use this data to promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts.
* During this reporting quarter, as a follow up to previously reported EIP training in June, 2013, IAB further conducted involving both Districts via video conference, an EIP power point presentation for Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, overall Managers and Directors within the department on November 4, 2013. This power point presentation provided a step by step review of the entire EIP process and was developed by the IAB to further aid Managers, Directors etc in their understanding and implementation of the EIP process. A copy of the memorandum dated October 23, 2013 mandating this training and identifying intended participants was submitted to OIM October 31, 2013.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 115 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xxiv
The IAB continues this quarter to generate and disseminate to the Chain of Command in both Districts reports for review and analysis as part of the EIP process. As evidence of this during this reporting period and specifically on December 24, 2013, documentation was submitted to OIM representing the initiation of steps by IAB consistent with the EIP policy pursuant to alerts triggered by complaints in excess of the threshold amount. These documentations included a summary of complaints, non disclosure document, Action Plan forms, EIP flow chart and a memorandum to the Officer’s Supervisor regarding the alerts. Consistent with the EIP policy the Deputy Chief, Commander or Bureau Head and the Officer’s Supervisor have to meet to review and discuss the information received from IAB and determine if corrective actions are warranted, hence the purpose of the Action Plan Form.
Paragraph 60 – The new risk management system will collect and record the following information:
a. all uses of force; b. canine bite ratios; c. the number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers; d. all injuries to prisoners; e. all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with “resisting arrest,” “assault on a police officer,” “disorderly conduct,” or “obstruction of official business;” f. all critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty; g. all complaints (and their dispositions); h. all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the Territory and its officers, or agents, resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel; i. all vehicle pursuits; j. all incidents involving the pointing of a firearm (if any such reporting is required); and k. all disciplinary action taken against officers.
* During this reporting quarter, the VIPD continues to collect and record into IAPRO as part of its Risk Management System, all reportable uses of force, all reported injuries to prisoners, instances in which force is used resulting in charges as specified in subsection (e) of paragraph 60, as was evident in the Discretionary Arrest report that was produced by IAB through IAPRO for the St.Thomas/St. John District , a copy of which was submitted to OIM November 25, 2013. This list was for the period of January 2013 to November 22, 2013 for the St. Thomas/St.John

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 116 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xxv
District and was also forwarded to the Chain of Command for review and analysis for possible trends and patterns.
The VIPD also collects information on (f) all critical firearms discharges and none were reported during this quarter, (g) all complaints and their disposition: the department has and continues to generate reports that identifies all complaints received and their disposition and copies of these reports continue to be forwarded to OIM, (j) All incidents involving the pointing of firearms and (k) all disciplinary actions taken against Officers. Additionally, as it relates to requirement (h) the IAB during this reporting quarter received from VIAG copies of cases pursuant to Civil or Administrative claims filed against the VIPD and or its personnel for review and entry into IAPRO as part of RMS. Pursuant to subsection(c) (b) and (I) efforts are ongoing. As it relates specifically to subsection (c) the VIPD is revising the current OC spray listing and a comprehensive listing representing both Districts will be generated. Subsection (I) is addressed through the Vehicle Pursuit policy; however a recommendation has been forwarded from IAB to include in the policy during the annual policy review process specific language requiring reporting vehicle pursuits to IAB either directly or through Blue Team. More will be reported on this as the annual policy review process is initiated. Finally, subsections (b) Canine Bite ratios: Canine policy has been approved, implemented and deployments have been received during this reporting period from the St. Croix District. Canine deployment information from both Districts will be used to compute canine bite ratios for the respective Districts and will be reported further in future quarterly status reports.
Additionally, the Blue Team operation form used to document on a weekly basis, the operational status of Blue Team was revised to a more user friendly format that included check boxes and a copy of this form was submitted to OIM November 27, 2013. During this reporting quarter completed Blue Team operation forms for the St. Thomas/St. John District were submitted to OIM.
Paragraph 61 – The new risk management system will include, for the incidents included in the database, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (e.g., name, badge number, shift and supervisor) and civilian (e.g., race, ethnicity or national origin, if available).
* As evident in reports generated through IAPRO by IAB periodically on a weekly, monthly and quarterly basis, the specific fields of information as required in paragraph 61 continues to be captured. Additionally, audits that are currently ongoing by working groups will further establish the degree of compliance with the consent decree and in particular paragraph 61. Going forward these audits will be conducted on a quarterly basis and the audit report will be shared with OIM as well as USDOJ.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 117 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xxvi
Additionally, to be able to track movement or assignment of Officers from Squad to Squad, a new form appropriately identified as “Internal Squad Assignment Order” has been developed and submitted during November of this reporting quarter to the Police Commissioner for review and approval. A copy of this form was submitted to OIM during this reporting quarter. As with Officer transfers that continue to be documented, Officer Squad Assignments will also be documented and a copy provided to the Chain of Command to include IAB, so as to also facilitate the tracking of Officer Squad Assignments in IAPRO.
Paragraph 62 – Within 120 days of the implementation of the new risk management system, or later with the agreement of DOJ, the VIPD will prepare, for the review and approval of DOJ, a plan for including appropriate fields and values of new and historical data into the risk management system (the “Data Input Plan”). The Data Input Plan will identify the data to be included and the means for inputting such data (direct entry or otherwise), the specific fields of information to be included, the past time periods for which information is to be included, the deadlines for inputting the data, and the responsibility for the input of the data. The Data Input Plan will include historical data that is up-to-date and complete in the risk management system. The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final review and approval within 30 days after it is presented for approval.
* The OIM has determined that the VIPD has achieved phase 1 compliance with paragraph 62 of the consent decree and that phase 2 and 3 are not applicable to this specific paragraph.
Paragraph 63 – The VIPD will, within 120 days, prepare for the review and approval of DOJ, and thereafter implement, a protocol for using the risk management system. The VIPD will submit for the review and approval of DOJ all proposed modifications to the protocol prior to implementing such modifications.
* As established prior, a protocol for the Risk Management System has been developed, approved, trained on and currently being implemented. During this reporting quarter and as a follow-up to EIP training conducted during the second quarter 2013, the IAB conducted a PowerPoint presentation concerning the EIP process as the department’s Risk Management System (RMS). This presentation was given to Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs,’ Managers and Directors in both Districts via video conference on November 4, 2013. This presentation in particular outlined the steps involved in the EIP process, identified the roles of the Chain of Command as it relates to the EIP and re-emphasized the importance of completing the required Action Plans. To date four completed action plans were received from the St.Thomas/St. John District during this reporting quarter.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 118 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xxvii
Paragraph 64 – The protocol for using the risk management system will include
the following provisions and elements:
a. The protocol is comprised of the following components: data storage, data retrieval, reporting, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation and audit. b. The protocol will require the automated system to analyze the data according to the following criteria: i) number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; ii) average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and iii) identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit. c. The protocol will require the system to generate reports on a monthly basis describing the data and data analysis and identifying individual and unit patterns. d. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors will review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, system reports, and will evaluate individual officer, supervisor, and unit activity. e. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors initiate intervention for individual officers, supervisors and for units based on appropriate activity and pattern assessment of the information contained in the risk management system. f. The protocol will require that intervention options include discussion by deputy chiefs, managers, supervisors, and officers; counseling; training; and supervised, monitored, and documented action plans and strategies designed to modify activity. All interventions will be documented in writing and entered into the automated system (appropriate intervention options will be employed based on the evaluation described in subsection (e) above). g. The protocol will specify that actions taken as a result of information from the risk management system be based on all relevant and appropriate information, including the nature of the officer’s assignment, crime trends and crime problems, and not solely on the number or percentages of incidents in any category of information recorded in the risk management system. h. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors. will promptly review the risk management system records of all officers recently transferred to their sections and units. i. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors be evaluated on their ability to use the risk management system to enhance effectiveness and reduce risk. j. The protocol will require that the system be managed and administered by the Internal Affairs Unit of the VIPD. The IAU of the VIPD will conduct quarterly audits of the system to ensure action is taken according to the process described above. k. The protocol will require regular reviews, at no less than quarterly intervals, by appropriate managers of all relevant risk management system information to

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 119 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xxviii
evaluate officer performance territory-wide, and to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all VIPD units in order to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents.
* The OIM has determined that the VIPD has achieved phase 1 compliance with paragraph 64 of the consent decree and that phase 2 and 3 are not applicable to this specific paragraph. Efforts continue to fully implement the EIP policy.
Paragraph 65- The VIPD will maintain all personally identifiable information about an officer included in the risk management system during the officer’s employment with the VIPD for at least five years. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis will be maintained indefinitely in the risk management system. On an ongoing basis, the VIPD will enter information into the risk management system in a timely, accurate, and complete manner, and maintain the data in a secure and confidential manner.
*The Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) continues to be the sole Administrator of the VIPD’s Risk Management Software namely IAPRO entering information on an ongoing basis. Information is stored on department servers as well as in locked safes located within IAB and access to information in IAPRO is restricted according to authorized access levels. Further, as it relates to OIM’s concern relative to the feature in IAPRO that allows data for specific incidents from being purged or deleted, only the IAB Director as the system Administrator and IAB Supervisors are permitted to delete information and a delete log is also maintained by the IAPRO system. This feature is also time sensitive so if certain information is not to be purged or deleted for a specific period of time such as, for example five years, the activation of this feature with respect to the specified information would prevent the information from being accidentally deleted before the specified time period and as stated , a delete log is automatically maintained by the system.
As a follow up to the previous quarterly report concerning efforts to explore the feasibility of utilizing personnel in other Government Agencies with skills specific to analyzing data, that effort unfortunately was unsuccessful as no affirmative response was received. The VIPD nonetheless is moving forward with its’ plan to hire individuals for both Districts, which included as previously reported including two analyst positions in the 2014 budget. More will be reported in future quarterly reports regarding efforts to hire additional personnel for the Analyst position(s).
Paragraph 66 - The new risk management system will be purchased off the shelf and customized by VIPD. Alternatively, the new risk management system may be developed and implemented according to the following schedule: a. Within 150 days of the effective date of this Agreement, subject to the review and approval of DOJ, the VIPD will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP).

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 120 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xxix
b. Within 270 days of the issuance of the RFP, or later with the agreement of DOJ, the VIPD will select the contractor to create the risk management system. c. Within 150 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the VIPD will submit the protocol for using the risk management system to DOJ for review and approval. The VIPD will share drafts of this document with DOJ and the Monitor (a position described in Section VII) to allow DOJ and the Monitor to become familiar with the document as it develops and to provide informal comments on it. The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final approval within 30 days after it is presented for review and approval. d. Within 14 months of selecting the contractor, the VIPD will have ready for testing a beta version of the risk management system consisting of: i) server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the VIPD’s existing automated systems; ii) necessary data base software installed and configured; iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and iv) the use of force information system completed, including historic data. DOJ and the Monitor will have the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version using use of force data and test data created specifically for purposes of checking the risk management system. e. The risk management system computer program and computer hardware will be operational and fully implemented within 20 months of the selection of the risk management system contractor.
*The VIPD has not yet initiated a Beta test of the RMS but has made progress towards this end as reported prior relative to the acquisition and installation of software and hardware which has been configured and integrated with existing automated systems for this purpose. The VIPD has established through policies, procedures for use of force reporting and investigation, revised its arrest form to include specific fields necessary to compute use of force ratios as required by the consent decree and has installed in the St. Croix District within Booking Stations computers and printers that will allow Supervisors to input arrest information from arrest reports as part of the arrest data base being established. The same has been initiated in the St. Thomas District, during the latter part of November 2013, as MIS (Management and Information System) personnel travelled to St. Thomas and installed computer(s) in the Booking Station at the Zone ‘A’ Command for the same purpose. The next step is to manually input the PDN number assigned to each Officer; so that once an Officer enters his or her name their PDN is already attached. As reported prior, this is a temporary set up until the Smart COP Record Management system (RMS) is implemented. However, the arrest data base in the St.Thomas District is projected to be ready for use by the end of December 2013, following roll call and Commander’s call training sessions on the revised arrest form.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 121 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xxx
An electronic copy of the revised arrest form was submitted to USDOJ and OIM earlier during this reporting period.
Paragraph 67 – Prior to implementation of the new risk management system, the VIPD will continue to use existing databases and resources to the fullest extent possible, to identify patterns of conduct by VIPD officers or groups of officers.
* OIM has determined that the implementation of the software IAPRO for Risk Management by the VIPD makes the requirements of paragraph 67 no longer applicable. The VIPD reports during this reporting quarter that IAPRO continues to be utilized in both Districts for said purpose.
Paragraph 68 – Following the initial implementation of the risk management system, and as experience and the availability of new technology may warrant, the VIPD may propose to add, subtract, or modify data tables and fields, modify the list of documents scanned or electronically attached, and add, subtract, or modify standardized reports and queries. The VIPD will submit all such proposals for review and approval by DOJ before implementation.
*During this reporting quarter efforts continue to finalize the arrest data base in the St.Thomas/ St. John District. All necessary hard ware are already in place in the St. Croix District for the arrest data base and MIS personnel recently completed similar hardware installation at the Zone ‘A’ Command specifically in the Booking Station in the St. Thomas/ St. John District. The next step is to enter all department assigned PDNs and the implementation of the revised arrest form that includes roll call training sessions to familiarize Officers regarding the revisions to the form.
Currently, there is no necessity to make any changes as delineated in paragraph 68, further; the VIPD’s implementation of the Risk Management System (RMS) is ongoing. To date the RMS software (IAPRO/Blue Team) are installed in both Districts and continues to function, reports are generated periodically as mandated, EIP alerts are communicated to the Chain of Command, efforts are ongoing to stimulate the completion of Action Plans in both Districts as necessary as well as documented reviews by specific personnel within the Chain of Command and follow up EIP training was conducted on November 4, 2013 via video conference in both Districts by IAB to further enhance individual’s comprehension of the EIP Process.
Oversight

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 122 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xxxi
Paragraph 69 – The VIPD will develop a protocol for conducting audits. The protocol will be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol will establish a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all VIPD zones.
*Following the Approval of the Audit Policy, a weeklong Audit Training was conducted by MTAG during the month of October and specifically October 14-18 in the St.Thomas/St. John District and October 21-25, 2013 in the St. Croix District. This training was observed by a member of the OIM Team during a site visit to the St. Thomas/St.John District. Participants of this training included Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, Managers, Supervisors, Directors, Civilian personnel in Managerial positions and working group members. A copy of the listing of personnel both Sworn and Civilian scheduled to participate in the training was submitted to OIM for both Districts. Also, an electronic copy of the course outline for this training to include an After Action Report submitted by the MTAG Instructors that included test scores of each class participant in both Districts were submitted to OIM. The OIM was also provided with an electronic copy of a sample audit done in the St. Croix District during this audit training.
Audits were completed during this reporting period by working groups of their respective areas of the consent decree and as an interim procedure until the Audit Unit is established, working groups will submit their completed audit reports to the Chairperson of the Audit group, who will review and compile the reports for submission to the Police Commissioner.
The Chairperson of the Audit group conducted meetings on November 27 and December 13, 2013, with working groups to obtain feedback on the progress of their audits and a deadline date of December 27, 2013 was established for working groups to submit their audit reports to the Chairperson of the Audit Group. As stated earlier in this report, an electronic copy of the Territorial Audit agenda approved by the Police Commissioner was submitted to OIM specifically on November 21, 2013. This agenda identified the areas to be audited by the respective working groups.
* Discipline
Paragraph 70 - The VIPD will develop a disciplinary matrix to take into account an officer’s violations of different rules, rather than just repeated violations of the same rule. The VIPD will further revise this matrix to increase the penalties for uses of excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, or dishonesty, to reflect the seriousness of those infractions. The revised disciplinary matrix will provide the VIPD with the discretion to impose any appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes the officer’s misconduct

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 123 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xxxii
exhibits a lack of fitness for duty. This revised matrix will be subject to the review and approval of DOJ.
* The OIM has determined that the VIPD has achieved phase 1 compliance with paragraph 70 of the consent decree and that phase 2 and 3 are not applicable to this specific paragraph. However, the Disciplinary Matrix as stated in this report has been approved, trained on during in-service trainings during this reporting period and is also currently being implemented.
Paragraph 71 - The VIPD will extend its statute of limitations for instituting disciplinary action from 50 days to 90 days. VIPD policy will identify clear time periods by which the various steps of a complaint adjudication process should be completed, from complaint receipt to the imposition of discipline, if any. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions will not be granted without the Police Commissioner’s written approval and notice to the complainant. In the limited circumstances when an extension is necessary, appropriate tolling provisions will be outlined in the policy.
* As stated in the previous quarterly report, the Chair Person of the Management and Supervision group submitted memorandum to the Police Commissioner pursuant to efforts to extend the statute of limitations beyond 50 days as stipulated in paragraph 71. The plan as reported prior is to address this matter during LESU negotiations and more will be reported during future quarterly reports as negotiations get started and progresses.
Paragraph 72 - Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD will not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix indicates the imposition of discipline. The VIPD will not fail to consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action is required in a case because discipline has been imposed on the officer.
*The VIPD’s Disciplinary Matrix and policy has been approved as previously reported and training was initiated in both Districts on the Disciplinary Matrix and policy during in-service trainings conducted October-November 2013. The OIM was provided with an electronic copy of the lesson plan and test questions for the Disciplinary Matrix and policy training during this reporting quarter. The in- service training on the Disciplinary Matrix and policy was done by VIPD Instructors.
The OIM in their third quarterly report for 2013 stated the following: “In order to help the OIM evaluate the department’s compliance with paragraph 72 of the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 124 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xxxiii
consent decree, it should provide the OIM with documentation from Disciplinary Hearings, including the charges, findings, and any discipline and /or nondisciplinary corrective action that were taken”. The VIPD however, in the past has afforded OIM the opportunity to sit in during Disciplinary Hearings in both Districts, and going forward the Compliance Coordinator has recommended to Chiefs in both Districts to advise OIM of scheduled Hearings in advance, so as to afford them the opportunity to determine which hearings to observe and or which cases to review during their site visit to either District.
Based upon the Territorial Audit Plan approved by the Police Commissioner, which was also forwarded to OIM, the following are some areas identified under the Management and Supervision section of the consent decree to be audited: Ensure that Blue Team programs are installed in all Zone Commands and that computers are all fully functioning, Determine whether the VIPD is collecting data consistent with the Data input Plan, Determine whether VIPD is correctly analyzing data to identify positive or negative performance issues and Ascertain whether VIPD is following up with discipline, remedial training and rewarding positive performance. The completed audit report is expected December 27, 2013 and will be shared with OIM and USDOJ.
Additionally, audits conducted during this reporting quarter are expected to aid the department in determining the degree to which paragraph 72 is being substantially complied with as well as other mandates pursuant to the Management and Supervision section of the consent decree and OIM and USDOJ will be afforded copies of all audit reports.
TRAINING
A. Management Oversight
Paragraph 73 – The VIPD will continue to coordinate and review all use of force policy and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy. The VIPD will conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually.
*The VIPD has and continues to provide OIM with lesson plans, training schedules and other training information as evidence of the ongoing coordination of trainings by the Training Bureau inclusive of use of force and other force related trainings. Use of force and force related lesson plans are reviewed prior to the execution of any use of force or force related training and the signature of the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 125 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xxxiv
VIAG is affixed to the lesson plans as evidence of VIAG’s review. OIM has been provided with lesson plans reviewed and signed by the VIAG.
As reported prior, a “Critical Policy Review” SOP has been drafted and was approved during this reporting quarter by the Police Commissioner and the effective date of this SOP was November 25, 2013. This SOP delineates the procedural steps to be followed during the policy review process inclusive of use of force and force related policies. The established Policy Committee is the lead entity as it relates to spearheading the annual review and or revision of all policies and or SOP’s. Based upon this SOP, annual review are to be initiated during the month of January of each year. An electronic copy of the approved SOP was submitted to OIM December 19, 2013.
Additionally, to get the annual review process started the Police Commissioner issued a Commissioner’s directive dated December 18, 2013 that listed the use of force and force related policies for annual review and further established due dates for the submission of comments pursuant to each policy , as part of the initial phase of the policy review process. An electronic copy of this directive was submitted to OIM December 19, 2013. An additional directive dated December 23, 2013, regarding the annual review of the Citizen Complaint Process and Investigating Misconduct policies was also issued and disseminated department wide in both Districts, a copy of which was also provided to OIM December 24, 2013.
Paragraph 74 – The Director of Training, either directly or through his/her designee(s), consistent with applicable law and VIPD policy will:
a. ensure the quality of all use of force training; b. develop and implement use of force training curricula; c. select and train VIPD officer trainers; d. develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service training; e. in conjunction with the Chiefs, develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures; f. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and g. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
*As it relates to Subsection (d), the OIM has determined that the VIPD has satisfied this requirement. However, the VIPD continues its efforts to implement the roll call policy applicable to subsection (e) and all use of force lesson plans continues to be reviewed by the VIAG prior to the execution of use of force and force related trainings. Also, the VIPD on an ongoing basis or as necessary continues to select Officers as Officer trainers and provide the appropriate

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 126 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xxxv
training qualifying them as Certified Instructors in several disciplines, such as Use of Force, Defensive Tactics, TASER, OC Spray and Asp Baton.
Paragraph 75 – The VIPD will continue to provide training consistent with VIPD policy, law, and proper police practices, and will ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by instructors. The VIPD will make best efforts to train each work shift as a Team in their use of force training.
* All trainings coordinated by the VIPDs’ Training Bureau is accompanied with a requisite lesson plan that is reviewed and approved by the Training Director and all use of force and force related policies are also submitted to the VIAG for review prior to the execution of said training. The lesson plans provide information including but not limited to the Course, Lesson Title, Duration, Trainee level, identifies the person that prepared the lesson plan, Instructor, Objectives, training aid, and method of presentation.
Additionally, following a weeklong training in October in both Districts by MTAG on conducting audits, working groups have begun during this reporting quarter to conduct audits of their respectively assigned areas of the consent decree. As it relates to the Training working group the following audits as identified in the Territorial Audit agenda were conducted to assess the following : Determine whether training is being conducted on a regular basis and Officers are being tested for proficiency on the policies, whether Officers are gaining knowledge of the subject matter tested, Assess whether training has an appropriate tracking system to track training attendance and Determine whether training maintains appropriate training records.
Completed audit reports are expected to be submitted to the Chair person of the Audit Group December 27, 2013.
Paragraph 76 – The VIPD shall continue to keep adequate records of lesson plans and other training materials, such that the most current training documents are maintained in a central, commonly accessible file, and are clearly dated.
* The VIPD continues to keep adequate records of lesson plans and other training materials consistent with the requirements of paragraph 76 and during this reporting period the VIPD provided OIM lesson plans of trainings conducted during in-service trainings October–November 2013 and also included Law Enforcement Audit training conducted during the month of October in both Districts by MTAG. Some of the lesson plans provided to OIM includes, OC spray, Impact Weapons, Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint and Reporting, Investigation and Review of Use of force. As the VIPD has reported in prior

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 127 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xxxvi
reports, each District maintains their own training records of lesson plans and other training materials and records for either District is accessible.
Additionally, the VIPD continues to strive to implement a comprehensive training data base through the acquisition and implementation of Power DMS that is expected to facilitate expeditious and convenient access and retrieval of all training information. Power DMS is a secure web- based application that is available from anywhere, any time and from any device. During this reporting period communication meetings were held between representatives of Power DMS , Training Bureau and MIS, as the initial testing phase of Power DMS continues in an effort to meet the projected January 2014 target date for implementation. More will be reported in future quarterly reports concerning the implementation of Power DMS.
* Paragraph 77 – The VIPD shall continue to maintain training records regarding every VIPD officer that reliably indicate the training each officer has received. The training records shall, at a minimum, include the course description and duration, curriculum, and instructor for each officer.
* The VIPD continues to maintain training records in its current training data base reflective of all information as delineated in paragraph 77. This information has been made available to OIM particularly during site visits where OIM has reviewed the information maintained electronically as well as in hard copy format. The VIPD however, in an effort to achieve increased efficiency in record maintenance, management and accessibility has invested in a new and improved software namely Power DMS as previously reported. In the interim, however, the VIPD through its Training Bureau has the capability of generating and producing training information as required in paragraph 77.
Curriculum
Paragraph 78 – The Training Director, in consultation with the Attorney General’s Office, will review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure compliance with applicable laws and VIPD policy.
* Annual in-service training took place October-November 2013 in both Districts and lesson plans for these trainings were submitted by the Training Bureau to the VIAG for review prior to the execution of in-service training. The signature of the VIAG on said lesson plans is evident of the review at the VIAG level. Copies of said in-service training lesson plans were submitted to OIM during this reporting quarter.
A listing of some of the information provided to OIM this reporting quarter includes the following: lesson plans for the following trainings; Police ethics,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 128 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xxxvii
Integrated Use of force Instructor, Acceptance of Citizen Complaints and Investigating Misconduct, Impact Weapons, Law Enforcement Audit, Use of force, Off Duty Official Action , FTO train the trainer, Disciplinary matrix/test ,and OC spray. Also, EIP (Early Intervention Program) training report for both Districts, training report for audit training conducted October 2013 in both Districts, EIP sign in sheet for St. Thomas/St. Croix, list of Consent Decree policies trained on to date, Instructor certifications & an external hard drive containing integrated use of force training videos (sent via FedEx mail), memo notification of the following scheduled trainings: Customer Service, , Patrol Response to Hostage & Barricaded situations Instructor training, Tactical Debriefing and Communication Instructor training, Case listings from IAB, Attendance listings (both Districts) for Customer Service training in November , listing of Blue Team location in each District and In-service training schedules October- November 2013 for both Districts.
Paragraph 79 – The VIPD will continue to provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on use of force. Such training will include and address the following topics:
a. the VIPD’s use of force model, as described in this Agreement; b. proper use of force decision-making; c. the VIPD’s use of force reporting requirements; d. the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements; e. examples of scenarios faced by VIPD officers that illustrate proper use of force decision-making; f. interactive exercises that emphasize proper use of force decision-making; g. de-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without using force, and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation even when the use of force would be legally justified; h. threat assessment; i. appropriate training on conflict management.
*Consistent with the requirement for annual training, the VIPD conducted annual in-service trainings October-November 2013, of this reporting quarter in both Districts. Trainings were conducted in the following disciplines: Domestic Violence, Preponderance of the Evidence Standard, TASER, OC spray, Disciplinary Matrix/Policy, Defensive Tactics, Scenario based trainings with the Simulator (TI Lab), Impact Weapon, Constitutional law update, Roll call policy and Investigating Misconduct. These in-service trainings were conducted by VIPD’s Instructors as well as legal representatives of the VIAG’s Office (Virgin Islands Attorney General).
The OIM was provided with a copy of the in-service training schedule for both Districts to include associated lesson plans. Upcoming trainings are listed in the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 129 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xxxviii
Training Bureau’s 2014 Training Calendar, a copy of which was provided to OIM during this reporting quarter.
The use of two recently acquired new Simulators, one per District afforded the opportunity during in-service trainings October – November 2013, to implement scenario based trainings where Officers were presented with various use of force situations that tested their ability to make use of force decisions. This training was also observed by a member of OIM during a site visit to the St. Croix District, during this reporting period. Additionally, as reported prior, the Training Bureau has secured closed use of force cases for review to determine their use as examples of scenarios faced by VIPD Officers that illustrate proper use of force decision making, which will also be incorporated into the overall use of force trainings.
Paragraph 80 – The VIPD will continue to provide training to all its officers on the VIPD citizen complaint process. The VIPD will develop a protocol for all its officers on appropriate conduct and responses in handling citizens’ complaints and will train officers in the protocol.
*As stated earlier in this report the VIPD has recently completed training on the Citizen Complaint Process and the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard during in-service trainings in both Districts October –November 2013. In- service trainings are repeated on an annual basis and are also followed up or reinforced during Roll Call and Commander’s Call trainings. These trainings are documented by the Training Bureau, using attendance sheets, approved lesson plans and the Training Bureau also generates a training report that identifies among other things, the percentage of the department that completed each training.
Paragraph 81 – The VIPD will provide training on appropriate burdens of proof to all supervisors, as well as the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility (to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform, and legally appropriate). The VIPD will also continue to provide training to supervisors on leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training will be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities, and will be made part of annual in-service training.
*During this reporting quarter, the VIPD continued to provide training on the Citizen Complaint Process policy and the Preponderance of Evidence Standard during in-service trainings October-November 2013. Trainings on the Preponderance of Evidence Standard were done by the VIAG in both Districts.
Additionally, as it relates to the subject of leadership, the Chiefs in both Districts during this reporting quarter and specifically November 11-15, 2013 attended

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 130 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xxxix
training in Sturbridge Massachusetts hosted by the Sturbridge Police Department, the title of which was “Chief Executive Leadership”. This was a 40 hour training course that included the following topics: Legal Issues in Law enforcement, Effective Risk Management Techniques, Importance of conducting effective internal investigations, Getting the most out of employees, Dealing with elected Officials, Performance evaluations-why they are important, Leadership in the 21st century, Effective Media relations, Managing Organizational Change, Dealing with generational issues, Journey of a police executive, Developing subordinates by setting expectations, Mitigating disasters, Effective leadership tools-situational leadership, Police effectiveness: community, innovation and technology, Budgetary Techniques, Marketing your department and A simple Guide to strategic Planning.
Also, consistent with the requirement of paragraph 81 specifically relating to leadership training, the revised training calendar dated December 9, 2013, which was submitted to OIM during this reporting period also reflects upcoming leadership trainings scheduled to take place March and June 2014, by an outside vendor namely, MTAG (Marine Tactical Applications Global). More will be reported in future quarterly reports as these trainings takes place and efforts will be made to ensure that OIM receives all pertinent training information and materials reasonably in advance of the scheduled trainings.
The VIPD also continue efforts during this reporting period to address its Supervisory short fall and increase Supervisory levels inclusive of Sergeants, Lieutenants and Captains through the administration of promotional exams anticipated to take place May and April 2014. Towards this end, study materials have been ordered and advertisement for the promotional test for Lieutenants and Captains started December 24, 2013, in a memorandum dated December 20, 2013, from the Director of the Government of the Virgin Island’s Personnel Division. According to this memorandum, sign-up for the promotional exam for Lieutenants and Captains begin Monday December 30, 2013 and terminates on Friday January 31, 2014. Also, exam dates are tentatively established for the week of April 7TH through April 11th, 2014. Also, a memorandum from the Division of Personnel, dated December 24, 2013, also publicized the tentative promotional exam dates for Sergeants as May 19-23, 2014 and sign up dates as Monday February 3, 2014 through Friday March 7, 2014.
V. MONITORING, REPORTING, AND IMPLEMENTATION
B. Independent Monitor
Paragraph 82 – By 150 days from the date of this Agreement, the Territory and the DOJ shall together select an Independent Monitor, acceptable to both, who

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 131 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xl
shall monitor and report on the VIPD’s implementation of this Agreement. The parties recognize that one person, or team of people, may be selected to fulfill the role of Monitor. The selection of the Monitor shall be pursuant to a method jointly established by the DOJ and the Territory. If the DOJ and Territory are unable to agree on a Monitor or an alternative method of selection within 150 days from the date of this Agreement, the DOJ and the Territory each shall submit two candidates who have experience as a law enforcement practices expert or monitor, or as a Federal, state or local prosecutor or judge, along with résumés and cost proposals, to the Court. The Court shall then appoint the Monitor from among the names of qualified persons submitted. The selection of the Monitor shall be conducted solely pursuant to the procedures set forth in this Agreement, and will not be governed by any formal or legal procurement requirements.
No report required
Paragraph 83 – 87 – 83. The Monitor, at any time after the initial selection of the person or team of persons as the Monitor, may request to be allowed to hire or employ such additional persons or entities as are reasonably necessary to perform the tasks assigned to him or her by this Agreement. Any person or entity hired or otherwise retained by the Monitor to assist in furthering any provisions of this Agreement shall be subject to the provisions of paragraphs 94, 96, and 97, governing testifying, conflicting employment and confidentiality. The Monitor shall notify the Territory and the DOJ in writing if the Monitor wishes to select such additional persons or entities. The notice shall identify and describe the qualifications of the person or entity to be hired or employed and the monitoring task to be performed. If the Territory, through its Department of Justice, and the DOJ agree to the Monitor's proposal, the Monitor shall be authorized to hire or employ such additional persons or entities. The Territory or the DOJ have ten days to disagree with the proposal. If the Territory and the DOJ are unable to reach agreement within ten days of receiving notice of the disagreement, the Court shall resolve the dispute. The Monitor and any person he or she retains to assist in furthering any provisions of this Agreement must successfully pass a background check in order to be eligible to carry out his or her role under this Agreement.
No report required
84. The Territory shall bear all reasonable fees and costs of the Monitor. In selecting the Monitor, DOJ and the Territory recognize the importance of ensuring that the fees and costs borne by the Territory are reasonable, and accordingly fees and costs shall be one factor considered in selecting the Monitor. In the event that any dispute arises regarding the reasonableness or payment of the Monitor’s fees and costs, the Territory, DOJ and the Monitor

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 132 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xli
shall attempt to resolve such dispute cooperatively prior to seeking the assistance of the Court to resolve such dispute.
No report required
85. The Monitor shall only have the duties, responsibilities and authority conferred by this Agreement. The Monitor shall not, and is not intended to, replace or take over the role and duties of the Governor of the Territory or the Police Commissioner. In order to monitor and report on the VIPD’s implementation of each substantive provision of this Agreement, the Monitor shall conduct the reviews specified in paragraph 86, infra, and such additional reviews regarding the implementation of this Agreement as the Monitor deems appropriate. At the request of the DOJ or the Territory, based on the Monitor’s reviews, the Monitor may make recommendations to the parties regarding measures necessary to ensure full and timely implementation of this Agreement. 86. In order to monitor and report on the VIPD’s implementation of this Agreement, the Monitor shall regularly conduct compliance reviews to ensure that the VIPD has implemented and continues to implement all measures required by this Agreement. The Monitor shall provide reasonable notice to VIPD prior to conducting any on-site compliance reviews.
No report required
87. Subject to the limitations set forth in this paragraph and applicable collective bargaining agreements, the VIPD will reopen for further investigation any use of force or citizen complaint investigations the Monitor determines to be incomplete. The Monitor will provide written instructions for completing any investigation determined to be incomplete. The Monitor will provide these recommendations so that the directive given by the Police Commissioner to implement the Monitor’s instructions is given within a reasonable period following the investigation’s conclusion. The Monitor may not exercise this option concerning any investigation the disposition of which has been officially communicated to the officer who is the subject of the investigation.
No report required
Paragraph 88 – The parties agree that the VIPD will hire and retain, or reassign a current VIPD employee for the duration of this Agreement, to serve as a full-time VIPD Compliance Coordinator. The Compliance Coordinator will serve as a liaison between the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office, the VIPD, the Monitor and DOJ, and will assist with the VIPD’s compliance with this Agreement. At a minimum, the Compliance Coordinator will: coordinate the VIPD’s compliance and implementation activities; facilitate the provision of data, documents and other access to VIPD employees and material to the Monitor and DOJ as needed; ensure that all documents and records are

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 133 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xlii
maintained as provided in this Agreement; and assist in assigning compliance tasks to VIPD personnel, as directed by the Police Commissioner or his designee. The VIPD Compliance Coordinator will take primary responsibility for collecting the information the Monitor requires to carry out the terms of this Agreement.
Currently executed
Paragraph 89 – 95 – 89. In monitoring the implementation of this Agreement, the Monitor shall maintain regular contact with the Police Commissioner and Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office, as well as the DOJ.
90. The Monitor shall have reasonable access to all VIPD employees and facilities that the Monitor reasonably deems necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by this Agreement. The Monitor shall cooperate with the VIPD to access people and facilities in a reasonable manner that, consistent with the Monitor’s responsibilities, minimizes interference with daily operations.
91. The Monitor shall have reasonable access to all Territory and VIPD documents for monitoring purposes only that the Monitor reasonably deems necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by this Agreement, except any documents protected by the attorney-client privilege. Should the Territory or the VIPD decline to provide the Monitor with access to a document based on attorney-client privilege, the Territory shall provide the Monitor and DOJ with a log describing the document.
92. For the purpose of implementing this Agreement, the DOJ and its consultative experts and agents shall have reasonable access to all VIPD employees, facilities, and VIPD documents, to the extent permitted by law. The DOJ and its consultative experts and agents shall cooperate with the Territory and the VIPD to access involved personnel, VIPD facilities, and documents in a reasonable manner that minimizes interference with daily operations. Should the Territory and the VIPD decline to provide the DOJ with access to a document based on attorney-client privilege, the Territory shall provide the DOJ with a log describing the document.
93. The Monitor and DOJ shall provide the Territory, the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office, or the VIPD with reasonable notice of a request for copies of documents. Upon such request, the Territory and the VIPD shall

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 134 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xliii
provide the Monitor and DOJ with copies (electronic, where readily available) of any documents that the Monitor and DOJ are entitled to access under this Agreement.
94. All non-public information provided to the Monitor or DOJ, whether by the Territory or the VIPD, shall be maintained in a confidential manner. Other than as expressly provided in this Agreement, this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege or right the Territory or the VIPD may assert, including those recognized at common law or created by statute, rule or regulation, against any other person or entity with respect to the disclosure of any document.
95. For the purpose of implementing this Agreement, the Monitor shall have reasonable access to all documents in criminal investigation files that have been closed by the VIPD. The Monitor shall also have reasonable access to all arrest reports, warrants, and warrant applications whether or not contained in open criminal investigation files; where practicable arrest reports, warrants and warrant applications shall be obtained from sources other than open criminal investigation files
C. Independent Monitor Reports
Paragraph 96 – 97 – 96. The Monitor shall issue quarterly written, public reports detailing the Territory of the Virgin Islands’ compliance with and implementation of each substantive provision of this Agreement. These reports shall be written with due regard for the privacy interests of individual officers and the interest of the Territory and the VIPD in protecting against disclosure of non-public information. At least 16 business days before filing a report, the Monitor shall provide a copy of the draft to the parties for input as to whether any factual errors were made or whether any sensitive data or non-public information is disclosed. The Monitor shall consider the parties’ responses and make appropriate changes, if any, before issuing the report. The Monitor may testify in this case regarding any matter relating to the implementation, enforcement or dissolution of this Agreement. 97. Except as required or authorized by the terms of this Agreement or the parties acting together: neither the Monitor, nor any member of their staff, shall make any public statements or issue findings with regard to any act or omission of the Territory, or its agents, representatives, or employees; or disclose non-public information provided to the Monitor pursuant to the Agreement. Any press statement made by the Monitor or any member of the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 135 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xliv
Monitor’s staff regarding their employment must first be approved by DOJ, the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office, and VIPD. Neither the Monitor nor any member of its staff shall testify in any other litigation or proceeding with regard to any act or omission of the Territory, the VIPD, or any of their agents, representatives, or employees related to this Agreement or regarding any matter or subject that the Monitor or their staff may have received knowledge of as a result of his or her performance under this Agreement. Unless such conflict is waived by the parties, the Monitor shall not accept employment or provide consulting services that would present a conflict of interest with the Monitor’s
responsibilities under this Agreement, including being retained (on a paid or unpaid basis) by any current or future litigant or claimant, or such litigant’s or claimant’s attorney, in connection with a claim or suit against the Territory or its departments, officers, agents or employees. The Monitor is not a state or local agency, or an agent thereof, and accordingly the records maintained by the Monitor shall not be deemed public records subject to public inspection. Neither the Monitor nor any person or entity hired or otherwise retained by the Monitor to assist in furthering any provision of this Agreement shall be liable for any claim, lawsuit, or demand arising out of the Monitor’s performance pursuant to this Agreement. This paragraph does not apply to any proceeding before a court related to performance of contracts or subcontracts for monitoring this Agreement.
*
D. Virgin Islands Police Department Reports and Records
Paragraph 98 – Within 90 days following entry of this Agreement and no later than every three months thereafter until this Agreement is terminated, the VIPD shall file with the Monitor and Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office, with a copy to the DOJ, a status report delineating the steps taken by the VIPD during the reporting period to comply with each provision of this Agreement. The VIPD shall also file such a report documenting the steps taken to comply with each provision of this Agreement during the term of this Agreement 120 days before the end of the Agreement’s term.
*This report is filed this 7th day of January 2014, in compliance with the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 136 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | xlv

Appendix B Case Tracking List1

Case Number AIX2010-0091 FAX2010-0014 UOFX2011-0050 CCX2012-0073 UOFX2012-0005 UOFX2012-0066 UOFX2012-0065 AIX2013-0001 CCX2013-0003 CCX2013-0007 CCX2013-0016 UOFX2013-0004 UOFX2013-0005

District Summary of Allegations Use of force involving a firearm during a
St. Croix vehicle pursuit. Use of force in responding to a burglary.
St. Croix Suspect died.
St. Croix Incomplete case. Citizen complaint about Officer’s alleged use
St. Croix of force. Use of force involving a firearm while Officer
St. Croix executed a warrant. Suspect died. Use of force involving a firearm in responding
St. Croix to a burglary. Suspect was wounded. Use of force involving a firearm in responding
St. Croix to a burglary.
St. Croix Incomplete case. St. Croix Incomplete case.
Citizen complaint about Officer’s threatened St. Croix
use of force. Citizen complaint about Officer’s use of force St. Croix during an arrest. Use of force in responding to a burglary. St. Croix Suspect was bitten by police dog. Use of force involving a TASER in arresting St. Croix an armed suspect.

1

Cases that are identified as “incomplete” are missing important information that

is required to complete the investigation.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 137 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | xlvi

Case Number

District Summary of Allegations

UOFX2013-0007 St. Croix Incomplete case.

UOFX2013-0008 St. Croix Use of force in making an arrest.

UOFX2013-0018 St. Croix Use of force during a vehicle pursuit.

UOFX2013-0024 St. Croix Incomplete case.

AIT2010-0019

Officers arrested on 33 counts of federal St. Thomas
indictment.

AIT2011-0031 St. Thomas Officer allegedly committed assault.

AIT2011-0034 St. Thomas Officer allegedly made a false statement.

AIT2011-0047

Sergeant allegedly made fraudulent claims to St. Thomas
the government.

AIT2011-0050 St. Thomas Use of force involving a firearm.

AIT2011-0054

Use of force involving a firearm in responding St. Thomas
to a robbery. Suspect was killed.

AIT2011-0065

Officers arrested for allegedly committing St. Thomas
crimes.

AIT2011-0071 St. Thomas Officer allegedly failed to fill out RRR.

AIT2011-0074

Officer allegedly served alcohol in the St. Thomas
presence of minors.

AIT2011-0122 St. Thomas Alleged discrepancy about overtime.

AIT2012-0015

Officers allegedly assaulted and false St. Thomas
imprisoned each other.

AIT2012-0029

Officer testified as a character witness for the St. Thomas
defense without first notifying the VIPD.

AIT2012-0061 St. Thomas Use of force on a disturbed individual.

AIT2013-0012 St. Thomas Verbal and sexual harassment between

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 138 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | xlvii

Case Number
AIT2013-0014 CCT2009-0003 CCT2010-0015 CCT2011-0206 CCT2012-0090 CCT2013-0009 CCT2013-0010 CCT2013-0011 CCT2013-0020 CCT2013-0023 CCT2013-0024 CCT2013-0042
CT-0001-09 CT-0012-09 CT-0024-11 CCT2013-0035

District Summary of Allegations Officer and Supervisor. Alleged failure to file Form 1A on a timely
St. Thomas basis and to notify VIPD personnel of crime.
St. Thomas Alleged criminal conduct by Officer. Citizen complaint about Officer’s alleged use
St. Thomas of force.
St. Thomas Alleged criminal conduct by Officer. St. Thomas Citizen complaint about alleged use of force.
Citizen complaint about alleged St. Thomas
interrogation. Citizen complaint about Officer’s alleged St. Thomas inaction. Citizen complaint about alleged St. Thomas interrogation. St. Thomas Citizen complaint about alleged detention. Citizen complaint about Officer’s alleged St. Thomas inaction. Citizen complaint about alleged harassment St. Thomas and threats by Officer. Citizen complaint about alleged brandishing St. Thomas of a firearm by an Officer. St. Thomas Use of force involving a firearm. St. Thomas Officer arrested for alleged crimes. St. Thomas Officer investigated for alleged crimes. Citizen complaint about alleged warrantless St. Thomas search of home.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 139 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | xlviii

Case Number

District Summary of Allegations

Citizen complaint about alleged Officer CCT2013-0044 St. Thomas
misconduct

FAT2009-0001 St. Thomas Use of force involving a firearm.

FAT2010-0001 St. Thomas Use of force involving a firearm.

FAT2011-0014 St. Thomas Use of force involving a firearm.

FAT2011-0016 St. Thomas Use of force involving a firearm.

FAT2011-0018 St. Thomas Use of force involving a firearm.

FAT2011-0019

Use of force involving a firearm. Suspect was St. Thomas
wounded.

FAT2011-0020

Use of force in responding to a robbery. St. Thomas
Suspect was wounded.

FAT2011-0021 St. Thomas Use of force involving a firearm.

FAT2012-0002 St. Thomas Use of force involving a firearm.

FAT2013-0001 St. Thomas Use of force involving a firearm.

UOFT2011-0084 St. Thomas Citizen complaint about alleged use of force.

Use of force involving firearms while UOFT2011-0140 St. Thomas
executing an arrest warrant. Suspect died.

Use of force involving firearms. Suspect and UOFT2012-0031 St. Thomas
one Officer died.

9201845.3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 140 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | xlix
Appendix C Summary of Consent Decree Requirements
Below is a summary of the requirements imposed by each substantive section of the Consent Decree. Because these summaries of the substantive requirements significantly lengthen our reports, we include them in this Appendix to provide the reader with context concerning the VIPD’s progress in implementing the broad range of reforms required under each section of the Consent Decree.
I. Use of Force Policies (CD ¶ 31)
A. Requirements
Under paragraph 31 of the Consent Decree, the VIPD is required to review and revise its use of force policies as necessary to:
 Define terms clearly, including establishing a definition of force that is consistent with the definition of force under the Consent Decree;2
 Incorporate a use of force model that teaches officers to use, as appropriate, strategies such as disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, or calling in specialized units to assist with a situation;
 Advise VIPD officers that, whenever possible, individuals should be allowed to submit voluntarily to arrest before force is used;
 Reinforce that the use of excessive force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and potential civil liability;
 Ensure that sufficient less lethal force alternatives are available to all VIPD officers; and
 Explicitly prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized.3
2
Under the Consent Decree, “[t]he term ‘force’ means any physical coercion used to effect, influence or persuade an individual to comply with an order from an officer. The term shall not include ordinary, unresisted handcuffing. The term shall include the use of chemical irritant and the deployment of a canine and/or pointing a firearm at or in the direction of a human being.” CD ¶ 21.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 141 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | l
This provision requires that the VIPD implement its revised use of force policies immediately after the DOJ has reviewed and approved finalized versions of the policies.
II. Evaluation, Documentation, and Review of Uses of Force (CD ¶¶ 32-41)
A. General Use of Force Events (CD ¶¶ 32-38)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires that the VIPD document in writing all uses of force and develop a use of force reporting form on which officers are required to record each and every type of force used in an incident. The use of force reports must include: (1) a narrative description, prepared by a supervisor, of the events preceding the use of force; (2) a narrative description, prepared by the involved officer, of the event relating to the use of force incident; and, (3) audiotaped statements, as appropriate, from those officers.4
The Consent Decree requires officers to notify their supervisors following any use of force or allegation of excessive force. The supervisor must respond to the scene, examine the person who was subjected to the use of force for injury, interview him or her to determine the extent of any injuries, and ensure that the person receives medical attention, if necessary.
A supervisor must conduct a review and evaluation of each use of force by a VIPD officer. The Consent Decree contains the following requirements relating to these evaluations of uses of force:
 The supervisor must prepare a detailed narrative description of the incident that includes all of the facts and circumstances relevant to determining whether or not the involved officers’ conduct was justified.
3
The Consent Decree defines “deadly force” as “any use of force likely to cause death or serious physical injury, including, but not limited to, the discharge of a firearm.” CD ¶ 20.
4
The Consent Decree defines “supervisor” as a “sworn VIPD employee at the rank of corporal or above (or anyone acting in those capacities) and non-sworn personnel with oversight responsibility for other officers.” CD ¶ 27.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 142 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | li
 The supervisor must evaluate the grounds for the use of force and determine whether the involved officers’ actions were consistent with VIPD policy.
 To filter out potential bias, reviews of use of force incidents may not be conducted by any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized action that led to a use of force or allegation of excessive force.
 Supervisors are required to interview all witnesses of a use of force, as well as all witnesses of any incident in which an injury results from a use of force. Supervisors must ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident, subject to any limitations imposed by any applicable provision of collective bargaining agreements or law.
 Supervisors are not permitted to ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that might, for example, suggest legal justifications for the officers’ conduct.
 Supervisors must consider all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence, as appropriate. Supervisors are required to make reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between statements provided by witnesses and make determinations with respect to the credibility of witnesses when feasible. The VIPD is required to train all of its supervisors on methods and factors for evaluating the credibility of a witness.
 Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that use of force reports identify every officer who was involved in a use of force incident or was on the scene when the incident occurred. Supervisors must ensure that use of force reports reflect whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided to an injured person, and, if not, whether the person refused medical treatment. Supervisors also must ensure that use of force reports include contemporaneous photographs or video of all injuries resulting from the underlying incident. These images must be taken both before and after any treatment of the injuries, including the cleansing of wounds.
 Supervisors are required to evaluate the performance of all officers under their command who use force or were involved in

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 143 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | lii
an incident that resulted in a subject being injured due to a use of force by an officer.
 Finally, the Consent Decree requires a Deputy Chief to review and evaluate every use of force performance review prepared by a VIPD supervisor. The Deputy Chief’s review must include the identification of any deficiencies in the supervisors’ reviews and must require supervisors to correct any such deficiencies. The Consent Decree requires the Department to hold supervisors accountable for the quality of their use of force reviews, including subjecting a supervisor to appropriate corrective or disciplinary action in cases where the supervisor failed to conduct a timely and thorough review, or failed to recommend or implement appropriate corrective action with respect to a subject officer.
The VIPD also must investigate all critical firearm discharges.5 These reviews must account for all shots fired and the locations of all officers who discharged their weapons. In connection with the investigation of all critical firearm discharges, the VIPD is required to conduct, as appropriate, ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue and bullet trajectory tests.
B. Specific Force Policies (CD ¶¶ 39-41)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop a Use of Firearms Policy that is consistent with applicable law and current professional standards. This policy must:
 Prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition and inform officers that any such use may subject them to disciplinary action;
 Establish a single, uniform system for reporting all firearm discharges;
 Prohibit officers from obtaining service ammunition from any source other than official VIPD channels;
5
The Consent Decree defines the term “critical firearm discharge” as “each discharge of a firearm by a VIPD officer with the exception of range and training discharges and discharges at animals.” CD ¶ 22.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 144 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | liii
 Specify the number of rounds VIPD officers are authorized to carry; and,
 Require that all discharges of firearms by officers, including unintentional discharges, whether on duty or off-duty at the time of the discharge, are reported and investigated.
The VIPD also must develop a revised policy regarding officers’ offduty conduct that:
 Provides that, absent exigent circumstances, off-duty officers must notify the VIPD or the relevant local law enforcement agency before taking police action; and
 Requires that an officer who responds to an incident while offduty must submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests if it appears that the officer had consumed alcohol or was otherwise impaired at the time of the incident.
Finally, the VIPD is required to implement a policy that provides for an intermediate force device that falls between the use of chemical spray and the use of a firearm on the use of force continuum. This intermediate force device must be one that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The VIPD must incorporate the use of this intermediate force device into its use of force continuum and train officers in the device’s use on an annual basis.
III. Citizen Complaint Process (CD ¶¶ 42-58)
A. Public Information (CD ¶¶ 42-43) & Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints (CD ¶¶ 44-45)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop and implement a program to inform members of the public that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any VIPD officer. The Consent Decree contains the following requirements with respect to this public information program:
 The VIPD must develop and distribute complaint forms, fact sheets, informational posters, and public service announcements that describe its citizen complaint process.
 The VIPD must make complaint forms and informational materials available at government facilities, including VIPD

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 145 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | liv
stations, substations, mobile substations, and libraries. These forms and materials also must be available on the Internet and, upon request, with community groups and at community centers.
 Each VIPD station, substation, and mobile substation must permanently post a placard that describes the complaint process and includes relevant contact information, including telephone numbers. These placards must be displayed in English, Spanish, and, where necessary in light of the local community, in French or French Patois.
 VIPD officers are required to carry English, Spanish, French, and French Patois6 versions of complaint forms and informational brochures in their vehicles at all times while on duty.
 If a citizen objects to an officer’s conduct, the officer is required to inform the citizen of his or her right to make a complaint.
 Officers are prohibited from discouraging any person from making a complaint concerning an officer’s conduct.
The Consent Decree imposes the following requirements relating to the availability of means by which members of the public may lodge complaints against VIPD officers and the tracking of such complaints:
 The VIPD must be able to receive complaints filed in writing or orally, in person or by mail, and by telephone (or TDD), facsimile, or electronic mail.
 The duty officer at the front desk of each District station shall be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints. At the intake stage, an officer taking a complaint is permitted to describe facts that relate to a complainant’s demeanor and physical conditions but may not express
6
The OIM notes that paragraph 43 of the Consent Decree does not expressly require VIPD officers to carry French language complaint forms and informational brochures in addition to French Patois. However, in light of the third sentence in paragraph 43 (which requires French language placards describing the complaint process), the OIM believes that this was an inadvertent omission. For future printings of brochures and other similar promotional information, the OIM suggests that the VIPD create versions in English, Spanish, French, and French Patois to satisfy the intent of the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 146 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | lv
opinions regarding the complainant’s mental competency or veracity.
 Upon receipt, the VIPD is required to assign each complaint a unique identifier number, which must be provided to the complainant.
 The VIPD must track each complaint according to the type of misconduct alleged in the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, and improper search).
 Copies of all allegations of misconduct against a VIPD officer that are filed with the Zone Commands shall be referred to the IAB within five business days.
B. Investigation of Complaints (CD ¶¶ 46-58)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree establishes numerous specific requirements relating to the investigation of complaints against VIPD officers, including the following:
 Complaints must be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. The VIPD is required to develop and implement appropriate training regarding application of the preponderance of the evidence standard in internal investigations of allegations of officer misconduct.
 The VIPD must explicitly prohibit an officer from being involved in the investigation of a complaint or incident if the officer used force during the underlying incident, was involved in conduct that led to the injury of a person during the incident, or authorized the conduct that led to the reported incident.
 The VIPD must investigate every citizen complaint and the resolution of each complaint shall be documented in writing.
 The VIPD must develop a clear policy and procedure regarding the intake of complaints, including anonymous and confidential complaints, against VIPD officers.
 The Department must implement a centralized system for numbering and tracking all complaints.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 147 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | lvi
 IAB is responsible for determining whether each individual investigation of a complaint will be assigned to a Zone, retained by IAB, or referred for possible criminal investigation.
 If IAB refers a complaint to one of the Zones for investigation, the Zone must immediately forward to IAB copies of all documents, findings, and recommendations so that IAB is able to track and monitor the investigation.
 The Police Commissioner must be notified of all complaints alleging excessive force or violation of a person’s Constitutional rights within twenty-four hours of the VIPD’s receipt of the complaint.
The VIPD also is required to develop a single policy governing the investigation of misconduct complaints, regardless of whether the investigation of such complaints is conducted by IAB or a Zone command. This policy must:
 Provide guidance concerning factors for investigators to consider in evaluating the credibility of the complainant and other witnesses, examining and interrogating accused officers and other witnesses, identifying potential misconduct that is not specifically referred to in the complaint, and applying the preponderance of the evidence standard. The VIPD also must train all officers who perform internal investigations on these issues.
 Require that VIPD investigators ensure that all officers present at the scene of the underlying incident provide a statement and that all interviews be recorded, as appropriate, on audio or video.
 Require that investigation findings include conclusions regarding whether:
 The police action was in compliance with policy, training, and legal standards, regardless of whether the complainant suffered harm;
 The incident involved misconduct by any officer;
 The use of different tactics could have, or should have, been employed;

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 148 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | lvii
 The underlying incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling, or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and
 The incident suggests that the VIPD should revise its policy, training, or tactics.
 Establish that each allegation investigated must be resolved by a finding of either “unfounded,” “sustained,” “not sustained,” or “exonerated.”7
 Provide guidance to all investigators regarding procedures for handling allegations of potential criminal misconduct, including the referral of such allegations to the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office or other appropriate agency for possible criminal prosecution. The policy must establish the entity or individual responsible for making the determination as to whether a matter should be investigated criminally. The policy also must require the completion of the VIPD’s administrative investigations of potentially criminal misconduct, regardless of the initiation or outcome of any criminal proceedings.
 Require that all relevant police activity, including each use of force, be investigated, even if the activity or force was not specifically complained about.
 Require that investigations evaluate any searches or seizures that occurred during the underlying incident.
 Prohibit investigators from closing an investigation solely because a complaint is withdrawn, the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of an injury, or the complainant will not provide additional statements or written statements. The policy shall require that, under such circumstances, investigators must continue the investigation as necessary to determine whether the allegations
7
Under the Consent Decree, a finding of “unfounded” means that there are insufficient facts establishing that the alleged incident actually occurred. A finding of “sustained” means that there is sufficient evidence to determine that the alleged incident occurred and that the officer’s actions were improper. A finding of “not sustained” means that there is insufficient evidence that the alleged misconduct occurred. Finally, a finding of “exonerated” means that the alleged conduct occurred but that the conduct did not violate VIPD policies, procedures, or training. Each of these findings must be based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. CD ¶ 57.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 149 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | lviii
can be resolved based on available information, evidence, and investigative techniques.
 Prohibit investigators from considering the fact that a complainant pleaded guilty to, or was found guilty of, an offense as evidence of whether or not an officer used a type of force or as a justification for the investigator to close the investigation.
The VIPD must keep complainants periodically informed of the status of the investigation of their complaints. Upon the completion of each investigation, the VIPD must notify the complainant of the outcome of the investigation, including an appropriate statement regarding whether any disciplinary action or non-disciplinary corrective action was taken against any officer.
Finally, the Consent Decree requires that Unit Commanders evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command in order to identify potential problems or training needs. Unit Commanders must report any such issues to the appropriate VIPD entity in the form of a recommendation that appropriate action in response to the identified issues be taken.
IV. Management and Supervision (CD ¶¶ 59-72)
A. Risk Management System (CD ¶¶ 59-68)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop and implement a Risk Management System (“RMS”) that includes a computerized relational database or a paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for the supervision and management of VIPD personnel. The VIPD is required to use this data regularly to promote respect for civil rights and the employment of best police practices, manage risks, and potential liability for the Department, and evaluate the performance of VIPD officers and personnel across all ranks, units, and shifts.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 150 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | lix
The Consent Decree specifically requires the VIPD to collect and record the following information in its new RMS:
 All uses of force;  Canine bite ratios;8  The number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers;  All injuries to prisoners;  All instances in which a VIPD officer used force and the subject
was charged with resisting arrest, assault on a police officer, disorderly conduct, or obstruction of official or police business;  All critical firearm discharges, whether they took place on duty or off-duty;  All complaints against officers and the dispositions of those complaints;  All criminal proceedings, civil or administrative claims, and civil lawsuits resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel;  All vehicle pursuits;  All incidents involving the pointing of a firearm;  All disciplinary action taken against VIPD officers; and  For incidents included in the database, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (e.g., the officer’s name, badge number, shift, and supervisor) and member of the public (including race and ethnicity or national origin, if such information is available). The VIPD has the option either to purchase the RMS “off the shelf” and customize the system to VIPD’s requirements or to develop and
8
A canine bite ratio relates to apprehensions in which a canine unit participated. It is the ratio of incidents that involved the canine biting or otherwise coming into physical contact with the suspect compared to the overall number of such apprehensions in which a canine unit participated.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 151 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | lx
implement the RMS pursuant to a contracting schedule set forth in the Consent Decree.9
Within 120 days of the effective date of the Consent Decree, the VIPD is required to prepare a protocol for the use of the RMS, which must be submitted to DOJ for review and approval. Any proposed modifications to the RMS protocol also must be submitted to DOJ for review and approval prior to the implementation of the proposed modifications. The RMS protocol must contain:
 Provisions regarding data storage, data retrieval, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation, and audit;
 Requirements that the automated system be able to analyze data according to the following criteria:
 The number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit;
 The average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and
 The identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit.
 Requirements relating to the generation of reports on a monthly basis that describe data contained in the RMS and identify patterns of conduct by individual officers and units;
 Requirements that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors initiate appropriate interventions with individual officers, supervisors, and units based on activity and pattern assessments derived from the information contained in the RMS and that the VIPD has the following intervention options available:
 Discussions among Deputy Chiefs, managers, supervisors, and officers;
 Counseling;
 Training; and,
9
See CD ¶ 66.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 152 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | lxi
 Documented action plans and strategies designed to modify officer conduct and activity.
 A requirement that all interventions be documented in writing and entered into the RMS;
 A provision that actions taken as a result of information derived from the RMS be based on all relevant and appropriate information—including the nature of the officer’s assignment, crime trends, and crime problems—and not solely on the number or percentage of incidents in any category of information recorded in the RMS;
 A requirement that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors promptly review the RMS records of all officers who transfer into their sections or units;
 A requirement that VIPD Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors be evaluated based on their ability to use RMS to enhance the effectiveness of their units and to reduce risks associated with officer conduct;
 Provisions that IAB shall manage and administer the RMS and that IAB shall conduct quarterly audits of RMS to ensure compliance with the RMS protocol; and
 A requirement that appropriate managers conduct regular reviews, at least quarterly, of relevant RMS information to evaluate officer performance across the Virgin Islands. The purpose of such reviews is to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all VIPD units in order to identify significant patterns or series of incidents.
Within 120 days of the implementation of the RMS (or later with the agreement of DOJ), the VIPD must prepare, for the DOJ’s review and approval, a Data Input Plan for including appropriate fields and values for new and historical data entered into the RMS.
 The Data Input Plan must identify the data to be included in the RMS and the means for inputting the data, the specific fields of information to be included in the RMS, the historical time periods for which information will be inputted into the system, deadlines for inputting data, and the persons responsible for the input of data.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 153 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | lxii
 The Data Input Plan must provide for the input of historical data that is up to date and complete into the RMS.
 Once the RMS is operational, the VIPD is required to enter information into the RMS in a timely, accurate, and complete manner and to maintain the RMS data in a secure and confidential manner.
The VIPD must maintain all personally identifiable information about individual officers that is contained in RMS for at least five years. The VIPD shall maintain information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis in the RMS indefinitely.
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD, even prior to the implementation of the RMS, to use existing databases and resources to the fullest extent possible to identify patterns of conduct by individual VIPD officers or groups of officers.
Following the initial implementation of the RMS, the VIPD may propose to add, subtract, or modify data tables and fields in the system, modify the types of documents entered into the RMS, or modify the standardized reports generated by the RMS. The VIPD is required to submit all such proposals to the DOJ for review and approval prior to implementing the proposed changes.
B. Oversight (CD ¶ 69)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to develop a protocol for conducting audits within the RMS, which must be followed by the VIPD personnel responsible for conducting audits. The protocol must establish a regular and fixed audit schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency and cover all VIPD Zones.
C. Discipline (CD ¶¶ 70-72)
1. Requirements
The VIPD is required to use a disciplinary matrix to take into account a subject officer’s violations of various rules, as opposed to considering only repeated violations of the same rule. The VIPD must revise its disciplinary matrix to increase penalties for uses of excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, and dishonesty. The revised disciplinary matrix, which must be reviewed and approved by DOJ, is required to provide the VIPD with the discretion to impose any

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 154 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | lxiii
appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes an officer’s misconduct reflects a lack of fitness for duty.
 Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD is not permitted to take mere non-disciplinary corrective action against an officer in cases in which the revised disciplinary matrix indicates that the imposition of discipline is appropriate.
 In cases in which disciplinary action is imposed on an officer, the VIPD is required to also consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action is necessary.
The VIPD’s policy must identify clear time periods by which each step—from the receipt of a complaint through the imposition of discipline, if any—of the complaint adjudication process should be completed. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions of these deadlines must not be granted without the Police Commissioner’s written approval and notice to the complainant. The policy must outline appropriate tolling provisions in the limited circumstances when an extension of these deadlines is necessary.
V. Training (CD ¶¶ 73-81)
A. Management Oversight (CD ¶¶ 73-77)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to provide training to its officers that is consistent with VIPD policy, the law, and proper police practices. Accordingly, the Consent Decree requires that:
 The VIPD review all use of force policies and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy;
 After completing its initial review of its force-related policies and training programs, the VIPD must conduct regular reviews of its use of force training program at least semi-annually.
 The VIPD must ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by training instructors; and,
 The VIPD must make best efforts to train each work shift as a team in its use of force training.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 155 of 157
Office of the Independent Monitor | lxiv
Under the Consent Decree, the VIPD’s Director of Training, either directly or through his or her designees, is responsible for:
 Ensuring the quality of all use of force training;
 Developing and implementing use of force training curricula;
 Selecting and training VIPD officer instructors;
 Developing, implementing, approving, and overseeing all inservice training;
 In conjunction with the District Chiefs, developing, implementing, approving, and overseeing a protocol for patrol division roll calls that is designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in law, policies, and procedures;
 Establishing procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and
 Conducting regular training needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
The VIPD must keep complete and accurate records of force-related lesson plans and other training materials. These lesson plans must be maintained in a central, commonly accessible file and must be clearly dated.
The VIPD also must maintain training records for every VIPD officer. These records must reliably reflect the training that each officer has received. These records must include, at a minimum, the course description, duration, curriculum, and instructor for each training program in which each individual officer participated.
B. Curriculum (CD ¶¶ 78-81)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD’s Director of Training to review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure that the training program complies with applicable laws and VIPD policy. Moreover, the Director of Training must consult with the Virgin Island Attorney General’s Office concerning any additions, changes, or modifications regarding use of force training or policies to ensure compliance with applicable laws.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 156 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | lxv
The VIPD must provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on the use of force. This use of force training must address the following topics:
 The VIPD’s use of force model;
 Proper use of force decision-making;
 The VIPD’s use of force reporting requirements;
 The Fourth Amendment and other Constitutional requirements;
 Examples of scenarios faced by VIPD officers that illustrate proper use of force decision-making;
 De-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without using force;
 Instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a suspect, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying an arrest may be appropriate responses to a situation even when the use of force would be legally justified;
 Threat assessment; and
 Appropriate training regarding conflict management.
The VIPD also is required to provide training to all officers regarding the citizen complaint process. The VIPD must develop a protocol, to be used by all VIPD officers, that sets forth an appropriate process for handling and responding to complaints by members of the public. The VIPD must train officers regarding this protocol.
 The VIPD also is required to train all supervisors with respect to appropriate burdens of proof in conducting misconduct investigations. This training also must include a discussion of the factors investigators should consider in evaluating complainant or witness credibility.
Finally, the VIPD must provide training to all supervisors regarding leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices.
 This training must be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of the officer’s assumption of

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 88-1 Filed: 02/20/14 Page 157 of 157 Office of the Independent Monitor | lxvi
supervisory responsibilities. This training also must be made a part of the annual in-service training of supervisors.
IV. Monitoring, Reporting, and Implementation (CD ¶¶ 82-102)
1. Requirements
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to appoint a full-time Compliance Coordinator to serve as a liaison among the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office, VIPD, the OIM, and DOJ. The Compliance Coordinator’s responsibilities include:
 Coordinating the VIPD’s compliance and implementation activity relating to the Consent Decree;
 Facilitating the provision of data and documents and access to VIPD employees and materials to the Monitor and DOJ as needed;
 Ensuring the proper maintenance of relevant documents and records relating to the Consent Decree; and
 Assisting the Police Commissioner and his designees in assigning compliance-related tasks to appropriate VIPD personnel.
In addition to fulfilling these functions, the VIPD must file with the Monitor and the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office, with a copy to DOJ, quarterly status reports describing the steps taken during the reporting period to comply with each provision of the Consent Decree.
Finally, the Virgin Islands and the VIPD are required to implement the provisions of the Consent Decree “as soon as reasonably practicable” and, in any event, no later than 150 days after the March 23, 2009 effective date of the Consent Decree.

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 1 of 117

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 2 of 117
Independent Monitoring Team
Independent Monitor Steven M. Witzel Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
Fried Frank Monitoring Team Brian Chen Elizabeth P. Kozlowski Joshua D. Roth
Police Practices Coordinator Chief Charles A. Gruber Elgin (Illinois) Police Department (retired)
Police Practices Experts Superintendent Ann Marie Doherty Boston (Massachusetts) Police Department (retired) Chief Robert L. Stewart Ormond Beach (Florida) Police Department (retired)

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 3 of 117

Executive Summary

This is the First Quarterly Report of 2014 from the Office of the Independent Monitor (the “OIM” or the “Monitor”) for the United States Virgin Islands Police Department (the “VIPD” or the “Department”), covering the quarter ending on March 31, 2014.
The OIM was established in January 2010 to monitor compliance by the United States Virgin Islands (the “Territory”) and the VIPD with the Consent Decree entered by the United States District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands (the “Court”) on March 23, 2009. The Monitor is required by the Consent Decree to “issue quarterly written, public reports detailing the Territory’s compliance with and implementation of each substantive provision” of the Consent Decree.1
The Consent Decree reflects the agreement between the Territory, the VIPD, and the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) (collectively, the “Parties”) to resolve a lawsuit brought by the United States alleging that the Territory and the VIPD violated 42 U.S.C. § 14141 by engaging “in a pattern or practice of excessive force by Officers of the Virgin Islands Police Department and by the failure to adequately train, supervise, investigate, and discipline Officers.”2
The Parties entered into the Consent Decree “to promote police integrity and prevent conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.”3 The 104 paragraph Consent Decree contains a broad range of substantive requirements for reform in areas such as: (1) revising the VIPD’s force-related policies; (2) training Officers to properly use force in accordance with constitutional requirements, VIPD policy, and existing best practices in policing; (3) reporting and investigating use of force events; (4) documenting and investigating complaints alleging Officer misconduct; (5) developing systems for managing and supervising Officers; and (6) disciplining Officers found to have engaged in misconduct.
The Department achieved substantial compliance with three additional paragraphs, ¶¶ 43, 45, and 48, during the First Quarter of 2014. Because the VIPD achieved substantial compliance with ¶¶ 43, 45, and 48 during the First

1

CD ¶ 96. This Quarterly Report, along with the OIM’s prior reports, is available on the internet at

http://www.policemonitor.org/VI/VIindex.html.

2

CD ¶ 6; see also Complaint, United States v. The Territory of the Virgin Islands, No. 3:08-CV-00158-

CVG-GWB (D.V.I. 2008).

3

CD ¶ 3.

1

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 4 of 117
Quarter of 2014, this Report describes the steps that the VIPD has taken to satisfy the corresponding requirements in the Action Plan. We provided similar information about the other Consent Decree provisions that the VIPD has satisfied in prior quarters. The VIPD had previously achieved substantial compliance with Consent Decree ¶¶ 31, 39, 40, 42, 47, 50, 52, 53, 57, 62, 64, 66, and 70 primarily because it has adopted relevant policies or protocols. Because the Consent Decree requires the VIPD to “implement . . . all provisions of this Agreement that involve the continuation of current VIPD policies, procedures, and practices[,]” the OIM evaluates the Department’s consistent application of its policies and protocols under ¶¶ 100 and 101 of the Consent Decree. In addition, the Department’s obligation to provide training for its policies and protocols is addressed in connection with specific training requirements throughout the Consent Decree and ¶ 75.
The VIPD has made significant progress adopting new policies and providing corresponding training, but it has not yet implemented most of those policies. In light of the Department’s limited progress in that respect (which continues to the present), the Parties submitted a joint motion to the Court to extend the Consent Decree’s October 31, 2013 substantial compliance deadline (which had already been extended once before) for another two years.
On November 18, 2013, the Court held a full day hearing to consider the Parties’ joint motion. At the hearing, the Court heard testimony from two of the Police Practices Experts and several VIPD personnel on the status of the VIPD’s progress towards achieving substantial compliance, and whether the deadlines for achieving substantial compliance should be extended.
The Court held a further hearing on the joint motion on February 25, 2014. One day prior to the February 25, 2014 hearing, the Parties filed a revised version of the Action Plan for the Court’s consideration. The revised Action Plan sought to extend the deadlines for several interim requirements that had already expired, and also added several new interim deadlines. The revised Action Plan also specified, in detail, the requirements for each Consent Decree provision. Like its prior version, the revised Action Plan provided the VIPD with a “road map” to achieve substantial compliance.
The Court discussed the revised Action Plan at the February 25, 2014 hearing, but expressed a preference for moving towards setting quarterly goals. To that end, the Court asked the VIPD whether it could achieve substantial compliance with the Consent Decree paragraphs relating to the Citizen Complaint Process (¶¶ 42-58) and Training (¶¶ 73-81) by May 27, 2014 (when the Court expected to hold a follow-up hearing). On March 7, 2014, the VIPD filed a notice with the Court confirming its intent to substantially comply with those paragraphs by May 27, 2014.
2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 5 of 117
On April 30, 2014, the Court issued an order in connection with the Parties’ joint motion, which was filed on October 1, 2013. In that order, the Court expressed frustration with the VIPD’s failure to adhere to a series of prior deadlines, despite receiving assurances from the VIPD’s leadership. The Court then ordered the VIPD to submit “quarterly goals” to the Court each quarter, specifying at least two Consent Decree subject areas (Use of Force, Citizen Complaint Process, etc.) that the VIPD would satisfy during the quarter. Following the end of each quarter, the Parties are required to submit a report to the Court regarding the VIPD’s compliance with the prior quarter’s “quarterly goals.” The Court will then hold an evidentiary hearing to assess the VIPD’s progress. In addition, the Court struck the Action Plan (which had previously been incorporated into the Consent Decree) from the Consent Decree.
Although the Court struck the Action Plan from the Consent Decree, it continues to provide the VIPD with a detailed “road map” for achieving substantial compliance. The Action Plan can also serve as an objective “measuring stick” in assessing the VIPD’s progress towards substantial compliance. As such, we have modified the format of our Report to track the Action Plan. Under each requirement, we report on whether the VIPD has satisfied the requirement, and if not, why the Department fell short. The assessments contained in this Report are primarily based on the Police Practices Experts’ observations, including three week-long monitoring trips. Like last quarter, we are also attaching the VIPD’s Status Report, dated April 7, 2014, as Appendix A to give the VIPD the opportunity to directly communicate with the Court and the broader community about its Consent Decree compliance efforts.
While the Action Plan prescribes discrete steps that the VIPD must take to achieve substantial compliance, its item-by-item format necessarily means that it fails to directly address some of the larger issues that continue to challenge the Department. Two issues are particularly noteworthy: the VIPD’s lack of coordination among its most senior personnel and its need for greater consistency in the application of the VIPD’s policies and procedures throughout the Department. For example, there is no documented coordination between the Director of Training, Police Chiefs, and Deputy Police Chiefs to ensure uniform Consent Decree-related training across Zones and Districts. Until the VIPD addresses those core issues, it will have difficulty achieving substantial compliance with the remaining paragraphs of the Consent Decree and maintaining compliance thereafter.
In light of the VIPD’s progress (adopting new policies and providing corresponding training) and the next phase of its compliance efforts (implementation), and after extensive consultations with the Territory, the VIPD, and the DOJ, the OIM believes that now is an appropriate time for the monitorship to pass from Fried Frank to the Police Practices Experts, Charles Gruber, Ann Marie Doherty, and Robert Stewart. Chuck, Ann Marie, and Bob
3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 6 of 117

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 7 of 117 Principal Contributors Brian Chen, Esq. Ann Marie Doherty, Esq. Charles A. Gruber Elizabeth P. Kozlowski, Esq. Joshua D. Roth, Esq. Robert L. Stewart
5

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 8 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT CONSENT DECREE COMPLIANCE

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

USE OF FORCE POLICIES

Paragraph 31- The VIPD will review and Yearly review of policies. revise its use of force policies as necessary to: a. define terms clearly; b. define force as that term is defined in this Agreement; c. incorporate a use of force model that teaches disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements or calling in specialized units as appropriate responses to a situation; d. advise that, whenever possible, individuals should be allowed to submit to arrest before force is used; e. reinforce that the use of excessive force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and/or civil liability; f. ensure that sufficient less lethal alternatives are available to all patrol officers; and g. explicitly prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized.

Obtained DOJ approval for all use of force policies that require DOJ approval.
Approved policies are distributed to sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees.

COMPLIANCE STATUS
Substantial Compliance

Once the DOJ has reviewed and approved these policies, the VIPD shall immediately implement any revisions.
EVALUATION, DOCUMENTATION, AND REVIEW OF USE OF FORCE
Paragraph 32 – The VIPD will require all uses of force to be documented in writing.

Yearly review of policies.  Status: Satisfied.

Use of force incidents have been documented in Not in

an RRR and investigated by a supervisor.

Substantial

6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 9 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

The use of force report form will indicate

each and every type of force that was used, By April 30, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all

and require the evaluation of each type of staff are trained on policies.

force. Use of force reports will include a

 See Training.

narrative description of the events preceding

the use of force, written by a supervisor or Ensure that Virgin Islands’ Attorney General’s Office,

by the designated investigative unit. Use of VIPD’s counsel, the Training Working Group, and the

force reports also will include the officer(s)’ Use of Force Working Group review all use of force

narrative description of events and the

policies.

officer(s)’ statement. Except in cases of use of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, the officer’s statement shall be audioor videotaped.

 Status: Not satisfied. The Commissioner signed a Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”) during the Fourth Quarter of 2013. Under the SOP, the VIPD requested feedback on the Use of Force Policy from across the

VIPD, but received comments from only one

squad. The OIM understands that the Use of

Force Policy is currently under review.

Conduct refresher training on policies through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training.
 See Training.

Continue to incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy.
 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. We note that the VIPD is increasingly using scenario-based training, including using its firearms simulator on the St. Croix District. The VIPD, however, needs to expand its use of competency-based training across both Districts.

By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.
 Status: Satisfied.

 Status: Review ongoing. During the Compliance First Quarter of 2014, the Police Practices Experts reviewed a total of 6 closed use of force investigations. In 83% (5 out of 6) of those investigations, use of force incidents were documented in an RRR. Because of the small sample of completed use of force cases that the VIPD provided to the OIM during the First Quarter of 2014, we cannot determine whether the VIPD is in compliance with this requirement. However, we note that the VIPD has improved its force reporting and investigating practices, as the limited sample size illustrates.
RRRs will include each of the requirements identified in ¶ 32 of the Consent Decree.
 Status: Satisfied.
In use of force incidents, there is evidence that corrective action was taken against the sworn personnel whose use of force documentation failed to meet the requirements of the Consent Decree.
 Status: Satisfied.
Uses of force comply with applicable law.  Status: Review ongoing. During the First Quarter of 2014, uses of force complied with applicable law in 100% (6 out of 6) of the closed use of force investigations reviewed by the Police Practices Experts.

7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 10 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies and conduct use of force review on a quarterly basis.
 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. The OIM received the VIPD’s first Audit Report (addressing the Third Quarter of 2013) on January 17, 2014.4 During the First Quarter of 2014, the OIM provided written and oral comments to the VIPD on its Audit Report. With respect to the Use of Force audit, the audit should clarify the universe of cases that are being reviewed and state whether the review includes cases under investigation, cases pending, or completed investigations for the relevant time period. The audit should also be more specific in its recommendations (e.g. assign responsible parties to implement each recommendation and set interim deadlines), and report back on the VIPD’s efforts to address recommendations from prior Audit Reports. Additionally, where the audit states that VIPD personnel were disciplined for violating VIPD policies, the VIPD should describe the discipline imposed and whether it was consistent with the Disciplinary Matrix.

By December 31, 2013 ensure that audits audit the timeliness of completion of use of force investigations.
 Status: Satisfied.

By December 31, 2013, and quarterly thereafter, conduct audits to identify personnel who continually fail to report uses of force or other wise fail to follow the policy.

COMPLIANCE STATUS

4

The OIM received the VIPD’s second Audit Report (addressing the Fourth Quarter of 2013) on April 9, 2014. The Polices Practices Experts will report

on this audit in the next quarter.

8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 11 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT  Status: Satisfied.

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

By September 30, 2014, provide and document discipline and/or remedial training
 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance with this requirement following the Third Quarter of 2014.

Paragraph 33 - Officers shall notify their Yearly review of policies.

The officer using force notified his/her supervisor Not in

supervisors following any use of force or

 Status: Satisfied.

as required by VIPD policy.

Substantial

upon the receipt of an allegation of

 Status: Review ongoing. During the Compliance

excessive force. Except in uses of force

By April 30, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all

First Quarter of 2014, Supervisors were

involving the lowest level of force as

staff are trained on policies.

notified of uses of force in 50% (3 out of

defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, supervisors will respond to the scene,

 See Training.

6) of the closed use of force investigations reviewed by the Police

examine the subject for injury, interview the Conduct refresher training on policies through

subject for complaints of pain, and ensure documented, periodic in-service and roll

that the subject received needed medical call/commanders call training.

attention.

 See Training.

Practices Experts.
Where a supervisor was notified of the use of force by an officer, he/she responded to the scene

in a reasonable amount of time, as required by

By June 30, 2014, VIPD will provide USDOJ with a

VIPD policy.

comprehensive report regarding: (1) the actions it has

 Status: Review ongoing. During the

taken to obtain appropriate number of supervisory

First Quarter of 2014, Supervisors

personnel to carry out the mandates of the Consent

responded to the scene in a reasonable

Decree, and (2) any additional steps necessary to ensure a

amount of time in 50% (3 out of 6) of

sufficient number of supervisors.

the closed use of force investigations

 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance

reviewed by the Police Practices Experts.

with this requirement following the Second Quarter of 2014.

In incidents where the supervisor responded to

the scene, he/she conducted a complete

Continue to incorporate competency-based training on investigation, including examining the subject for

policies into Police Academy.

injury, interviewing the subject for complaints of

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. We note that the VIPD is increasingly using scenario-based training, including using its

pain, and ensuring that the subject received any needed medical attention.
 Status: Review ongoing. During the

9

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 12 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

firearms simulator on the St. Croix District.

First Quarter of 2014, Supervisors

The VIPD, however, needs to expand its use of

responded to the scene and conducted

competency-based training across both

investigations in 67% (4 out of 6) of the

Districts.

closed use of force investigations

reviewed by the Police Practices

By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize

Experts.

Audit Plan.

 Status: Satisfied.

All training must comport with the requirements

of the Consent Decree, and be taught from

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure curricula/lesson plans that: (a) identify training

staff are complying with the policies and conduct use of objectives; (b) incorporate, to the extent possible,

force review on a quarterly basis.

adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises);

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. and (c) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal

The OIM received the VIPD’s first Audit

counsel, as appropriate.

Report on January 17, 2014. During the First

 (a) Status: Satisfied.

Quarter of 2014, the OIM provided written and

 (b) Status: Satisfied, but additional work

oral comments to the VIPD on its Audit Report.

needed. The VIPD should incorporate

With respect to the Use of Force audit, the audit

more practice exercises and scenario-

should clarify the universe of cases that are

based training. Moreover, the VIPD

being reviewed and state whether the review

should also video record training

includes cases under investigation, cases

sessions so that VIPD personnel can

pending, or completed investigations for the

more readily make up training that they

relevant time period. The audit should also be

may have missed. However, the use of

more specific in its recommendations (e.g.

video training should be limited to

assign responsible parties to implement each

veteran Officers.

recommendation and set interim deadlines), and  (c) Status: Satisfied.

report back on the VIPD’s efforts to address

recommendations from prior Audit Reports.

Additionally, where the audit states that VIPD

personnel were disciplined for violating VIPD

policies, the VIPD should describe the

discipline imposed and whether it was

consistent with the Disciplinary Matrix.

By December 31, 2013, and quarterly thereafter, conduct audits to identify personnel who continually fail to report uses of force or other wise fail to follow the

10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 13 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT
policy.  Status: Satisfied.

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

By September 30, 2014, provide and document discipline and/or remedial training
 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance with this requirement following the Third Quarter of 2014.

Paragraph 34 – Supervisors, or designated Yearly review of policies.

In reportable use of force incidents, the

Not in

investigating officers or units, will review,

 Status: Satisfied.

investigating supervisor had no involvement in Substantial

evaluate, and document each use of force,

the incident (i.e., he/she was not involved in the Compliance

and will complete the narrative description Conduct refresher training on policies through

use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead

section of the use of force report. The

documented, periodic in-service and roll

to an injury, and he/she did not authorize or

narrative description will include a precise call/commanders call training.

participate in conduct leading to the use of force

description of the facts and circumstances

 See Training.

incident).

that either justify or fail to justify the

 Status: Review ongoing. During the

officer’s conduct. As part of this review, the By April 30, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all

First Quarter of 2014, investigating

supervisor or designated investigating

staff are trained on policies.

Supervisors were not involved in the

officer/unit will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the

 See Training.

incident in 83% (5 out of 6) of the closed use of force investigations reviewed by

officer’s actions were within VIPD policy. An officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized conduct leading to the use of force or allegation of excessive force, or who was present during the incident, will not be eligible to review or investigate the incident.

By February 1, 2014, VIPD will provide USDOJ with an

the Police Practices Experts.

interim report addressing the above issues.5

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. In reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor

The VIPD had scheduled supervisory exams for completed his/her review and evaluation

April and May, but the Department voided the according to VIPD’s use of force policies and all

April exams because it failed to provide

other requirements of ¶ 31 of the Consent Decree.

candidates with the 60-day study period

In reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor

required by the Collective Bargaining

completes the supervisor’s narrative description

Agreement.

of the RRR in a manner that comports with the

requirements of ¶ 34 of the Consent Decree.

The VIPD has reported that it considers a

 Status: Review ongoing. During the

5

The OIM understands that “the above issues” relates to the requirements in ¶ 33 that the VIPD provide the DOJ with “a comprehensive report regarding:

(1) the actions it has taken to obtain appropriate number of supervisory personnel to carry out the mandates of the Consent Decree, and (2) any additional steps

necessary to ensure a sufficient number of supervisors.”

11

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 14 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

number of factors in determining whether to promote personnel. However, the Police Practices Experts have expressed concern that the VIPD does not automatically disqualify personnel serious disciplinary records from taking promotional examinations. Although the VIPD has represented that it takes an Officer’s disciplinary record into consideration when making promotional decisions, the generally accepted police practice would be to disqualify individuals who have committed serious infractions from being promoted.
Continue to incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy.
 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. We note that the VIPD is increasingly using scenario-based training, including using its firearms simulator on the St. Croix District. The VIPD, however, needs to expand its use of competency-based training across both Districts.
By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.
 Status: Satisfied.

First Quarter of 2014, supervisors documented the investigation in the narrative description of the RRR in 67% (4 out of 6) of the closed use of force investigations reviewed by the Police Practices Experts. A precise description of the facts that either justify or fail to justify the force was included in the RRR in 67% (4 out of 6) of the closed investigations. 75% (3 out of 4) of the closed investigations included an assessment of reasonable suspicion/probable cause for a stop. 67% (2 out of 3) of the investigations included an assessment of reasonable suspicion/probable cause for a search. An assessment of whether the Officer’s conduct was justified was included in 100% (5 out of 5) of the closed investigations. An assessment of whether the force was within policy was included in 100% (6 out of 6) of the closed investigations.

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies and conduct use of force review on a quarterly basis.
 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. The OIM received the VIPD’s first Audit Report on January 17, 2014. During the First Quarter of 2014, the OIM provided written and oral comments to the VIPD on its Audit Report. With respect to the Use of Force audit, the audit should clarify the universe of cases that are

12

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 15 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

being reviewed and state whether the review includes cases under investigation, cases pending, or completed investigations for the relevant time period. The audit should also be more specific in its recommendations (e.g. assign responsible parties to implement each recommendation and set interim deadlines), and report back on the VIPD’s efforts to address recommendations from prior Audit Reports. Additionally, where the audit states that VIPD personnel were disciplined for violating VIPD policies, the VIPD should describe the discipline imposed and whether it was consistent with the Disciplinary Matrix.

By December 31, 2013, and quarterly thereafter, conduct audits to identify personnel who continually fail to report uses of force or other wise fail to follow the policy.
 Status: Satisfied.

By September 30, 2014, provide and document discipline and/or remedial training.
 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance with this requirement following the Third Quarter of 2014.

By June 30, 2014, VIPD will provide USDOJ with a comprehensive report regarding: (1) the actions it has taken to obtain appropriate number of supervisory personnel to carry out the mandates of the Consent Decree, and (2) any additional steps necessary to ensure a sufficient number of supervisors.
 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance with this requirement following the Second

13

COMPLIANCE STATUS

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 16 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

Quarter of 2014.

Paragraph 35 – The parties agree that it is Yearly review of policies.

In interviews conducted during use of force

improper interview procedure during use of

 Status: Satisfied.

reviews, leading questions were avoided.

force investigations to ask officers or other

 Status: Review ongoing. During the

witnesses leading questions that improperly By April 30, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all

First Quarter of 2014, leading questions

suggest legal justifications for the officer’s staff are trained on policies.

were used in 33% (1 out of 3) of the

conduct when such questions are contrary to

 See Training.

closed use of force investigations

appropriate law enforcement techniques. In

reviewed by the Police Practices

each review/investigation, the VIPD will Conduct refresher training on policies through

Experts.

consider all relevant evidence including

documented, periodic in-service and roll

circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, call/commanders call training.

In investigations where material inconsistencies

as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. The VIPD will

 See Training.

are present between witness statements, reasonable efforts are made to resolve the

make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. The VIPD will train all of its supervisors and officers assigned to conduct

By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.
 Status: Satisfied.

inconsistencies.  Status: Review ongoing. During the First Quarter of 2014, material inconsistencies were documented and

use of force investigations in conducting use By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure

of force investigations, including in the

staff are complying with the policies and conduct use of

factors to consider when evaluating

force review on a quarterly basis.

credibility.

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed.

The OIM received the VIPD’s first Audit

Report on January 17, 2014. During the First

Quarter of 2014, the OIM provided written and

oral comments to the VIPD on its Audit Report.

With respect to the Use of Force audit, the audit

should clarify the universe of cases that are

being reviewed and state whether the review

includes cases under investigation, cases

pending, or completed investigations for the

relevant time period. The audit should also be

more specific in its recommendations (e.g.

assign responsible parties to implement each

recommendation and set interim deadlines), and

addressed in 44% (4 out of 9) of the closed IAB investigations reviewed by the Police Practices Experts. In one case, CCT2013-0056, Officers responded to a report of shots fired. As a crowd grew, an Officer allegedly fired warning shots in the air. However, none of the Officers that were present (including the Officer who allegedly fired the warning shots) submitted a report indicating that warning shots had been fired. This incident was only discovered through a citizen complaint about the warning shots. The Department did not impose any discipline in connection with the apparent failure to file an RRR.

report back on the VIPD’s efforts to address recommendations from prior Audit Reports.

In the use of force reviews, all relevant evidence,

Not in Substantial Compliance

14

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 17 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

Additionally, where the audit states that VIPD including circumstantial, direct and physical

personnel were disciplined for violating VIPD evidence is documented and appropriately

policies, the VIPD should describe the

considered, and credibility determinations made,

discipline imposed and whether it was

if feasible.

consistent with the Disciplinary Matrix.

 Status: Review ongoing. During the

First Quarter of 2014, all relevant

evidence was taken into consideration in

By December 31, 2013, and quarterly thereafter,

56% (5 out of 9) of the closed IAB

conduct audits to identify personnel who continually fail

investigations reviewed by the Police

to report uses of force or other wise fail to follow the

Practices Experts.

policy.

 Status: Satisfied.

When evaluating witness credibility, appropriate

factors are considered and documented.

By September 30, 2014, provide and document

 Status: Review ongoing. During the

discipline and/or remedial training

First Quarter of 2014, Officers evaluated

 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices

witness credibility in 14% (1 out of 7) of

Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance

the closed IAB investigations reviewed

with this requirement following the Third

by the Police Practices Experts.

Quarter of 2014.

Supervisors are trained on how to conduct,

review, and evaluate use of force incidents,

including but not limited to, what factors to

consider when evaluating witness credibility.

 Status: Satisfied.

Paragraph 36 – Supervisors, or designated Yearly review of policies.

investigating officers or units, shall conduct

 Status: Satisfied.

an investigation of all uses of force or injury

resulting from a use of force by any officer Conduct refresher training on policies through

under their command. This requirement documented, periodic in-service training.

does not apply to uses of force involving the  See Training.

lowest level of force as defined in VIPD

policy as approved by DOJ. In an

By April 30, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all

investigation, supervisors or designated

staff are trained on policies.

investigating officers or units, shall interview all witnesses to a use of force or

 See Training.

an injury resulting from a use of force.

By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize

In reportable use of force incidents, all involved officers are identified in the investigating supervisor’s reports.
 Status: Review ongoing. During the First Quarter of 2014, all involved Officers were identified in RRRs in 100% (6 out of 6) of the closed use of force investigations reviewed by the Police Practices Experts.
In reportable use of force incidents, all witnesses, to the extent practicable, are identified in the

Not in Substantial Compliance

15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 18 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

Consistent with the requirements of the

Audit Plan.

investigating supervisor’s reports.

collective bargaining agreement or other

 Status: Satisfied.

 Status: Review ongoing. During the

applicable law, VIPD supervisors or

First Quarter of 2014, all Officers who

designated investigating officers or units By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure

witnessed the incident were identified in

shall ensure that all officer witnesses

staff are complying with the policies and conduct use of

89% (8 out of 9) of the closed IAB

provide a statement regarding the incident. force review on a quarterly basis.

investigations reviewed by the Police

Supervisors, or designated investigating

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed.

Practices Experts.

officers or units, shall ensure that all use of

The OIM received the VIPD’s first Audit

force reports for all levels of force identify

Report on January 17, 2014. During the First In reportable use of force incidents, the

all officers who were involved in the

Quarter of 2014, the OIM provided written and investigating supervisor ensured that efforts were

incident or were on the scene when it

oral comments to the VIPD on its Audit Report. made to identify and interview witnesses, and

occurred. Supervisors, or designated

With respect to the Use of Force audit, the audit documented these efforts.

investigating officers or units, shall ensure

should clarify the universe of cases that are

 Status: Review ongoing. Audio-taped

that all reports for all levels of force indicate

being reviewed and state whether the review

statements were taken from witnesses in

whether an injury occurred, whether

includes cases under investigation, cases

80% (8 out of 10) of the closed IAB

medical care was provided, and whether the

pending, or completed investigations for the

investigations reviewed during the First

subject refused medical treatment.

relevant time period. The audit should also be

Quarter of 2014.

Supervisors, or designated investigating

more specific in its recommendations (e.g.

officers or units, shall ensure that all reports

assign responsible parties to implement each In reportable use of force incidents that resulted

include contemporaneous photographs or

recommendation and set interim deadlines), and in injuries, the investigating supervisor

videotapes taken of all injuries at the earliest

report back on the VIPD’s efforts to address documented the extent of the injuries and any

practicable opportunity, both before and

recommendations from prior Audit Reports. medical treatment rendered in a manner that

after any treatment, including cleansing of

Additionally, where the audit states that VIPD comports with ¶ 36 of the Consent Decree.

wounds.

personnel were disciplined for violating VIPD

 Status: Review ongoing. None of the

policies, the VIPD should describe the

closed investigations reviewed during

discipline imposed and whether it was

the First Quarter of 2014 involved

consistent with the Disciplinary Matrix.

hospital reports.

By December 31, 2013, and quarterly thereafter,

In reportable use of force incidents that resulted

conduct audits to identify personnel who continually fail in injuries, photographic evidence was collected

to report uses of force or other wise fail to follow the and maintained in a manner that comports with ¶

policy.

36 of the Consent Decree.

 Status: Satisfied.

 Status: Review ongoing. During the

First Quarter of 2014, photographs of

By September 30, 2014, provide and document

injuries were taken in 50% (2 out of 4)

discipline and/or remedial training

of the closed use of force investigations

 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices

reviewed by the Police Practices

16

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 19 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance with this requirement following the Third Quarter of 2014.

Experts.
In reportable use of force reviews, the investigating supervisor provided a finding on whether the use of force was justified under VIPD’s use of force policies.
 Status: Review ongoing. During the First Quarter of 2014, investigating Supervisors provided a finding of whether the force was within policy in 100% (6 out of 6) of the closed use of force investigations reviewed by the Police Practices Experts.

Paragraph 37 – All investigations into use Yearly review of policies.

Completed use of force case files contained

Not in

of force shall be reviewed by the Officer’s

 Status: Satisfied.

signed documentation from the Chief and/or

Substantial

Commander and/or Director, or by a

Deputy Chief or designee indicating that he/she Compliance

Commander and/or Director in the

Conduct refresher training on policies through

reviewed the completed investigation and the date

designated investigative unit, who shall

documented, periodic in-service training.

of such review.

identify any deficiencies in those reviews, and shall require supervisors, or designated

 See Training.

 Status: Review ongoing. During the First Quarter of 2014, a Police Chief

investigative officers or units, to correct any By April 30, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all

and all deficiencies. Supervisors, and

staff are trained on policies.

designated investigative officers or units,

 See Training.

will be held accountable for the quality of

and/or Deputy Police Chief reviewed a Supervisor’s completed investigative report in 100% (6 out of 6) of the closed use of force investigations reviewed by

their reviews. Appropriate non- disciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary action will be taken when a supervisor, or designated investigative officer or unit, fails

By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.
 Status: Satisfied.

the Police Practices Experts.
In completed use of force investigations in which the Chief and/or Deputy Chief or designee found

to conduct a timely and thorough review, or By December 31, 2013, and quarterly thereafter,

deficiencies in the investigations, the deficiencies

neglects to recommend appropriate

conduct audits to identify personnel who continually fail were documented and corrected; the corrections

corrective action, or neglects to properly to report uses of force or other wise fail to follow the were documented; and supplemental investigative

implement appropriate corrective action. As policy.

were reports prepared to document the additional

provided by VIPD policy and approved by

 Status: Satisfied.

investigative efforts, if required to correct the

DOJ, designated command staff shall

identified deficiencies.

further review the Commander and/or

By September 30, 2014, provide and document

Director’s reviews according to the level of discipline and/or remedial training

 Status: Review ongoing. During the First Quarter of 2014, a Police Chief

17

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 20 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH force involved.

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices

and/or Deputy Police Chief identified

Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance

deficiencies with a Supervisor’s

with this requirement following the Third

investigation in 20% (1 out of 5) of the

Quarter of 2014.

closed use of force investigations

reviewed by the Police Practices

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure

Experts.

staff are complying with the policies and conduct use of

force review on a quarterly basis.

In reportable use of force incidents, the Chief

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. and/or Deputy Chief or designee provided a

The OIM received the VIPD’s first Audit

written, signed and dated finding on whether the

Report on January 17, 2014. During the First use of force was justified under VIPD’s approved

Quarter of 2014, the OIM provided written and use of force policies and all other requirements of

oral comments to the VIPD on its Audit Report. ¶¶ 31(a)-(g) of the Consent Decree. In reportable

With respect to the Use of Force audit, the audit use of force incidents, supervisors are held

should clarify the universe of cases that are

accountable for the quality of their reviews, and

being reviewed and state whether the review documented non-disciplinary and/or disciplinary

includes cases under investigation, cases

action has been taken when a supervisor or

pending, or completed investigations for the manager: fails to conduct a timely and thorough

relevant time period. The audit should also be review; neglects to recommend appropriate

more specific in its recommendations (e.g. assign responsible parties to implement each

corrective action; or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action.

recommendation and set interim deadlines), and  Status: Review ongoing. During the

report back on the VIPD’s efforts to address

First Quarter of 2014, corrective action

recommendations from prior Audit Reports.

was taken for a Supervisor’s failure to

Additionally, where the audit states that VIPD

conduct a timely and thorough review, to

personnel were disciplined for violating VIPD

recommend appropriate corrective

policies, the VIPD should describe the

action, or to properly implement

discipline imposed and whether it was

appropriate corrective action in 25% (1

consistent with the Disciplinary Matrix.

out of 4) of the closed use of force

investigations reviewed by the Police

Practices Experts.

In use of force incidents where the Commander’s/Director’s or his designee’s review and evaluation concluded that improper tactics were used, there is evidence that the involved sworn personnel received and successfully

18

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 21 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE
completed remedial training, and, if appropriate, were disciplined.
 See requirement immediately above.

COMPLIANCE STATUS

In use of force incidents deemed unjustified by the Commander’s/Director’s or designee’s review and evaluation, the involved sworn personnel were disciplined, up to and including termination from VIPD if appropriate, and, if termination was not appropriate, at the very least, received remedial training.
 Status: Review ongoing.

Paragraph 38 – The VIPD will investigate Yearly review of policies.

Critical firearm discharges are investigated and

all critical firearm discharges. The VIPD

 Status: Satisfied.

documented.

will ensure that the investigation accounts

 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD’s

for all shots and locations of all officers By April 30, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all

current system of relying on a single

who discharged their firearms. The VIPD staff are trained on policies.

contractor for ballistics analysis is not

will conduct all ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet

 See Training.

working. The VIPD should identify additional outside resources and work

trajectory tests, as appropriate.

Conduct refresher training on policies through

more diligently to bolster its in-house

documented, periodic in-service training.

capabilities. Once the VIPD clears the

 See Training.

current backlog of investigations, the VIPD should provide the OIM with

VIPD shall maintain sufficient trained staff who conduct adequate ballistic/crime scene analysis.

documentation that it is investigating all critical firearms discharges. The Police

 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD has a contract employee to analyze ballistics, but there is currently a backlog. Because of the backlog, several investigations into police-involved fatal shootings remain open. The VIPD has reported that its ballistics contractor will train in-house personnel, but the OIM has not received documentation of that training. Moreover, although the VIPD has announced a vacancy

Practices Experts did not review any completed investigations that involved critical firearm discharges during the First Quarter of 2014. Moreover, as noted in ¶ 35, we reviewed a case involving a critical firearm discharge that was not documented until the VIPD received a citizen complaint concerning the discharge.

for a dedicated in-house position, the OIM understands that the posting for that position Investigations or reviews of critical firearm

Not in Substantial Compliance

19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 22 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

expired on February 3, 2014 and was never filled.
By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.
 Status: Satisfied.

discharges accounted for all shots. Investigations or reviews of critical firearm discharges accounted for the locations of all officers who discharged their firearms.
 See requirement immediately above.

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure In investigations or reviews of critical firearm

staff are complying with the policies and conduct use of discharges, the VIPD conducted ballistic crime

force review on a quarterly basis.

scene analyses, including gunshot residue or

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate.

The OIM received the VIPD’s first Audit

 See requirement immediately above.

Report on January 17, 2014. During the First

Quarter of 2014, the OIM provided written and Supervisors (or other personnel) have either: (a)

oral comments to the VIPD on its Audit Report. attended and successfully completed the initial in-

With respect to the Use of Force audit, the audit service training on ballistic and crime scene

should clarify the universe of cases that are analyses and demonstrated proficiency through a

being reviewed and state whether the review proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency

includes cases under investigation, cases

test(s); or (b) if supervisors (or other personnel)

pending, or completed investigations for the have not successfully completed the required

relevant time period. The audit should also be training and passed the proficiency test(s), the

more specific in its recommendations (e.g.

supervisors (or other personnel) have entered and

assign responsible parties to implement each successfully completed a remedial program

recommendation and set interim deadlines), and designed to ensure passage of the proficiency

report back on the VIPD’s efforts to address test(s); or where supervisors (or other personnel)

recommendations from prior Audit Reports. have not successfully completed training and

Additionally, where the audit states that VIPD passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has

personnel were disciplined for violating VIPD initiated appropriate corrective action, including

policies, the VIPD should describe the

training, and disciplinary action against the sworn

discipline imposed and whether it was

personnel.

consistent with the Disciplinary Matrix.

 Status: Not satisfied. Although initially

requested in the Second Quarter of 2013,

By December 31, 2013, and quarterly thereafter,

the VIPD has not provided the OIM with

conduct audits to identify personnel who continually fail

documentation demonstrating that

to report uses of force or other wise fail to follow the

Supervisors who did not attend the

policy.

training and/or failed the post-training

 Status: Satisfied.

examinations were provided remedial

20

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 23 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

By September 30, 2014, provide and document discipline and/or remedial training
 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance with this requirement following the Third Quarter of 2014.

Paragraph 39 – VIPD shall complete

Yearly review of policies.

development of a Use of Firearms policy

that complies with applicable law and

current professional standards. The policy

shall prohibit officers from possessing or

using unauthorized firearms or ammunition

and shall inform officers that any such use

may subject them to disciplinary action. The

policy shall establish a single, uniform

reporting system for all firearms

discharges. The policy shall prohibit

officers from obtaining service ammunition

from any source except through official

VIPD channels, and shall specify the

number of rounds VIPD authorizes its

officers to carry. The policy will continue to

require that all discharges of firearms by

officers on or off-duty, including

unintentional discharges, be reported and

investigated

Paragraph 40 – The VIPD shall revise its policies regarding off- duty officers taking police action to: a. provide that off-duty officers shall notify on-duty VIPD or local law enforcement officers before taking police action, absent exigent circumstances, so that they may respond with appropriate personnel and resources to handle the problem;

Yearly review of policies.

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE
training and/or were disciplined.

COMPLIANCE STATUS

Obtained DOJ approval for Use of Firearms policy.

Substantial Compliance

Approved policy contains the elements required in Paragraph 39.

Approved policy is distributed to sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees.

Obtained DOJ approval of use of force policy on off-duty officers taking police action.
Policy contains all elements required by Paragraph 40.
Approved policies are distributed to sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees.

Substantial Compliance

21

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 24 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

b. provide that, if it appears the officer has consumed alcohol or is otherwise impaired, the officer shall submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.

Paragraph 41 – The VIPD shall continue to Yearly review of policies.

Patrol and other applicable officers carry an

Not in

provide an intermediate force device, which

 Status: Satisfied.

intermediate force device at all times while on- Substantial

is between chemical spray and firearms on

duty.

Compliance

the force continuum, that can be carried by By April 30, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all

 Status: Satisfied.

officers at all times while on- duty. The

staff are trained on policies.

VIPD shall continue its policy regarding the

 See Training.

Sworn personnel have either: (a) attended and

intermediate force device, incorporate the

successfully completed the initial in-service

intermediate force device into the force

Conduct refresher training on policies through

training for each new or revised policy related to

continuum and train all officers in its use on documented, periodic in-service training, to test

an annual basis.

proficiencies.

intermediate force devices and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if

 See Training.

sworn personnel have not successfully completed

the required training and passed the proficiency

Conduct refresher training on policies through

test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and

documented, periodic in-service training.

successfully completed a remedial program

 See Training.

designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or where

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure sworn personnel have not successfully completed

staff are complying with the policies and conduct use of training and passed the proficiency tests, the

force review on a quarterly basis.

VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action,

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. including training, and disciplinary action against

The OIM received the VIPD’s first Audit

the sworn personnel. Sworn personnel display

Report on January 17, 2014. During the First knowledge and proficiency on using intermediate

Quarter of 2014, the OIM provided written and force devices, as evidenced by compliance with

oral comments to the VIPD on its Audit Report. the policy requirements.

With respect to the Use of Force audit, the audit  Status: Not satisfied. Although initially

should clarify the universe of cases that are

requested in the Second Quarter of 2013,

being reviewed and state whether the review

the VIPD has not provided the OIM with

includes cases under investigation, cases

documentation demonstrating that sworn

pending, or completed investigations for the

personnel who did not attend the training

relevant time period. The audit should also be

and/or failed the post-training

more specific in its recommendations (e.g.

examinations were provided remedial

assign responsible parties to implement each

training and/or were disciplined.

22

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 25 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

recommendation and set interim deadlines), and report back on the VIPD’s efforts to address recommendations from prior Audit Reports. Additionally, where the audit states that VIPD personnel were disciplined for violating VIPD policies, the VIPD should describe the discipline imposed and whether it was consistent with the Disciplinary Matrix.

Conduct inspections, with report on quarterly basis, commencing on April 30, 2014, to ensure that officers carry intermediate force device(s) as appropriate and that their use of the device(s) comports with applicable law and VIPD policy.
 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance with this requirement following the Second Quarter of 2014.

By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.
 Status: Satisfied.

By December 31, 2013, and quarterly thereafter, conduct audits to identify personnel who continually fail to report uses of force or other wise fail to follow the policy.
 Status: Satisfied.

By September 30, 2014, provide and document discipline and/or remedial training.
 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance with this requirement following the Third Quarter of 2014.

COMPLIANCE STATUS

23

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 26 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

Public Information

Paragraph 42 - The VIPD will develop and Yearly review of policies. implement a program to inform persons that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any officer. This program will include distribution of complaint forms, fact sheets, informational posters, and public service announcements that describe the citizen complaint process.

The VIPD has developed and implemented a program to inform persons that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any officer.

Substantial Compliance

In VIPD facilities, vehicles, and governmental properties such as VIPD district stations, libraries, the internet and upon request, to community groups and community centers, complaint information brochures and forms are available.

Paragraph 43 – The VIPD will make

Yearly review of policies.

VIPD facilities, vehicles, and government

complaint forms and informational

 Status: Satisfied.

properties, complaint information brochures and

materials available at government properties

forms are available.

such as VIPD district stations, substations, Conduct refresher training on policies, through

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work

mobile substations, libraries, the Internet, documented, periodic in-service training.

needed. The OIM commends the VIPD

and, upon request, to community groups and community centers. At each VIPD district

 See Training.

for self-reporting that materials are not always available in all languages, or at

station, substation, and mobile substation, the VIPD will permanently post a placard describing the complaint process and include the relevant phone numbers. These

By April 30, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies.
 See Training.

certain locations. However, the VIPD should provide documentation demonstrating that the materials were replaced as needed.

placards shall be displayed in both English and Spanish, and where deemed necessary, in French or French Patois, to account for diversity in the VI population. The VIPD will require all officers to carry informational brochures and complaint

Monthly inspections by Zone Commanders to ensure

that all complaint process materials are available in their Officers carry the informational brochures and

Zones. Zone Commanders will provide a monthly

complaint forms with them at all times while on-

written report of their inspections.

duty.

 Status: Satisfied.

 Status: Satisfied.

forms, in English and Spanish, and where Monthly inspections to ensure that informational

In VIPD district stations, substation, and mobile

deemed necessary, in French or French

materials are available at all required locations.

stations, a placard is displayed describing the

Patois, in their vehicles at all times while on

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. complaint process, including relevant phone

duty. If a citizen objects to an officer’s

The OIM commends the VIPD for self-

numbers.

conduct, that officer will inform the citizen

reporting that materials are not always available  Status: Satisfied.

of his or her right to make a complaint.

in all languages, or at certain locations.

Officers will not discourage any person

However, the VIPD should provide

In incidents where a citizen complained about an

from making a complaint.

documentation demonstrating that the materials officer’s conduct, the officer informed, and did

Substantial Compliance

24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 27 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

were replaced as needed.

not discourage, the citizen about his/her ability to make a complaint.
 Status: Satisfied.

Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints

Paragraph 44 - Complaints may be filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile or electronic mail. The duty officer at the front desk of each district station will be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints, which persons may file at any district station. Complaint intake officers may describe facts that bear upon a complainant’s demeanor and physical condition but May not express opinions regarding his/her mental competency or veracity. Each complaint will be resolved in writing. Upon receipt, each complaint will be assigned a unique identifier, which will be provided to the complainant. Each complaint will be tracked according to the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, improper search, etc.).

Yearly review of policies.

Obtained DOJ approval for a complaint intake Not in

 Status: Satisfied.

policy.

Substantial

 Status: Satisfied.

Compliance

Conduct refresher training on policies, through

documented, periodic in-service training.

Approved policy is distributed to sworn personnel

 See Training.

and applicable civilian employees.

 Status: Satisfied.

Quarterly review of IAU and zone files.

 Status: Satisfied.

Sworn personnel and applicable civilian

employees have either: (a) attended and

By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize successfully completed the initial in-service

Audit Plan.

training for each new or revised complaint related

 Status: Satisfied.

policy and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel and

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure applicable civilian employees have not

staff are complying with the policies (i.e. review of

successfully completed the required training and

sample of citizen complaint investigation files).

passed the proficiency test, the sworn personnel

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. and applicable civilian employees have entered

The OIM received the VIPD’s first Audit

and successfully completed a remedial program

Report on January 17, 2014. During the First designed to ensure passage of the proficiency

Quarter of 2014, the OIM provided written and test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or where

oral comments to the VIPD on its Audit Report. sworn personnel and applicable civilian

With respect to the Citizen Complaint audit, the employees have not successfully completed

audit was the strongest of the four working

training and passed the proficiency tests, the

groups. The working group identified various VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action,

deficiencies and made recommendations; going including training, and disciplinary action against

forward, the OIM will track how the VIPD

the sworn personnel and applicable civilian

implements these recommendations. In

employees.

addition, the working group should audit

 Status: Not satisfied. Although initially

citizen complaints involving the use of force.

requested in the Second Quarter of 2013,

the VIPD has not provided the OIM with

25

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 28 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

By September 30, 2014, ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or retraining.
 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance with this requirement following the Third Quarter of 2014.
By December 31, 2013, create a quarterly report that analyzes patterns of violations of VIPD policy. Using the information gathered in the report, evaluate areas for policy modification or appropriate remedial action (e.g., training).
 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. We received the working group’s quarterly report in the First Quarter of 2014. We will assess this requirement in the next quarter.
By April 30, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies.
 See Training.

documentation demonstrating that sworn personnel who did not attend the training and/or failed the post-training examinations were provided remedial training and/or were disciplined.
Complaints are documented and resolved in writing.
 Status: Review ongoing. During the First Quarter of 2014, the Police Practices Experts reviewed a total of 14 closed citizen complaint investigations. 58% (7 out of 12) of those investigations were resolved in a timely manner. Because of the small sample of completed citizen complaint cases that the VIPD provided to the OIM during the First Quarter of 2014, we cannot determine whether the VIPD is in compliance with this requirement. However, we note that timeliness has continued to be a substantial issue, and we urge the VIPD to address timeliness in a more meaningful manner.

Appropriate VIPD personnel properly respond to the inquiring/complaining person, as verified by the monitors and the VIPD audit unit.
 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices Experts did not assess this requirement during the First Quarter of 2014.

For complaints lodged and recorded, a file documents the actions taken by VIPD in response to the complaint.
 Status: Satisfied.

26

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 29 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

Documented complaints are assigned a unique identifier and are retrievable by that identifier, the complainant’s name, if it was provided, or the name of the accused officer, if known.
 Status: Satisfied.

Completed investigations into complaints comport with the provisions of the Consent Decree.
 Status: Review ongoing.

Paragraph 45- Copies of all allegations of Review monthly completed cases in IAPro to ensure

misconduct against the VIPD filed with the compliance with the five day of requirement as per

Zone Commands will be referred to Internal policy.

Affairs Unit (“IAU”) within five business

 Status: Satisfied.

days.

Conduct refresher training on policies, through

documented, periodic in-service training.

 See Training.

Documented complaints do not include opinions of the intake officer about the mental competency or veracity of the complainant.
 Status: Satisfied.

Allegations filed at Zone or unit facilities are forwarded to IAU within five business days.
 Status: Satisfied.

Substantial Compliance

By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.
 Status: Satisfied.

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e. review of sample of citizen complaint investigation files).
 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. The OIM received the VIPD’s first Audit Report on January 17, 2014. During the First Quarter of 2014, the OIM provided written and

27

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 30 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

oral comments to the VIPD on its Audit Report. With respect to the Citizen Complaint audit, the audit was the strongest of the four working groups. The working group identified various deficiencies and made recommendations; going forward, the OIM will track how the VIPD implements these recommendations. In addition, the working group should audit citizen complaints involving the use of force.

COMPLIANCE STATUS

By September 30, 2014, ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or retraining.
 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance with this requirement following the Third Quarter of 2014.

Investigation of Complaints

Paragraph 46 - Complaints will be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, for which the Territory will develop and implement appropriate training.

Yearly review of policies.

Sworn personnel have either: (a) attended and Not in

 Status: Satisfied.

successfully completed training on the

Substantial

preponderance of the evidence standard and

Compliance

Conduct refresher training on policies through

demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency

documented, periodic in-service and roll

test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel have not

call/commanders call training.

successfully completed the required training and

 See Training.

passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully

By April 30, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all completed a remedial program designed to ensure

staff are trained on policies.

passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the

 See Training.

proficiency test(s); or where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and

Periodically test supervisors’ knowledge of the

passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has

preponderance of the evidence standard.

initiated appropriate corrective action, including

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. training, and disciplinary action against the sworn

The VIPD has provided initial training on the personnel.

preponderance of evidence standard. During

 Status: Not satisfied. Although initially

the Second Quarter of 2013, the VIPD provided

requested in the Second Quarter of 2013,

28

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 31 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

the OIM with documentation showing that

the VIPD has not provided the OIM with

Supervisors were tested on the preponderance

documentation demonstrating that sworn

of the evidence standard. According to the

personnel who did not attend the training

VIPD, a total of 28 Supervisors were tested

and/or failed the post-training

during the First Quarter of 2014 with a 71%

examinations were provided remedial

passing rate (20 out of 28). Although the VIPD

training and/or were disciplined.

reports that remedial training was conducted for

Supervisors who failed the examination, the All training on the preponderance of the evidence

OIM has not seen any such documentation. comports with the requirements of the Consent

Decree, and is taught from curricula/lesson plans

Continue to incorporate competency-based training of that: (a) identify training objectives; (b)

officers and supervisors.

incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. techniques (e.g., class exercises); and (c) indicate

The VIPD needs to expand its use of

that it has been reviewed by legal counsel.

competency-based training across both

 Status: Satisfied.

Districts.

Completed investigations into

Quarterly review of closed investigation files to ensure complaints/allegations of misconduct include an

that the preponderance of evidence standard is being assessment of the evidence, and a finding that is

used.

based upon the preponderance of evidence

 Status: Satisfied.

standard.

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work

By December 31, 2013, and quarterly thereafter, identify

needed. The VIPD has provided initial

Supervisors who are not correctly using the

training on the preponderance of

preponderance of the evidence standard.

evidence standard. During the Second

 Status: Satisfied.

Quarter of 2013, the VIPD provided the

OIM with documentation showing that

By September 30, 2014, provide and document

Supervisors were tested on the

discipline and/or remedial training as appropriate.

preponderance of the evidence standard.

 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices

According to the VIPD, a total of 28

Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance

Supervisors were tested during the First

with this requirement following the Third Quarter of 2014.

Quarter of 2014 with a 71% passing rate (20 out of 28). Although the VIPD reports that remedial training was

By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.
 Status: Satisfied.

conducted for Supervisors who failed the examination, the OIM has not seen any such documentation.

29

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 32 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e. review of sample of citizen complaint investigation files).
 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. The OIM received the VIPD’s first Audit Report on January 17, 2014. During the First Quarter of 2014, the OIM provided written and oral comments to the VIPD on its Audit Report. With respect to the Citizen Complaint audit, the audit was the strongest of the four working groups. The working group identified various deficiencies and made recommendations; going forward, the OIM will track how the VIPD implements these recommendations. In addition, the working group should audit citizen complaints involving the use of force.

By September 30, 2014, ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or retraining.
 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance with this requirement following the Third Quarter of 2014.

Paragraph 47 - The VIPD will explicitly prohibit from investigating an incident any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to the injury to a person, or who authorized the conduct that led to these reportable incidents.

Yearly review of policies.

VIPD policy prohibits from investigating an incident any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to the injury to a person, or who authorized the conduct that led to these reportable incidents.

Substantial Compliance

Paragraph 48 - The VIPD will investigate every citizen complaint. The VIPD will establish a clear policy and procedure regarding the intake of any complaint, including anonymous and confidential

Yearly review of policies.  Status: Satisfied.
Conduct refresher training on policies through documented, periodic in-service and roll

Obtained DOJ approval of a policy and procedure Substantial

for the intake of complaints. For complaints

Compliance

lodged and recorded, a file documents the actions

taken by VIPD in response to the complaint.

 Status: Satisfied.

30

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 33 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH
complaints, against a VIPD officer. This policy and these procedures will include instructions to an officer for taking a complaint and prompt delivery to a supervisor.

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

call/commanders call training.

 See Training.

Sworn personnel and applicable civilian

employees have been trained and demonstrated

Continue to incorporate competency-based training on the required proficiency on the complaint intake

policies into Police Academy.

policy and comports with the Consent Decree,

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. including ¶¶ 44 and 48.

The VIPD needs to expand its use of

 Status: Satisfied.

competency-based training across both

Districts.

Documented complaints are promptly delivered

to a supervisor.

Quarterly review of closed files at IAU.

 Status: Satisfied.

 Status: Satisfied.

Applicable VIPD personnel properly respond to

By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize the inquiring/complaining person, as verified by

Audit Plan.

the monitors and VIPD.

 Status: Satisfied.

 Status: Review ongoing. The Police

Practices Experts did not assess this

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure

requirement during the First Quarter of

staff are complying with the policies (i.e. review of

2014.

sample of citizen complaint investigation files).

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed.

The OIM received the VIPD’s first Audit

Report on January 17, 2014. During the First

Quarter of 2014, the OIM provided written and

oral comments to the VIPD on its Audit Report.

With respect to the Citizen Complaint audit, the

audit was the strongest of the four working

groups. The working group identified various

deficiencies and made recommendations; going

forward, the OIM will track how the VIPD

implements these recommendations. In

addition, the working group should audit

citizen complaints involving the use of force.

COMPLIANCE STATUS

By September 30, 2014, ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or retraining.

31

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 34 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance with this requirement following the Third Quarter of 2014.

Paragraph 49 - The VIPD will institute a Yearly review of policies.

centralized numbering and tracking system

 Status: Satisfied.

for all complaints, and each complaint will

receive a tracking number as quickly as Commencing December 31, 2013, and on a quarterly

possible. The IAU will be designated as the basis thereafter, utilizing data from IAPro, produce a

primary and centralized agency to

report that tracks citizens’ complaints referred to the

determine whether the investigation will be zones/bureaus, and identifies whether any complaints

assigned to zone (one of the seven zones involve excessive use of force. Also determine whether

located throughout the Virgin Islands),

the Police Commissioner was notified of complaints

retained by the IAU, or referred for possible alleging excessive use of force.

criminal investigation. If the IAU refers a complaint to a zone, copies of all documents, findings, and recommendations should be immediately forwarded to the IAU for tracking and monitoring. For complaints alleging the excessive use of force or violation of a person’s constitutional rights, the Police Commissioner should be notified

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. The VIPD has produced a report that tracks citizens’ complaints on a quarterly basis. However, the VIPD provided consistent documentation that the Commissioner is notified of complaints that allege excessive use of force for the St. Thomas District only.

no less than twenty-four hours after receipt By March 31, 2014, ensure that each IAPro database is

of a complaint.

accessible from all districts.

 Status: Not satisfied. According to the VIPD,

the Director of IAB does not have access to

IAPro on both Districts. It is unacceptable that

the Director cannot access IAPro from both

Districts.

Conduct refresher training on policies through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training.
 See Training.

By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize

Established a separate IAPro database for the

Not in

STT/STJ and STX Districts such that: (1) each Substantial

database will be accessible from each district; (2) Compliance

IAU agents in each District will have access to

their respective databases; (3) the Director of

IAU, Assistant Director of IAU, and EIP

Coordinator will have access to both databases;

(4) each complaint will receive a unique tracking

number, with an STT extension for the St.

Thomas/St. John District and an STX extension

for the St. Croix District, so that no two

complaints will have the same number within or

between databases; (5) information in each

database will be organized by District, and can be

sorted by officer; and (6) if an officer transfers

from one District to another, his/her information

will be transferred to the new District’s database.

 (1) Status: Not satisfied. The Director of

IAB does not have access to IAPro on

both Districts.

 (2) See requirement (1).

 (3) See requirement (1).

 (4) Status: Satisfied.

 (5) Status: Satisfied.

 (6) Status: Not applicable. The OIM is

not aware of Officers transferring from

one District to another.

Allegations brought to the attention of the VIPD are assigned a unique identifier.
 Status: Satisfied.

32

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 35 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

Audit Plan.

In complaints that the IAU refers to a Zone,

 Status: Satisfied.

copies of the completed file are forwarded to the

IAU within the time frame specified by VIPD

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure policy.

staff are complying with the policies (i.e. review of

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work

sample of citizen complaint investigation files).

needed. The VIPD currently relies on

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed.

VITEMA to assign tracking numbers for

The OIM received the VIPD’s first Audit

each complaint when a complaint is filed

Report on January 17, 2014. During the First

at a Zone. The VIPD should ensure that

Quarter of 2014, the OIM provided written and

each complaint (once assigned a

oral comments to the VIPD on its Audit Report.

complaint number by VITEMA) is

With respect to the Citizen Complaint audit, the

entered into IAPro and forwarded to the

audit was the strongest of the four working

IAB for investigation or referral to the

groups. The working group identified various

Zones.

deficiencies and made recommendations; going

forward, the OIM will track how the VIPD

Evidence exists that IAU adequately tracked and

implements these recommendations. In

monitored the complaint.

addition, the working group should audit

 Status: Satisfied.

citizen complaints involving the use of force.

Complaints alleging excessive use of force or a

By September 30, 2014, ensure that lapses in policy

civil rights violation are reported to the Police

implementation are addressed by system of documented Commissioner within 24 hours of receiving the

discipline and/or retraining.

complaint.

 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work

Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance

needed. The VIPD reports that it created

with this requirement following the Third

a form to document when the

Quarter of 2014.

Commissioner is notified about

complaints pertaining to excessive use of

force or violations of constitutional

rights. The OIM has received limited

documentation of these completed

forms. The VIPD’s first Audit Report

identified one case alleging excessive

use of force or violation of constitutional

rights where the Commissioner was

notified.

33

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 36 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

Paragraph 50 - The VIPD will adopt a

Yearly review of policies.

single policy concerning the investigation of

misconduct complaints, regardless of

whether the investigation is conducted by

the IAU or a zone.

Obtained DOJ approval of a policy concerning Substantial

the investigation of misconduct complaints,

Compliance

consistent with the requirements of Paragraph 50.

Paragraph 51 - The VIPD will establish Yearly review of policies.

Policies are developed, implemented, and

Not in

policies and procedures and train all of its

 Status: Satisfied.

distributed to VIPD investigators.

Substantial

investigators on the factors to consider

Investigators/supervisors have either: (a) attended Compliance

when evaluating complainant or witness All statements will be recorded by June 30, 2014. On a and successfully completed the initial in-service

credibility; examination and interrogation quarterly basis conduct review to ensure that statements training concerning the components identified in

of accused officers and other witnesses; are being recorded.

¶ 51 of the Consent Decree and demonstrated

identifying misconduct even if it is not

 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if

specifically named in the complaint; and using the preponderance of the evidence standard as the appropriate burden of proof. VIPD investigators will ensure that

Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance with this requirement following the Second Quarter of 2014.

investigators/supervisors have not successfully completed the required training and passed proficiency test(s), investigators/supervisors have entered and successfully completed a remedial

all officers on the scene of an incident

Conduct refresher training on policies through

provide a statement regarding the incident. documented, periodic in-service and roll

program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency

The policy will require that all interviews be call/commanders call training.

test(s); or where investigators/supervisors have

mechanically recorded using an audio or video tape.

 See Training.

not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated

By April 30, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies.
 See Training.

appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the investigators/supervisors.
 Status: Not satisfied. Although initially

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e. review of sample of citizen complaint investigation files).
 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. The OIM received the VIPD’s first Audit Report on January 17, 2014. During the First Quarter of 2014, the OIM provided written and oral comments to the VIPD on its Audit Report.

requested in the Second Quarter of 2013, the VIPD has not provided the OIM with documentation demonstrating that investigators and/or Supervisors who did not attend the training and/or failed the post-training examinations were provided remedial training and/or were disciplined.

With respect to the Citizen Complaint audit, the

audit was the strongest of the four working

Completed investigations into complaints of

groups. The working group identified various misconduct include a documented assessment of

34

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 37 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

deficiencies and made recommendations; going the evidence, and a finding that is based upon the

forward, the OIM will track how the VIPD

preponderance of evidence standard.

implements these recommendations. In

 Status: Review ongoing.

addition, the working group should audit

citizen complaints involving the use of force. In incidents giving rise to allegations of

misconduct or use of force, all officers on the

By September 30, 2014, ensure that lapses in policy

scene provided a statement regarding the incident,

implementation are addressed by system of documented in accordance with VIPD policy.

discipline and/or retraining.

 Status: Review ongoing. During the

 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices

First Quarter of 2014, Officer-witnesses

Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance

provided a statement regarding the

with this requirement following the Third

incident in 82% (9 out of 11) of the

Quarter of 2014.

closed citizen complaint investigations

reviewed by the Police Practices

Experts.

Paragraph 52 - The policy will require that Yearly review of policies. the investigative findings include whether: 1) the police action was in compliance with policy, training and legal standards, regardless of whether the complainant suffered harm; 2) the incident involved misconduct by any officer; 3) the use of

Interviews related to a complaint of misconduct will be mechanically recorded using an audio or video tape.
 Status: Review ongoing. During the First Quarter of 2014, audio taped statements were taken from all involved Officers in 82% (9 out of 11) of the closed citizen complaint investigations reviewed by the Police Practices Experts. Audio taped statements were taken from witnesses in 80% (8 out of 10) of the closed citizen complaint investigations.

The VIPD policy formalizes a process for review of all uses of force that ensures the consideration of and documentation of all of the findings identified in ¶ 52.

Substantial Compliance

35

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 38 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

different tactics should or could have been employed; 4) the incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and 5) the incident suggests that the VIPD should revise its policies, training, or tactics.

Paragraph 53 - The policy will provide Yearly review of policies. clear guidance to all investigators regarding the procedures for handling criminal misconduct allegations, referring them to the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office or other appropriate agency for possible criminal prosecution, and the entity or individual who should make the determination of whether the complaint should be investigated criminally. The policy will be revised to require the completion of an administrative investigation, irrespective of the initiation or outcome of criminal proceedings.

Paragraph 54 - In each investigation, the Yearly review of policies.

VIPD will consider all relevant evidence

 Status: Satisfied.

including circumstantial, direct and

physical evidence, as appropriate, and make Incorporate competency –based training of all

credibility determinations, if feasible. There investigators.

will be no automatic preference for an officer’s statement over a non- officer’s statement, nor will the VIPD completely disregard a witness’ statement merely because the witness has some connection to

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. The VIPD needs to expand its use of competency-based training across both Districts.

the complainant. The VIPD will make

Conduct refresher training on policies through

efforts to resolve material inconsistencies documented, periodic in-service and roll

between witness statements.

call/commanders call training.

 See Training.

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

VIPD has issued a policy that provides clear

Substantial

guidance on how to handle allegations of criminal Compliance

misconduct by sworn personnel and applicable

civilian employees and includes the elements of ¶

53.

In completed investigations, all relevant and

Not in

appropriate evidence identified in ¶ 54 of the

Substantial

Consent Decree has been considered and

Compliance

documented.

 Status: Review ongoing. During the

First Quarter of 2014, all relevant and

appropriate evidence was considered in

45% (5 out of 11) of the closed citizen

complaint investigations reviewed by the

Police Practices Experts.

Completed investigations reflect that a supervisor did not give an automatic preference for an officer’s statement over a non-officer’s statement.
 Status: Review ongoing. During the

36

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 39 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

By April 30, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all

First Quarter of 2014, an investigator did

staff are trained on policies.

not give preference to an Officer’s

 See Training.

statement over a citizen’s statement in

87% (7 out of 8) of the closed citizen

By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize

complaint investigations reviewed by the

Audit Plan.

Police Practices Experts.

 Status: Satisfied.

Completed investigations reflect that a supervisor

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure has not disregarded a witness’ statement because

staff are complying with the policies (i.e. review of

the witness has a connection to the complainant.

sample of citizen complaint investigation files).

 Status: Review ongoing. During the

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed.

First Quarter of 2014, Supervisors did

The OIM received the VIPD’s first Audit

not disregard a witness statement

Report on January 17, 2014. During the First

because the witness had some

Quarter of 2014, the OIM provided written and oral comments to the VIPD on its Audit Report. With respect to the Citizen Complaint audit, the audit was the strongest of the four working

connection to the complainant in 100% (9 out of 9) of the closed citizen complaint investigations reviewed by the Police Practices Experts.

groups. The working group identified various deficiencies and made recommendations; going VIPD investigators have made efforts to resolve

forward, the OIM will track how the VIPD

material inconsistencies between witness

implements these recommendations. In

statements and have been trained on ways to do

addition, the working group should audit

this.

citizen complaints involving the use of force.

 Status: Review ongoing. Inconsistencies

among Officer and witness statements

By September 30, 2014, ensure that lapses in policy

were documented and addressed in 44%

implementation are addressed by system of documented

(4 out of 9) of the closed investigations

discipline and/or retraining.

reviewed during the First Quarter of

 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices

2014. Moreover, as described more

Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance

fully in ¶ 35, the OIM reviewed a case in

with this requirement following the Third

which an Officer allegedly fired warning

Quarter of 2014.

shots in the air. However, the Officers that were present did not submit a report

indicating that warning shots had been

fired. This incident was only discovered

through a citizen complaint about the

warning shots. Despite the material

37

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 40 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

inconsistencies, the Department closed the investigation without further inquiry.

Paragraph 55 - During an investigation, all Yearly review of policies.

In investigations, there is documented evidence Not in

relevant police activity, including each use

 Status: Satisfied.

that all misconduct revealed by the investigation, Substantial

of force (i.e., not just the type of force

whether part of the initial allegation or discovered Compliance

complained about) will be investigated. The Conduct refresher training on policies through

during the investigation, has been reasonably

investigation will also evaluate any

documented, periodic in-service and roll

investigated and addressed.

searches or seizures that occurred during call/commanders call training.

 Status: Review ongoing. During the

the incident. The VIPD will not close an

 See Training.

First Quarter of 2014, all apparent

investigation simply because the complaint

misconduct was adequately addressed in

is withdrawn or the alleged victim is

By April 30, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all

62% (8 out of 13) of the closed citizen

unwilling or unable to provide medical

staff are trained on policies.

complaint investigations reviewed by the

records or proof of injury or the complainant will not provide additional

 See Training.

Police Practices Experts. The OIM reviewed a case, AIT2013-0089, in

statements or written statements; rather, the By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize

investigating agency will continue its

Audit Plan.

investigation as necessary to determine

 Status: Satisfied.

whether the original allegation(s) can be

which an Officer investigated her daughter’s motor vehicle accident. The Officer eventually received a charge for failure to file the citation to the Virgin

resolved based on the information, evidence, and investigatory procedures and techniques available. In each investigation, the fact that a complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense will not be considered as evidence of whether a VIPD officer used or did not use a type of force, nor will it justify discontinuing the investigation.

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e. review of sample of citizen complaint investigation files).
 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. The OIM received the VIPD’s first Audit Report on January 17, 2014. During the First Quarter of 2014, the OIM provided written and

Islands Attorney General’s Office (the “VIAG”), but the VIPD never considered the Officer’s judgment in investigating the misconduct. The charges were sustained and the Officer was only ordered to attend ethics training.

oral comments to the VIPD on its Audit Report.

With respect to the Citizen Complaint audit, the In completed investigations, the investigative

audit was the strongest of the four working

reports include documentation that the supervisor

groups. The working group identified various has evaluated any searches or seizures that

deficiencies and made recommendations; going occurred during the incident.

forward, the OIM will track how the VIPD

 Status: Review ongoing. During the

implements these recommendations. In

First Quarter of 2014, investigations

addition, the working group should audit

assessed the appropriateness of any

citizen complaints involving the use of force.

searches or seizures in 50% (1 out of 2)

of the closed citizen complaint

By September 30, 2014, ensure that lapses in policy

investigations reviewed by the Police

38

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 41 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or retraining.
 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance with this requirement following the Third Quarter of 2014.
Incorporate competency –based training of all investigators.
 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. The VIPD needs to expand its use of competency-based training across both Districts.

Practices Experts.
In completed investigations, a supervisor has ensured the continuation of every investigation – even when the complaint is withdrawn, or the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of injury, or the complainant will not provide additional statements or written statements – until the VIPD has determined whether the original allegation(s) can be resolved based on the information, evidence, and investigatory procedures and techniques available.
 Status: Review ongoing. During the First Quarter of 2014, investigations continued where there was a withdrawn complaint or lack of cooperation by the complainant in 50% (6 out of 12) of the closed citizen complaint investigations reviewed by the Police Practices Experts. Investigations continued where the victim was unwilling to provide medical records or proof of injury in 100% (13 out of 13) of the closed citizen complaint investigations.

In completed investigations, a supervisor has not considered the fact that a complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense as evidence of whether a VIPD officer used or did not use a type of force, or as a justification for discontinuing the investigation.
 Status: Review ongoing. During the First Quarter of 2014, Supervisors did not consider a complainant’s guilty plea or finding of guilt in 100% (13 out of 13) of the closed citizen complaint

39

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 42 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

Paragraph 56 - The complainant will be By December 31, 2013, and quarterly thereafter,

periodically kept informed regarding the conduct review of files to determine whether

status of the investigation. Upon completion complainants are being notified of the status and

of the investigation, the complainant will be completion of the investigation, as required by

notified of its outcome, including an

Paragraph 56.

appropriate statement regarding whether

 Status: Satisfied.

any non-disciplinary corrective action or

disciplinary action was taken.

By December 31, 2013, conduct quarterly audits to

assess timeliness of completion of citizen complaint

investigations.

 Status: Satisfied.

Conduct refresher training on policies through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training.
 See Training.

Paragraph 57 - Each allegation in an

Yearly review of policies.

investigation will be resolved by making one

of the following dispositions: “Unfounded,” Conduct refresher training on policies, through

where the investigation determines, by a documented, periodic in-service and roll

40

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE
investigations reviewed by the Police Practices Experts.

COMPLIANCE STATUS

In completed investigations, the elements identified in paragraph 55 of the Consent Decree have been analyzed and documented.
 See requirements immediately above.

In investigations, the VIPD has kept complainants Not in

reasonably informed about the status of the

Substantial

investigation of their complaints.

Compliance

 Status: Review ongoing. During the

First Quarter of 2014, the VIPD kept

complainants reasonably informed about

the status of the investigation in 50% (3

out of 6) of the closed citizen complaint

investigations reviewed by the Police

Practices Experts.

In completed investigations, the VIPD notified complainants of the disposition of the investigation of their complaint, including by providing complainant with a statement about whether the VIPD took any non-disciplinary corrective or disciplinary action as an outcome of its investigation.
 Status: Review ongoing. During the First Quarter of 2014, complainants were notified of the disposition of the investigation of their complaint in 71% (5 out of 7) of the closed citizen complaint investigations reviewed during the First Quarter of 2014.
Investigations have been resolved by making one Substantial of the dispositions identified in Paragraph 57 of Compliance the Consent Decree.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 43 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

preponderance of the evidence, that no facts call/commanders call training.

to support that the incident complained of

actually occurred;

By April 30, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all

“Sustained,” where the investigation

staff are trained on policies.

determines, by a preponderance of the

evidence, that the person’s allegation is

By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ finalize

supported by sufficient evidence to

Audit Plan.

determine that the incident occurred and the

actions of the officer were improper; “Not By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure

Sustained,” where the investigation

staff are complying with the policies (i.e. review of

determines, by a preponderance of the

sample of citizen complaint investigation files).

evidence, that there are insufficient facts to

decide whether the alleged misconduct

By September 30, 2014, ensure that lapses in policy

occurred; and “Exonerated,” where the implementation are addressed by system of documented

investigation determines, by a

discipline and/or retraining.

preponderance of the evidence, that the

alleged conduct did occur but did not

Incorporate competency –based training of all

violate VIPD policies, procedures, or

investigators

training.

Paragraph 58 – Unit commanders will

Yearly review of policies.

evaluate each investigation of an incident

 Status: Satisfied.

under their command to identify underlying

problems and training needs. Any such

Quarterly review of completed IAU investigations.

problems or need will be relayed in the form of a recommendation to the appropriate

 Status: Satisfied.

VIPD entity.

Conduct refresher training on policies through

documented, periodic in-service and roll

call/commanders call training.

 See Training.

By April 30, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies.
 See Training.

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e. review of

The VIPD has developed a policy that provides a process for the review of all completed allegations of misconduct and ensures the consideration of all of the elements identified in ¶¶ 52 and 58 of the Consent Decree.
 Status: Satisfied.
In completed investigations into allegations of misconduct, there is documentation indicating that a supervisor has evaluated underlying problems and training needs, if any.
 Status: Review ongoing. During the First Quarter of 2014, Supervisors evaluated underlying problems and training needs in 7% (1 out of 14) of the closed citizen complaint investigations reviewed by the Police Practices

Not in Substantial Compliance

41

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 44 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

sample of citizen complaint investigation files).

Experts.

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed.

The OIM received the VIPD’s first Audit

Any identified problems and/or training needs

Report on January 17, 2014. During the First have been relayed to the appropriate VIPD entity.

Quarter of 2014, the OIM provided written and

 Status: Review ongoing. During the

oral comments to the VIPD on its Audit Report.

First Quarter of 2014, identified

With respect to the Citizen Complaint audit, the

problems and/or training needs were

audit was the strongest of the four working

relayed to the appropriate VIPD entity in

groups. The working group identified various

33% (1 out of 3) of the closed citizen

deficiencies and made recommendations; going

complaint investigations reviewed by the

forward, the OIM will track how the VIPD

Police Practices Experts.

implements these recommendations. In

addition, the working group should audit

In cases where there is a determination that

citizen complaints involving the use of force. modification to or additional training is required,

there is documented evidence that VIPD has

By September 30, 2014, ensure that lapses in policy

implement additional training.

implementation are addressed by system of documented

 Status: Review ongoing. During the

discipline and/or retraining.

First Quarter of 2014, there was

 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices

documented evidence that the VIPD

Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance

implemented remedial training in 0% (0

with this requirement following the Third

out of 2) of the closed citizen complaint

Quarter of 2014.

investigations reviewed by the Police

Practices Experts.

Incorporate competency-based training of all

investigators.

In cases where the VIPD identified policy or

 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD provided in- equipment deficiencies, there is documented

service training during the Second Quarter of evidence that corrective measures were taken.

2013. The VIPD has not provided the OIM

 Status: Review ongoing. During the

with a report about the number of investigators

First Quarter of 2014, there was

that have been trained on the policies.

documented evidence that the VIPD

implemented equipment modification in

0% (0 out of 1) of the closed citizen

complaint investigations reviewed by the

Police Practices Experts. None of the

closed citizen complaint investigations

reviewed during the First Quarter of

2014 required policy revision.

42

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 45 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION

A. Risk Management system

Paragraph 59 - The VIPD will develop and implement a risk management system to include a new computerized relational database or paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for supervision and management of the VIPD. Priority will be given to the VIPD obtaining any established program and system. The VIPD will regularly use this data to promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts.

IAPro, a computerized database, is currently being used to assist in supervision and management for VIPD’s risk management system.
 Status: Satisfied.

See Paragraphs 60-68, below.
VIPD shall ensure that it regularly uses the data in the RMS system to promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units, and shifts.

Not in Substantial Compliance

Paragraph 60 – The new risk management Canine policy has been revised to capture canine

system will collect and record the following deployments. By December 31, 2013, VIPD will begin

information:

to collect canine deployments and will enter this data

a. all uses of force;

into IAPro to be able to document bite ratios.

b. canine bite ratios;

 Status: Not satisfied. The OIM has not

c. the number of canisters of chemical spray

received documentation that the VIPD

used by officers;

documents bite ratios.

d. all injuries to prisoners;

e. all instances in which force is used and a VIPD has requested from the VIAG civil and

subject is charged with “resisting arrest,” administrative claims involving VIPD officers acting in

“assault on a police “disorderly officer,” their official capacities. VIPD will input data in the

“conduct,” “obstruction or “of official

RMS received from VIAG by September 30, 2014.

business;”

 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices

f. all critical firearm discharges, both on-

Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance

duty and off-duty; g. all complaints (and their dispositions); h. all criminal proceedings initiated, as well

with this requirement following the Third Quarter of 2014.

as all civil or administrative claims filed All other categories of data listed in paragraph 60 are with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the being collected and entered into the RMS. Input of

RRR forms are completed for all uses of force as required by VIPD policy. RRR forms are entered into the RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
 Status: Review ongoing. During the First Quarter of 2014, use of force incidents were documented in an RRR in 83% (5 out of 6) of the closed use of force investigations reviewed by the Police Practices Experts.

Not in Substantial Compliance

Canine deployments are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
 Status: Not satisfied. The OIM has not received documentation that canine deployments are entered into the VIPD’s Risk Management System (“RMS”).

Canine deployments resulting in a bite are entered

43

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 46 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH
Territory and its officers, or agents, resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel; i. all vehicle pursuits; j. all incidents involving the pointing of a firearm (if any such reporting is required); k. and all disciplinary action taken against officers.

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT
historical data is ongoing. This requires allocation of sufficient staff to input this data.
 Status: Not satisfied. We have not received documentation showing that the VIPD has started to input data relating to canine bite ratios or canisters of O.C. Spray.

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
 Status: Not satisfied. The OIM has not received documentation that canine deployments resulting in bites are entered into RMS.

By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize RMS provides statistical analyses of canine bite

Audit Plan.

ratio or the data necessary to compute such ratio.

 Status: Satisfied.

 Status: Not satisfied. The OIM has not

received documentation that the VIPD is

By December 31, 2013 and quarterly thereafter, working

completing statistical analyses of canine

group members will conduct review to ensure

bite ratios or the data necessary to

compliance with A through K and implement audit tools

compute such a ratio.

to ensure that staff are complying with the policies. This

ensures periodic quality checks on data entered. This Canisters of chemical spray issued to officers will

also ensures that lapses in policy implementation are be entered into RMS, including the date of

addressed by a system of documented discipline and/or issuance and date of expirations of the chemical

re-training.

spray, with a reasonable level of accuracy and

 Status: Not satisfied. The OIM received the completeness.

VIPD’s first Audit Report on January 17, 2014.  Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD has

During the First Quarter of 2014, the OIM

reported that it has developed a process

provided written and oral comments to the

to track issued canisters of O.C. Spray.

VIPD on its Audit Report. The Management

However, the OIM has not received

and Supervision audit was the weakest of the

documentation showing that the VIPD is

four working groups. The “audit” largely

entering the required information into

consisted of conclusory summary statements

IAPro.

without specifying any actual auditing process.

In consultation with the Use of Force Working

IAPro, a computerized database, is currently being used Group, the VIPD has developed a process to track

to assist in supervision and management for VIPD’s risk the amount of OC spray used by officers.

management system.

 See requirement immediately above.

 Status: Satisfied.

Injuries to prisoners will be entered into RMS

with a reasonable level of accuracy and

completeness.

 Status: Review ongoing. The OIM has

44

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 47 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

45

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE
seen isolated reports of injuries entered into IAPro, but we do not know if the VIPD is entering information about injuries to prisoners consistently.

COMPLIANCE STATUS

Instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with “resisting arrest,” “assault on a police officer,” “disorderly conduct,” or “obstruction of official business,” are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
 Status: Satisfied.

Firearm discharges, whether on or off-duty, are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
 Status: Not satisfied. As discussed in the Use of Force section, the VIPD apparently failed to file an RRR documenting an alleged firing of warning shots.” Any such discharge qualifies as a “critical firearm discharge” under the Use of Force Policy.

Complaints are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
 Status: Satisfied.

Dispositions of such complaints are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. The VIPD should enter the date when complainants are advised about the disposition of their complaints.

Criminal proceedings initiated, civil or

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 48 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

46

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

administrative claims filed, and civil lawsuits served against the Territory, the VIPD, and its Officers resulting from VIPD operations will be entered in RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
 Status: Not satisfied. The VIAG has provided the IAB with data about certain civil proceedings, but the IAB has not yet entered all of this information into IAPro. The VIPD previously advised the OIM that it would assign additional personnel to assist with the data entry, but that has not yet occurred.

Vehicle pursuits are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
 Status: Satisfied.

Incidents involving the pointing of a firearm at a human being are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
 Status: Satisfied.

In instances in which the VIPD has taken disciplinary action against officers, this information is entered in RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. The VIPD should include the “final agency action” decision, if any, in the RMS. The “final agency action” represents the Commissioner’s final decision. Currently, the VIPD only enters the IAB’s recommendation for cases that were sustained. Where the “final agency action” decision differs from the IAB’s recommendation, the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 49 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

VIPD should include a brief explanation for departing from the IAB’s recommendation.

Paragraph 61 – The new risk management All officers have been assigned a PDN. Working group VIPD has established a uniform method of

Not in

system will include, for the incidents

members will conduct quarterly review and report the identifying sworn personnel and applicable

Substantial

included in the database, appropriate

results of their review by December 31, 2013, and

civilian employees to ensure accurate

Compliance

identifying information for each involved quarterly thereafter to ensure officers are including

identification and tracking of all employee

officer (e.g., name, badge number, shift and appropriate identify information in the RMS, including conduct.

supervisor) and civilian (e.g., race, ethnicity utilizing PDN numbers, as required by paragraph 61.

 Status: Satisfied.

or national origin, if available).

 Status: Satisfied.

In incidents included in the database, the name

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure and unique identifier for each involved officer has

staff are complying with the policies and appropriate been entered with a reasonable level of accuracy

identifying information for each officer and civilian are and completeness.

included in the database. This ensures periodic quality

 Status: Satisfied.

checks on data entered.

 Status: Not satisfied. The OIM received the In incidents included in the database, the

VIPD’s first Audit Report on January 17, 2014. appropriate identifying information (e.g., name,

During the First Quarter of 2014, the OIM

ethnicity or national original), if available, for

provided written and oral comments to the

each involved civilian has been entered with a

VIPD on its Audit Report. The Management reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

and Supervision audit was the weakest of the

 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD is

four working groups. The “audit” largely

entering the names of civilians who are

consisted of conclusory summary statements

involved in incidents, but is not entering

without specifying any actual auditing process.

information about their ethnicity or

national origin.

By September 30, 2014, ensure that lapses in policy

implementation are addressed by system of documented In incidents included in the database, the shift and

discipline and/or retraining.

assignment for each on-duty supervisor has been

 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices entered with a reasonable level of accuracy and

Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance completeness.

with this requirement following the Third

 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD is not

Quarter of 2014.

entering Shift and assignment

information for each on-duty Supervisor.

By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize

Audit Plan.

47

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 50 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

 Status: Satisfied.

Paragraph 62 – Within 120 days of the implementation of the new risk management system, or later with the agreement of DOJ, the VIPD will prepare, for the review and approval of DOJ, a plan for including appropriate fields and values of new and historical data into the risk management system (the “Data Input Plan”). The Data Input Plan will identify the data to be included and the means for inputting such data (direct entry or otherwise), the specific fields of information to be included, the past time periods for which information is to be included, the deadlines for inputting the data, and the responsibility for the input of the data. The Data Input Plan will include historical data that is up-to-date and complete in the risk management system. The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final review and approval within 30 days after it is presented for approval.

VIPD has received DOJ’s approval for its Data Input Plan.
The Data Input Plan contains the elements required in Paragraph 62.

Substantial Compliance

Paragraph 63 – The VIPD will, within 120 days, prepare for the review and approval of DOJ, and thereafter implement, a protocol for using the risk management system. The VIPD will submit for the review and approval of DOJ all proposed modifications to the protocol prior to implementing such modifications.

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies.
 Status: Not satisfied. The OIM received the VIPD’s first Audit Report on January 17, 2014. During the First Quarter of 2014, the OIM provided written and oral comments to the VIPD on its Audit Report. The Management and Supervision audit was the weakest of the four working groups. The “audit” largely consisted of conclusory summary statements without specifying any actual auditing process.
By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize

VIPD has received approval from DOJ, and implemented a protocol for using the RMS.
 Status: Satisfied.
The VIPD has audited the RMS and confirmed that its use reflects the requirements of the protocol.
 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD did not conduct an adequate audit of the RMS.
VIPD submits to DOJ for review and approval all proposed modifications to the protocol before implementation.

Not in Substantial Compliance

48

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 51 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

Audit Plan.  Status: Satisfied.
By September 30, 2014, ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or retraining.
 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance with this requirement following the Third Quarter of 2014.

 Status: Not yet applicable. The VIPD has not yet proposed any modifications to the RMS protocol.

Paragraph 64 – The protocol for using the risk management system will include the following provisions and elements: The protocol is comprised of the following components: data storage, data retrieval, reporting, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation and audit. The protocol will require the automated system to analyze the data according to the following criteria: i) number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; ii) average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and iii) identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit. The protocol will require the system to generate reports on a monthly basis describing the data and data analysis and identifying individual and unit patterns. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors will review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, system reports, and will evaluate

The VIPD has received DOJ approval of a

Substantial

protocol with the components identified in ¶64 of Compliance

the Consent Decree.

49

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 52 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

individual officer, supervisor, and unit activity. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors initiate intervention for individual officers, supervisors and for units based on appropriate activity and pattern assessment of the information contained in the risk management system. The protocol will require that intervention options include discussion by deputy chiefs, managers, supervisors, and officers; counseling; training; and supervised, monitored, and documented action plans and strategies designed to modify activity. All interventions will be documented in writing and entered into the automated system (appropriate intervention options will be employed based on the evaluation described in subsection (e) above). The protocol will specify that actions taken as a result of information from the risk management system be based on all relevant and appropriate information, including the nature of the officer’s assignment, crime trends and crime problems, and not solely on the number or percentages of incidents in any category of information recorded in the risk management system. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors. will promptly review the risk management system records of all officers recently transferred to their sections and units. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors be evaluated on their ability to use the risk management system to enhance effectiveness and reduce risk. The protocol

50

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 53 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

will require that the system be managed and administered by the Internal Affairs Unit of the VIPD. The IAU of the VIPD will conduct quarterly audits of the system to ensure action is taken according to the process described above. The protocol will require regular reviews, at no less than quarterly intervals, by appropriate managers of all relevant risk management system information to evaluate officer performance territory-wide, and to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all VIPD units in order to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents.

Paragraph 65 – The VIPD will maintain all Conduct weekly inspections to ensure that all Blue

personally identifiable information about an Team programs are installed on all Zone Command

officer included in the risk management computers and are also functioning.

system during the officer’s employment with  Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed.

the VIPD for at least five years. Information

The VIPD has conducted weekly inspections of

necessary for aggregate statistical analysis

Blue Team. However, those inspections

will be maintained indefinitely in the risk

indicate that Blue Team is not working

management system. On an ongoing basis,

properly on all Department computers. The

the VIPD will enter information into the risk

OIM does not know whether the Department

management system in a timely, accurate,

has addressed any of these deficiencies.

and complete manner, and maintain the

data in a secure and confidential manner. By December 31, 2013, implement quarterly audits to

ensure that information is timely and accurately entered

in the RMS and that staff are complying with the

policies.

 Status: Not satisfied. The OIM received the

VIPD’s first Audit Report on January 17, 2014.

During the First Quarter of 2014, the OIM

provided written and oral comments to the

VIPD on its Audit Report. The Management

and Supervision audit was the weakest of the

The information required by ¶ 65 is entered and appropriately maintained with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
 Status: Satisfied.
Complete the test of a beta version of RMS as described in ¶ 64(d).
 Status: Not applicable. As we reported in our last Quarterly Report, the VIPD has used IAPro for several years.
Provide DOJ and the monitors with the opportunity to participate in the beta version testing.
 See requirement immediately above.
Resolve all server issues that impeded RMS from being fully operational and implemented.
 Status: Not satisfied. The IAPro servers on one District are not accessible to VIPD personnel on the other District.

Not in Substantial Compliance

51

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 54 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

four working groups. The “audit” largely consisted of conclusory summary statements without specifying any actual auditing process.
Working group members will be scheduling times to observe roll calls and to ensure that these matters are discussed via roll calls and commanders calls.
 Status: Not satisfied. The OIM has not received documentation that the members of the Management and Supervision working group are observing Roll Calls and Commanders Calls.
Input of historical data is ongoing and requires adequate numbers of staff for data entry.
 Status: Satisfied.

Install all hardware related to RMS and ensure that it is fully functional.
 Status: Satisfied.
Ensure that Blue Team is operational at all required locations.
 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. The VIPD has conducted weekly inspections of Blue Team. However, those inspections indicate that Blue Team is not working properly on all Department computers. The VIPD has not provided documentation indicating that it has addressed these deficiencies.

By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Supervisors and managers have received initial

Audit Plan.

training on RMS.

 Status: Satisfied.

 Status: Satisfied.

By September 30, 2014, ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or retraining.
 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance with this requirement following the Third Quarter of 2014.

Paragraph 66 - The new risk management By December 31, 2013, complete review to determine Complete the test of a beta version of RMS as

system will be purchased off the shelf and compliance with d-e.

described in ¶ 64(d).

customized by VIPD. Alternatively, the new

risk management system may be developed Ensure sufficient staff to enter current and historical data Provide DOJ and the monitors with the

and implemented according to the following into IAPro.

opportunity to participate in the beta version

schedule: Within 150 days of the effective

testing.

date of this Agreement, subject to the review

and approval of DOJ, the VIPD will issue a

Substantial Compliance

52

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 55 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

Request for Proposal (RFP). Within 270 days of the issuance of the RFP, or later with the agreement of DOJ, the VIPD will select the contractor to create the risk management system. Within 150 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the VIPD will submit the protocol for using the risk management system to DOJ for review and approval. The VIPD will share drafts of this document with DOJ and the Monitor (a position described in Section VII) to allow DOJ and the Monitor to become familiar with the document as it develops and to provide informal comments on it. The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final approval within 30 days after it is presented for review and approval. Within 14 months of selecting the contractor, the VIPD will have ready for testing a beta version of the risk management system consisting of: i) server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the VIPD’s existing automated systems; ii) necessary data base software installed and configured; iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and iv) the use of force information system completed, including historic data. DOJ and the Monitor will have the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version using use of force data and test data created specifically for purposes of checking the risk management system. The risk management system computer program and computer hardware will be operational and fully implemented within 20 months of the

53

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 56 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

selection of the risk management system contractor.

Paragraph 67 – Prior to implementation of the new risk management system, the VIPD will continue to use existing databases and resources to the fullest extent possible, to identify patterns of conduct by VIPD officers or groups of officers.

N/A

N/A

Paragraph 68 – Following the initial implementation of the risk management system, and as experience and the availability of new technology may warrant, the VIPD may propose to add, subtract, or modify data tables and fields, modify the list of documents scanned or electronically attached, and add, subtract, or modify standardized reports and queries. The VIPD will submit all such proposals for review and approval by DOJ before implementation.

VIPD receives approval from DOJ for all

N/A

modifications to RMS prior to implementation.

Oversight

Paragraph 69 – The VIPD will develop a By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize The VIPD has developed an audit protocol that Not in

protocol for conducting audits. The protocol Audit Plan.

includes a regular and fixed schedule for

Substantial

will be used by each officer or supervisor

 Status: Satisfied.

conducting audits to ensure that they occur

Compliance

charged with conducting audits. The

sufficiently, frequently and cover all VIPD zones.

protocol will establish a regular and fixed Audit report due December 31, 2013 and quarterly

 Status: Satisfied.

schedule to ensure that such audits occur thereafter.

with sufficient frequency, and cover all

 Status: Satisfied.

The VIPD creates an audit capacity and identifies

VIPD zones.

staff to carry out the protocol.

By December 31, 2013 VIPD will implement audit tools

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work

to ensure staff are complying with all policies and

needed. The VIPD does have a

conduct use of force review on a quarterly basis. This

dedicated audit unit to carry out the audit

includes periodic checks on data entered.

protocol. However, allowing working

 Status: Not satisfied. The OIM received the

group members to audit the VIPD’s

VIPD’s first Audit Report on January 17, 2014.

compliance with the Consent Decree

54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 57 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

During the First Quarter of 2014, the OIM provided written and oral comments to the VIPD on its Audit Report. The Management and Supervision audit was the weakest of the four working groups. The “audit” largely consisted of conclusory summary statements without specifying any actual auditing process.
By December 31, 2013, conduct audits to ensure compliance with the requirements for paragraph 64, regarding the RMS protocol.
 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD has not provided the OIM with any supporting documentation.
By December 31, 2013, VIPD will begin to conduct quarterly reviews to ensure that historical data required by the Data Input Plan is being entered in to the RMS.
 See requirement immediately above.
Quarterly review of closed IAU files to ensure compliance with investigation requirements.
 Status: Satisfied.
By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.
 Status: Satisfied.
By September 30, 2014, ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or retraining.
 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance with this requirement following the Third Quarter of 2014.

paragraphs for which they are responsible presents a conflict of interest and undermines the objectivity of the audit.
Officers or supervisors charged with conducting audits have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training on the audit protocol and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if the officers or supervisors charged with conducting audits have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the officers or supervisors have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or where officers or supervisors have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the officers or supervisors.
 Status: Satisfied.
In instances when an audit is conducted, each officer or supervisor charged with conducting the audit uses the protocol with a reasonable level of accuracy, completeness and timeliness.
 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD’s first Audit Report was a good first effort, but it did not uniformly conform to the Audit Protocol. For example, the section devoted to Management and Supervision largely consisted of conclusory statements without specifying any actual auditing process.

55

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 58 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

Discipline Paragraph 70 - The VIPD will develop a
56

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

After conducting an audit, VIPD analyzes the results, identifies corrective or other action necessary as a result of the findings of the audit, and implements such action.
 Status: Not satisfied. The OIM has not received documentation that the VIPD has taken corrective action following its first audit.

The historical data required by the Data Input Plan is up-to-date with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. The VIPD appears to keep historical data up-to-date. However, the VIPD has not audited this requirement.

IAU conducts audits of the RMS Protocol on a quarterly basis with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
 Status: Satisfied.

The Police Commissioner’s Office, with IAU assistance, has convened, at least quarterly, a meeting of senior managers, and all other personnel the Commissioner deems necessary, to review all RMS data to evaluate officer performance territory-wide and make appropriate comparisons regarding performance of all VIPD Units to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents.
 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD has not provided documentation indicating that any such meetings have been held.

Obtained DOJ approval of a disciplinary matrix Substantial

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 59 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

disciplinary matrix to take into account an officer’s violations of different rules, rather than just repeated violations of the same rule. The VIPD will further revise this matrix to increase the penalties for uses of excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, or dishonesty, to reflect the seriousness of those infractions. The revised disciplinary matrix will provide the VIPD with the discretion to impose any appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes the officer’s misconduct exhibits a lack of fitness for duty. This revised matrix will be subject to the review and approval of DOJ.

that: (a) accounts for an officer’s violations of Compliance different rules, rather than just repeated violations of the same rule; (b) is revised to increase the penalties for uses of excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, or dishonesty, to reflect the seriousness of those infractions; and, (c) provides the VIPD with the discretion to impose any appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes the officer’s misconduct exhibits a lack of fitness for duty. Adopted a disciplinary policy that guides the use of the disciplinary matrix.

Paragraph 71 - VIPD policy will identify Competency-based training of all staff by September 30, VIPD has developed a policy that establishes

Not in

clear time periods by which the various

2014 and ongoing documented refresher training

clear time periods by which the various steps of a Substantial

steps of a complaint adjudication process through in-services and roll call/commanders call.

complaint adjudication process should be

Compliance

should be completed, from complaint

 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices completed, from complaint receipt to the

receipt to the imposition of discipline, if

Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance imposition of discipline, if any.

any. Absent exigent circumstances,

with this requirement following the Third

 Status: Satisfied.

extensions will not be granted without the

Quarter of 2014.

Police Commissioner’s written approval

These established time periods are not violated

and notice to the complainant. In the limited By December 31, 2013, implement quarterly audits to except for in exigent circumstances and with the

circumstances when an extension is

ensure staff are complying with the policies, including Police Commissioner’s written approval for

necessary, appropriate tolling provisions (but not limited to) review for inclusion of written Police tolling and notice to the complainant.

will be outlined in the policy.

Commissioner extension approval in investigatory files.

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work

 Status: Satisfied.

needed. The VIPD currently relies on

VITEMA to assign tracking numbers for

By September 30, 2014, ensure that lapses in policy

each complaint when a complaint is filed

implementation are addressed by system of documented

at a Zone. The VIPD should ensure that

discipline and/or retraining.

each complaint (once assigned a

 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices

complaint number by VITEMA) is

Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance

entered into IAPro and forwarded to the

with this requirement following the Third

IAB for investigation or referral to the

Quarter of 2014.

Zones.

57

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 60 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

Paragraph 72 - Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD will not take only non- disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix indicates the imposition of discipline. The VIPD will not fail to consider whether nondisciplinary corrective action is required in a case because discipline has been imposed on the officer.

By September 30, 2014, ensure that lapses in policy

In cases where the matrix calls for discipline,

Not in

implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline is imposed.

Substantial

discipline and/or retraining.

 Status: Review ongoing. The VIPD

Compliance

 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices

finalized its revised Disciplinary Matrix

Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance

on November 1, 2013. As such, there

with this requirement following the Third

have only been a limited number of

Quarter of 2014.

violations of VIPD policy adjudicated

using the revised Disciplinary Matrix.

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to ensure

The OIM did not assess this requirement

staff are complying with the policies.

during the First Quarter of 2014. We

 Status: Not satisfied. The OIM received the

also note that the VIPD reported in its

VIPD’s first Audit Report on January 17, 2014.

Status Report that it conducted eighteen

During the First Quarter of 2014, the OIM

disciplinary proceedings during the First

provided written and oral comments to the

Quarter of 2014 in the St. Thomas

VIPD on its Audit Report. The Management

District and an unknown number of

and Supervision audit was the weakest of the

hearings in the St. Croix District.

four working groups. The “audit” largely

According to the VIPD, “the disciplinary

consisted of conclusory summary statements

matrix was referenced and implemented”

without specifying any actual auditing process.

in each proceeding. We do not know if

the discipline (or lack of discipline) that

Competency-based training of all staff by September 30,

was imposed in each proceeding was

2014 and ongoing documented refresher training

consistent with the Disciplinary Matrix

through in-services and roll call/commanders call.

because the VIPD has not provided

 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices

documentation for those proceedings.

Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance with this requirement following the Third Quarter of 2014.

In cases where discipline is imposed, there is evidence that the VIPD has also considered nondisciplinary corrective action.

 Status: Review ongoing. The OIM did

not assess this requirement during the

First Quarter of 2014.

TRAINING

Management Oversight

Paragraph 73 – The VIPD will continue to All lesson plans for the in-service training have been

coordinate and review all use of force

completed and were forwarded to the VIAG and

VIPD has coordinated and reviewed all use of Not in force policies at least annually and the Training Substantial

58

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 61 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

policy and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy. The VIPD will conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually.

approved by the Director of Training.  Status: Satisfied.

Division has reviewed, at least semi-annually, all Compliance training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy.

On an ongoing basis, continue to consult with counsel and/or VIAG to ensure compliance with Territorial law.
 Status: Not satisfied. As discussed in the last Quarterly Report, while the VIPD has included the VIAG in the lesson plan development process, the OIM has seen internally-developed lesson plans that are little more than a policy with a cover sheet. The VIPD should understand that, even with the VIAG’s signed approval, such lesson plans are insufficient for the VIPD to reach substantial compliance with this requirement.
Training on Audit Policy completed by October 31, 2013.
 Status: Satisfied.
Training on Disciplinary Matrix and Protocol completed by December 31, 2013.
 Status: Satisfied.

 Status: Not satisfied. The Commissioner signed an SOP during the Fourth Quarter of 2013. Under the SOP, the VIPD requested feedback on the Use of Force Policy from across the VIPD, but received comments from only one squad. The OIM understands that the Use of Force Policy is currently under review. While the Department has developed a process to review its use of force policies, it has not developed a similar process to review use of force training. The VIPD reported in its Status Report for the Fourth Quarter of 2013 that the Training Division and the VIAG review use of force lesson plans before the execution of related training. While those are positive steps, they are not sufficient. For example, the VIPD does not have a process in place to review and document the delivery of training.

Conduct yearly in-service training.  Status: Satisfied.
After each training, identify individuals who did not attend training and forward information to Chief’s Office. Chief’s Office will investigate reason for no show and, where necessary impose disciplinary action and/or reschedule training.

The Director of Training provides written approval for all changes to previously approved use of force training and provides a semi-annual report regarding any such changes and required legal approvals.
 Status: Satisfied.

 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD self-reported in its first Audit Report that “[r]escheduling of examinations for personnel who missed the training or the examination will be done within the first quarter of 2014.” However, we have

59

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 62 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

not seen any such documentation.

Paragraph 74 – The Director of Training, VIPD in consultation with VIAG shall ensure through The Director of Training and/or his/her staff

either directly or through his/her

review of lesson plans and instructional material that reviews and approves all use of force training.

designee(s), consistent with applicable law proper police practices are taught.

 Status: Satisfied.

and VIPD policy will: a. ensure the quality

 Status: Not satisfied. As discussed in the last

of all use of force training;

Quarterly Report, while the VIPD has included The Director of Training and/or his/her staff

b. develop and implement use of force

the VIAG in the lesson plan development

obtains legal review of all use of force training

training curricula;

process, the OIM has seen internally-developed curricula.

c. select and train VIPD officer trainers;

lesson plans that are little more than a policy

 Status: Satisfied.

d. develop, implement, approve, and oversee

with a cover sheet. The VIPD should

all in-service training;

understand that, even with the VIAG’s signed The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have

e. in conjunction with the Chiefs, develop,

approval, such lesson plans are insufficient for developed and implemented use of force training

implement, approve, and oversee a patrol division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant

the VIPD to reach substantial compliance with curricula (including lesson plans).

this requirement.

 Status: Satisfied.

changes in policies and procedures; f. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and g. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.

In-Service Training was completed in 2013. In-service training will be completed by December 31, 2014.
 Status: Satisfied.
In-service training will be conducted annually. VIPD shall periodically test for proficiency on the policies.
 Status: Satisfied.

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed a process to continually select and evaluate VIPD officer trainers.
 Status: Not satisfied. Although the VIPD provided some instructor training classes primarily focused on specific use of force skills, it has not provided the

OIM with information about its

By April 30, 2014, improve the tracking system to track

instructor selection process. For two

training attendance.

years, the VIPD has told the OIM that

 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD has made

the selection process was being

progress towards satisfying this requirement by

developed. We do not understand this

installing PowerDMS, which the Department

delay. Appropriately vetting instructor

plans to use to maintain training records and

candidates is a critical component of

loading VIPD Consent Decree-related policies,

providing quality training.

some lesson plans, and post-training quizzes.

However, the VIPD has not provided the OIM The training staff has received appropriate

with documentation that the necessary VIPD training and certification in the subject matter(s)

personnel information has been entered into that they are assigned to teach.

PowerDMS in order to track training

 Status: Satisfied.

attendance. The VIPD has told the OIM that a

Not in Substantial Compliance

60

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 63 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

work plan will be completed by April 30, 2014. The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have

The OIM will report on this plan next quarter. reviewed and provided written approval of all

curricula, course schedules and lesson plans.

By April 30, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all

 Status: Satisfied.

staff are trained on policies.

 See requirement immediately above.

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have

created and maintained a training record system

Training will continue to incorporate competency-based that captures attendance records, instructor and

training of officers and supervisors on remaining

student evaluations, and test results.

policies.

 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD has

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed.

made progress towards satisfying this

The VIPD needs to expand its use of

requirement by installing PowerDMS,

competency-based training across both

which the Department plans to use to

Districts.

maintain training records. The

Department has loaded policies, lesson

Continue refresher training on policies through

plans, and post-training quizzes to

documented, periodic in-service and roll call training.

PowerDMS. However, the VIPD has

 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD has reported

not provided documentation that it has

that it is providing Roll Call and Commanders

loaded historic training records into

Call training. However, there is no

PowerDMS. That is a critical step in

documented coordination between the Director

using PowerDMS as a tracking system

of Training, Police Chiefs, and Deputy Police

to ensure all staff are trained on policies.

Chiefs to ensure uniform Consent Decree-

The VIPD has told the OIM that it

related training across Zones and Districts. The

expects to complete a “work plan” by

VIPD should incorporate Roll Call and

April 30, 2014 to finish implementing

Commanders Call training records into

PowerDMS.

PowerDMS.

The Training Director and/or his/her staff, in

Continue to incorporate competency-based training on conjunction with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs,

policies into Police Academy.

have created a process for the development,

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. We note that the VIPD is increasingly using scenario-based training, including using its

implementation and approval of all Roll Call training curricula.
 Status: Not satisfied. Despite repeated

firearms simulator on the St. Croix District.

suggestions that the Director of Training

The VIPD, however, needs to expand its use of

create a systematized process for the

competency-based training across both

development, implementation, and

Districts.

approval of all Roll Call training

61

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 64 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

curricula, there is no evidence that the

Yearly review of policies to determine training needs.

Director has done this.

 Status: Not satisfied. The Commissioner

signed an SOP during the Fourth Quarter of The Training Director and/or his/her staff, in

2013. Under the SOP, the VIPD requested

conjunction with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs,

feedback on the Use of Force Policy from

have developed, implemented and approved all

across the VIPD, but received comments from Roll Call training curricula.

only one squad. The OIM understands that the

 See requirement immediately above.

Use of Force Policy is currently under review.

While the Department has developed a process The Training Director and/or his/her staff have

to review its use of force policies, it has not maintained written documentation of this process.

developed a similar process to review use of force training. The VIPD reported in its Status

 See requirement immediately above.

Report for the Fourth Quarter of 2013 that the For the conducted Consent Decree related

Training Division and the VIAG review use of training sessions, evaluation review forms were

force lesson plans before the execution of

collected from class participants. The Director of

related training. While those are positive steps, Training and his/her staff will review these

they are not sufficient. For example, the VIPD evaluation forms.

does not have a process in place to review and

 Status: Satisfied.

document the delivery of training.

By October 31, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, finalize Audit Plan.
 Status: Satisfied.

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff semi- annually will review use of force incidents to identify patterns and trends that will influence training needs. The chiefs or deputy chiefs and

the Director of IAU must take part in the review.

By December 31, 2013, implement audit tools to review The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have

and analyze use of force incident reports to identify

developed, reviewed and implemented all use of

trends, training deficiencies, staff compliance/lack of force training curricula (including lesson plans).

compliance with policies, and additional needs.

 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD initially

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed.

developed its use of force training

The OIM received the VIPD’s first Audit

curricula in March of 2011. That

Report on January 17, 2014. During the First

curricula needs to be reviewed for

Quarter of 2014, the OIM provided written and

possible revisions in light of intervening

oral comments to the VIPD on its Audit Report.

legal developments or the Department’s

With respect to the Training audit, the working

identification of particular deficiencies.

group did not explain why it chose 80% of

For example, the Police Practices

VIPD personnel as a threshold for compliance.

Experts have noted that VIPD personnel

62

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 65 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT
Additionally, there were issues of repetitiveness, e.g. the Procedures/Methodology sections largely restated the objectives of the audit.

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE
frequently use “pattern language” when completing reports; “pattern language” refers to conclusory language that does not describe the underlying facts.

COMPLIANCE STATUS

After each training, identify individuals who did not attend training and forward information to Chief’s Office. Chief’s Office will investigate reason for no show and, where necessary impose disciplinary action and/or reschedule training.
 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD self-reported in its first Audit Report that “[r]escheduling of examinations for personnel who missed the training or the examination will be done within the first quarter of 2014.” However, we have not seen any such documentation.

Paragraph 75 – The VIPD will continue to provide training consistent with VIPD policy, law, and proper police practices, and will ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by instructors. The VIPD will make best efforts to train each work shift as a team in their use of force training.

Conduct annual competency-based training of officers and supervisors on policies.
 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. The VIPD needs to expand its use of competency-based training across both Districts.
Competency-based training of all staff by December 31, 2013. Also continue competency –based training of all investigators.
 See requirement immediately above.
By September 30, 2014, where warranted, provide and document remedial training for personnel who have been identified as personnel who continually fail to report uses of force.
 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices Experts will report on the VIPD’s compliance with this requirement following the Third Quarter of 2014.

The VIPD has delivered training that is consistent with the content of approved lesson plans.
 Status: Satisfied.
The Director of Training and/or his/her staff has developed a plan to provide, to the extent possible, training for each work shift as a team on use of force and implements that plan.
 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD has not provided any documentation that, to the extent possible, it trains each work Shift as a team.
Sworn personnel have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training each policy/protocol and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and

Not in Substantial Compliance

63

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 66 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

successfully completed a remedial program

On an ongoing basis, continue to consult with counsel designed to ensure passage of the proficiency

and/or VIAG to ensure compliance with Territorial law. test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or where

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. sworn personnel have not successfully completed

As discussed in the last Quarterly Report, while training and passed the proficiency tests, the

the VIPD has included the VIAG in the lesson VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action,

plan development process, the OIM has seen including training, and disciplinary action against

internally-developed lesson plans that are little the sworn personnel.

more than a policy with a cover sheet. The

 Status: Not satisfied. Although initially

VIPD should understand that, even with the

requested in the Second Quarter of 2013,

VIAG’s signed approval, such lesson plans are

the VIPD has not provided the OIM with

insufficient for the VIPD to reach substantial

documentation demonstrating that sworn

compliance with this requirement.

personnel who did not attend the training

and/or failed the post-training

By April 30, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all

examinations were provided remedial

staff are trained on policies.

training and/or were disciplined.

 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD has made

progress towards satisfying this requirement by Sworn personnel displayed knowledge and

installing PowerDMS, which the Department proficiency in the requirements each policy, as

plans to use to maintain training records. The evidenced by compliance with the policy/protocol

Department has loaded policies, lesson plans, requirements.

and post-training quizzes to PowerDMS.

 See ¶ 100.

However, the VIPD has not provided

documentation that it has loaded historic

All training must comport with the requirements

training records into PowerDMS. That is a of the Consent Decree and be taught from

critical step in using PowerDMS as a tracking curricula/lesson plans that identify training

system to ensure all staff are trained on

objectives; (b) incorporate, to the extent possible,

policies. The VIPD has told the OIM that it adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises);

expects to complete a “work plan” by April 30, and (d) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal

2014 to finish implementing PowerDMS.

counsel, as appropriate.

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work

Continue refresher training on policies through

needed. As discussed in the last

documented, periodic in-service and roll call training.

Quarterly Report, while the VIPD has

 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD has reported

included the VIAG in the lesson plan

that it is providing Roll Call and Commanders

development process, the OIM has seen

Call training. However, there is no

internally-developed lesson plans that

documented coordination between the Director

are little more than a policy with a cover

64

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 67 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

of Training, Police Chiefs, and Deputy Police Chiefs to ensure uniform Consent Decreerelated training across Zones and Districts. The VIPD should incorporate Roll Call and Commanders Call training records into PowerDMS.

sheet. The VIPD should understand that, even with the VIAG’s signed approval, such lesson plans are insufficient for the VIPD to reach substantial compliance with this requirement.

Continue to incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy.
 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. We note that the VIPD is increasingly using scenario-based training, including using its firearms simulator on the St. Croix District. The VIPD, however, needs to expand its use of competency-based training across both Districts.

Yearly review of policies to determine training needs.  Status: Not satisfied. The Commissioner signed an SOP during the Fourth Quarter of 2013. Under the SOP, the VIPD requested feedback on the Use of Force Policy from across the VIPD, but received comments from only one squad. The OIM understands that the Use of Force Policy is currently under review. While the Department has developed a process to review its use of force policies, it has not developed a similar process to review use of force training. The VIPD reported in its Status Report for the Fourth Quarter of 2013 that the Training Division and the VIAG review use of force lesson plans before the execution of related training. While those are positive steps, they are not sufficient. For example, the VIPD does not have a process in place to review and document the delivery of training.

65

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 68 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

Paragraph 76 – The VIPD shall continue to Provide Monitors’ subject matter experts with training The VIPD has established a central, commonly Not in

keep adequate records of lesson plans and curricula and schedules at least 15 days in advance of accessible repository for lesson plans and training Substantial

other training materials, such that the most training, but preferably 30 days in advance.

materials.

Compliance

current training documents are maintained

 Status: Not satisfied. The Police Practices

 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD has

in a central, commonly accessible file, and

Experts have not received a complete set of

made progress towards satisfying this

are clearly dated.

lesson plans for the most recent round of in-

requirement by installing PowerDMS,

service training in November or lesson plans

which the Department plans to use to

covering the most recent supervisory training.

maintain training records. The

After being notified by the OIM that the Police

Department has loaded policies, lesson

Practices Experts would be on-site to observe

plans, and post-training quizzes to

training, the VIPD made changes to the training

PowerDMS. However, the VIPD has

schedule without notifying the OIM and

not provided documentation that it has

causing the Police Practices Experts to miss an

loaded historic training records into

observation opportunity. For this reason, the

PowerDMS. That is a critical step in

OIM has requested that the VIPD videotape

using PowerDMS as a tracking system

training. The benefit is two-fold: (1) it allows

to ensure all staff are trained on policies.

the Police Practices Experts to observe training

The VIPD has told the OIM that it

when they are unable to attend in person; and

expects to complete a “work plan” by

(2) it provides a training tool for the VIPD to

April 30, 2014 to finish implementing

use when VIPD personnel miss training.

PowerDMS.

Because videotaped training should not

substitute for attending live training, the VIPD Training records are maintained in a central,

should develop a protocol for determining

commonly accessible repository.

which VIPD personnel would most benefit

 See requirement immediately above.

from videotaped trainings (e.g. veteran

Officers).

Training materials are clearly dated.

By April 30, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all

 Status: Satisfied.

staff are trained on policies.

Lesson plans contain all of the required signatures

 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD has made

of review and approval.

progress towards satisfying this requirement by installing PowerDMS, which the Department

 Status: Satisfied.

plans to use to maintain training records. The

Department has loaded policies, lesson plans,

and post-training quizzes to PowerDMS.

However, the VIPD has not provided

documentation that it has loaded historic

66

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 69 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

training records into PowerDMS. That is a critical step in using PowerDMS as a tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies. The VIPD has told the OIM that it expects to complete a “work plan” by April 30, 2014 to finish implementing PowerDMS.

Paragraph 77 – The VIPD shall continue to Training files are updated on a continuous basis as

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff has Not in

maintain training records regarding every officers are trained.

maintained current and substantially complete Substantial

VIPD officer that reliably indicate the

 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD has made

training records for VIPD Officers.

Compliance

training each officer has received. The

progress towards satisfying this requirement by  Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD’s

training records shall, at a minimum,

installing PowerDMS, which the Department

training records do not currently capture

include the course description and duration,

plans to use to maintain training records. The

the course description, length of training,

curriculum, and

Department has loaded policies, lesson plans,

curricula, or instructor information in a

instructor for each officer.

and post-training quizzes to PowerDMS.

single consolidated format.

However, the VIPD has not provided

documentation that it has loaded historic

training records into PowerDMS. That is a

critical step in using PowerDMS as a tracking

system to ensure all staff are trained on

policies. The VIPD has told the OIM that it

expects to complete a “work plan” by April 30,

2014 to finish implementing PowerDMS.

By April 30, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all staff are trained on policies.
 See requirement immediately above.

Paragraph 78 – The Training Director, in consultation with the Attorney General’s Office, will review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure compliance with applicable laws and VIPD policy.

On an ongoing basis, VIPD will continue to consult with The Training Director and/or his/her staff, in

Not in

VIAG to ensure that all use of force training and use of consultation with the Attorney General’s Office, Substantial

force policies are in compliance with applicable laws has reviewed all force- related policies and

Compliance

and VIPD policy.

training curricula/lessons plans regularly (i.e., at

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. least semi-annually) to ensure compliance with

As discussed in the last Quarterly Report, while applicable laws and VIPD policy and there is

the VIPD has included the VIAG in the lesson documentation of this review.

plan development process, the OIM has seen

 Status: Not satisfied. The Commissioner

internally-developed lesson plans that are little

signed an SOP during the Fourth Quarter

more than a policy with a cover sheet. The

of 2013. Under the SOP, the VIPD

67

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 70 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

VIPD should understand that, even with the VIAG’s signed approval, such lesson plans are insufficient for the VIPD to reach substantial compliance with this requirement.

requested feedback on the Use of Force Policy from across the VIPD, but received comments from only one squad. The OIM understands that the Use of Force Policy is currently under review. While the Department has developed a process to review its use of force policies, it has not developed a similar process to review use of force training. The VIPD reported in its Status Report for the Fourth Quarter of 2013 that the Training Division and the VIAG review use of force lesson plans before the execution of related training. While those are positive steps, they are not sufficient. For example, the VIPD does not have a process in place to review and document the delivery of training.

Force-related training curricula/lesson plans adequately incorporate critical thinking, decision- making instruction, applicable law(s) and VIPD policy.
 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. We note that the VIPD is increasingly using scenario-based training, including using its firearms simulator on the St. Croix District. The VIPD, however, needs to expand its use of competency-based training throughout the District.

The VIPD follows a process by which the Attorney General’s Office reviews any additions, changes, and/or modifications regarding use of force training or policies to ensure compliance with any applicable laws.

68

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 71 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

Paragraph 79 – The VIPD will continue to provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on use of force. Such training will include and address the following topics: the VIPD’s use of force model, as described in this Agreement; proper use of force decisionmaking; the VIPD’s use of force reporting requirements; the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements; examples of scenarios faced by VIPD officers that illustrate proper use of force decisionmaking; interactive exercises that emphasize proper use of force decisionmaking; de-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without using force, and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation even when the use of force would be legally justified; threat assessment; appropriate training on conflict management.
69

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE
 Status: Satisfied.

COMPLIANCE STATUS

Force-related policies and training curricula/lesson plans have received at least annual review by the Attorney General’s Office and those reviews are documented in writing.
 Status: Satisfied.

At least annually, the Training Director and/or his/her staff develop a training schedule and curricula for all use of force related policies that incorporates and addresses all of the components identified in ¶ 79(a)-(i).
 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. The VIPD should develop a training schedule and develop curricula for the entire year rather than for the immediate next training. The VIPD should also incorporate more training exercises that focus on scenario-based decision making and role playing.

Not in Substantial Compliance

At least annually, the Training Director and/or his/her staff implement that training schedule and curricula for all use of force related policies based on ¶ 79(a)-(i).
 See requirement immediately above.

Sworn personnel have (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in- service training for each new or revised use of force policy that includes and addresses the issues in paragraph 79(a)-(i) and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel in each of the categories of recruits, officers, supervisors and managers have not successfully completed the required training and

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 72 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel. Where train-the-trainer or specific force tool certifications are required, recruits, officers, supervisors and managers have those certifications.
 Status: Not satisfied. Although initially requested in the Second Quarter of 2013, the VIPD has not provided the OIM with documentation demonstrating that sworn personnel who did not attend the training and/or failed the post-training examinations were provided remedial training and/or were disciplined.

Paragraph 80 – The VIPD will continue to provide training to all its officers on the VIPD citizen complaint process. The VIPD will develop a protocol for all its officers on appropriate conduct and responses in handling citizens’ complaints and will train officers in the protocol.

VIPD will continue to utilize competency-based training The VIPD has developed policies or protocols

of officers and supervisors.

related to the citizen complaint process, which

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. address appropriate conduct and response in

The VIPD needs to expand its use of

handling citizen complaints.

competency-based training across both

 Status: Satisfied.

Districts.

Sworn personnel have (a) attended and

By April 30, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all successfully completed the initial in-service

staff are trained on policies.

training for each new or revised complaint

 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD has made

process related policy and demonstrated

progress towards satisfying this requirement by proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if

installing PowerDMS, which the Department sworn personnel have not successfully completed

plans to use to maintain training records. The the required training and passed the proficiency

Department has loaded policies, lesson plans, tests, the sworn personnel have entered and

and post-training quizzes to PowerDMS.

successfully completed a remedial program

Not in Substantial Compliance

70

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 73 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

However, the VIPD has not provided

designed to ensure passage of the proficiency

documentation that it has loaded historic

test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or where

training records into PowerDMS. That is a sworn personnel have not successfully completed

critical step in using PowerDMS as a tracking training and passed the proficiency tests, the

system to ensure all staff are trained on

VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action,

policies. The VIPD has told the OIM that it including training, and disciplinary action against

expects to complete a “work plan” by April 30, the sworn personnel.

2014 to finish implementing PowerDMS.

 Status: Not satisfied. Although initially

requested in the Second Quarter of 2013,

Continue refresher training on policies through

the VIPD has not provided the OIM with

documented, periodic in-service and roll call training.

documentation demonstrating that sworn

 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD has reported

personnel who did not attend the training

that it is providing Roll Call and Commanders

and/or failed the post-training

Call training. However, there is no

examinations were provided remedial

documented coordination between the Director

training and/or were disciplined.

of Training, Police Chiefs, and Deputy Police

Chiefs to ensure uniform Consent Decree-

related training across Zones and Districts. The

VIPD should incorporate Roll Call and

Commanders Call training records into

PowerDMS.

Yearly review of policies to determine training needs.  Status: Not satisfied. The Commissioner signed an SOP during the Fourth Quarter of 2013. Under the SOP, the VIPD requested feedback on the Use of Force Policy from across the VIPD, but received comments from only one squad. The OIM understands that the Use of Force Policy is currently under review. While the Department has developed a process to review its use of force policies, it has not developed a similar process to review use of force training. The VIPD reported in its Status Report for the Fourth Quarter of 2013 that the Training Division and the VIAG review use of force lesson plans before the execution of

71

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 74 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

related training. While those are positive steps, they are not sufficient. For example, the VIPD does not have a process in place to review and document the delivery of training.

Paragraph 81 – The VIPD will provide training on appropriate burdens of proof to all supervisors, as well as the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility (to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform, and legally appropriate). The VIPD will also continue to provide training to supervisors on leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training will be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities, and service training.

Competency-based training of supervisors on policy will Supervisors have (a) attended and successfully Not in

continue.

completed the initial in- service annual training Substantial

 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. incorporating the requirements of ¶¶ 78-81 and Compliance

The VIPD needs to expand its use of

demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency

competency-based training across both

test(s); or (b) if VIPD supervisors have not

Districts. Moreover, the VIPD should utilize successfully completed the required training and

more training exercises that focus on scenario- passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn

based decision making and role playing.

supervisor has entered and successfully

completed a remedial program designed to ensure

By April 30, 2014 improve tracking system to ensure all passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the

staff are trained on policies.

proficiency test(s); or where supervisors have not

 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD has made

completed training and passed the proficiency

progress towards satisfying this requirement by tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate

installing PowerDMS, which the Department corrective action, including training, and

plans to use to maintain training records. The disciplinary action against the supervisors.

Department has loaded policies, lesson plans,

 Status: Not satisfied. Although initially

and post-training quizzes to PowerDMS.

requested in the Second Quarter of 2013,

However, the VIPD has not provided

the VIPD has not provided the OIM with

documentation that it has loaded historic

documentation demonstrating that

training records into PowerDMS. That is a

Supervisors who did not attend the

critical step in using PowerDMS as a tracking

training and/or failed the post-training

system to ensure all staff are trained on

examinations were provided remedial

policies. The VIPD has told the OIM that it

training and/or were disciplined.

expects to complete a “work plan” by April 30,

2014 to finish implementing PowerDMS.

Newly promoted supervisors have attended and

successfully completed the initial training within

Continue refresher training on policies through

90 days of assuming supervisory responsibility

documented, periodic in-service and roll call training. incorporating the requirements of ¶¶ 78-81 and

 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD has reported demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency

that it is providing Roll Call and Commanders test(s); or (b) if newly promoted supervisors have

Call training. However, there is no

not successfully completed the required training

documented coordination between the Director within 90 days of assuming supervisory

72

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 75 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH
Paragraph 100 - The Territory of the Virgin Islands and the VIPD shall implement each and every provision of this Agreement as that term is defined in Paragraph 30 of this Agreement.

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

of Training, Police Chiefs, and Deputy Police responsibility and passed the proficiency test(s),

Chiefs to ensure uniform Consent Decree-

the newly promoted supervisor has entered and

related training across Zones and Districts. The successfully completed a remedial program

VIPD should incorporate Roll Call and

designed to ensure passage of the proficiency

Commanders Call training records into

test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or where

PowerDMS.

newly promoted supervisors have not

successfully completed training and passed the

Yearly review of policies to determine training needs. proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated

 Status: Not satisfied. The Commissioner

appropriate corrective action, including training,

signed an SOP during the Fourth Quarter of and disciplinary action against the newly

2013. Under the SOP, the VIPD requested

promoted supervisor.

feedback on the Use of Force Policy from

 Status: Review ongoing. This

across the VIPD, but received comments from

requirement was not assessed during the

only one squad. The OIM understands that the

First Quarter of 2014 because no

Use of Force Policy is currently under review.

Supervisors were promoted during the

While the Department has developed a process

applicable time period.

to review its use of force policies, it has not

developed a similar process to review use of

force training. The VIPD reported in its Status

Report for the Fourth Quarter of 2013 that the

Training Division and the VIAG review use of

force lesson plans before the execution of

related training. While those are positive steps,

they are not sufficient. For example, the VIPD

does not have a process in place to review and

document the delivery of training.

1. Use of Force policies (paragraph 31):
For subsection a: Definitions of all force terms are consistent with the Consent Decree, applicable law, and generally accepted police practices.
 Status: Satisfied.

Not in Substantial Compliance

For subsection b: Definition of “force” comports with ¶ 21 of the Consent Decree.

73

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 76 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

74

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE
 Status: Satisfied.

COMPLIANCE STATUS

For subsection c: In use of force incidents, there is documented evidence that, as appropriate, Officers disengaged, contained the area, conducted surveillance, waited out the subject, and/or called in specialized units.
 Status: Review ongoing. During the First Quarter of 2014, the OIM did not review any cases where this requirement was implicated.

For subsection d: In use of force incidents, there is documented evidence that, when feasible, an individual was advised that he/she is allowed to submit to arrest before force is used.
 Status: Review ongoing. During the First Quarter of 2014, the OIM did not review any cases where this requirement was implicated.

For subsection e: See ¶ 31.

For subsection f: In use of force incidents, the use of force review concludes that sufficient less lethal alternatives were used where appropriate based on the totality of circumstances. Patrol and other applicable officers carry less lethal alternatives at all times while on duty.
 Status: Review ongoing. The Police Practices Experts have observed that uniformed Officers on the St. Thomas and St. Croix Districts carry less lethal alternatives. The Police Practices Experts will monitor if the VIPD detectives carry less lethal alternatives in the coming quarters.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 77 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

75

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

For subsection g: In use of force incidents, choke holds and similar carotid holds were not used, except where deadly force was authorized. In use of force incidents where the use of force review concluded that use of choke holds or similar carotid holds were not authorized, VIPD took corrective and/or disciplinary action against the officer who used the choke hold or other carotid hold.
 Status: Review ongoing. During the First Quarter of 2014, the OIM did not review any cases where this requirement was implicated.
VIPD immediately implements any policy revisions, once approved.
 Status: Satisfied.
2. Firearms policy (paragraph 39): Sworn personnel do not possess or use unauthorized firearms or ammunition.
 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD has issued its Firearms Policy, but the Department has not provided the OIM with any documentation demonstrating compliance with this requirement.
In cases where an officer is found to be in possession of unauthorized firearms or ammunition, there is evidence that an investigation was conducted and appropriate corrective action was taken which includes bringing the officer’s conduct into compliance with the VIPD firearms policy.
 Status: Review ongoing. During the First Quarter of 2014, the OIM did not

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 78 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

76

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

review any cases where this requirement was implicated.

Firearm discharges are documented on an RRR.  Status: Not satisfied. As described earlier in ¶ 35, the OIM reviewed a case where an Officer allegedly fired warning shots in the air. The firearm discharge was not documented on an RRR. This incident was only discovered through a citizen complaint about the warning shots.

Service ammunition obtained and used by officers is obtained through official VIPD channels.
 Status: Not satisfied. Although the VIPD has issued its Firearms Policy, the Department has not provided the OIM with any documentation demonstrating compliance with this requirement.

3. Off-duty policy (Paragraph 40): In reported incidents involving off-duty officers taking police action, the off-duty officer’s conduct comports with policies regarding off-duty officers taking police action and ¶¶ 31(a)-(g) of the Consent Decree.
 Status: Review ongoing. During the First Quarter of 2014, the OIM did not review any cases where this requirement was implicated.

Off-duty officers notified on-duty sworn personnel or local enforcement officers before taking police actions, except in exigent circumstances.
 Status: Review ongoing. During the

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 79 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

77

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

First Quarter of 2014, the OIM did not review any cases where this requirement was implicated.

In incidents where an off-duty officer taking police action appeared to have consumed alcohol, the off-duty officer submitted to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.
 Status: Review ongoing. During the First Quarter of 2014, the OIM did not review any cases where this requirement was implicated.

Completed investigations into complaints of misconduct are in compliance with the provisions of the Consent Decree.
 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. As discussed in ¶ 46, the VIPD has provided initial training on the preponderance of evidence standard. During the Second Quarter of 2013, the VIPD provided the OIM with documentation showing that Supervisors were tested on the preponderance of the evidence standard. According to the VIPD, a total of 28 Supervisors were tested during the First Quarter of 2014 with a 71% passing rate (20 out of 28). Although the VIPD reports that remedial training was conducted for Supervisors who failed the examination, the OIM has not seen any such documentation.

4. Investigations (Paragraph 47): In reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he /she was not involved in the use of force incident,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 80 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

78

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize conduct leading to the use of force incident).
 Status: Review ongoing. During the First Quarter of 2014, investigating Supervisors had no involvement in the incident in 83% (5 out of 6) of the closed use of force investigations reviewed by the Police Practices Experts.

5. Investigative findings (Paragraph 52): Use of force investigations include documented findings of all of the considerations required by ¶ 52.
 Status: Review ongoing. In 67% (8 out of 12) of the closed IAB investigations reviewed by the Police Practices Experts during the First Quarter of 2014, the cases included an assessment of whether the police action was in compliance with policy, training, and legal standards. 57% (8 out of 14) of the investigations assessed whether the incident involved Officer misconduct. 25% (2 out of 8) of the investigations assessed whether the use of different tactics should or could have been employed. 44% (4 out of 9) of the investigations assessed whether the incident indicated a need for additional training, counseling, or other non-disciplinary corrective measures. 9% (1 out of 11) of the investigations assessed whether the incident suggested that the VIPD should revise its policy, training, or tactics.

6, Allegations of criminal misconduct (Paragraph 53): In investigations involving criminal

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 81 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

79

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

investigations that are referred to the Attorney General’s Office or other appropriate agency, the VIPD has documentation that it has completed, to the extent possible, its own administrative investigation.
 Status: Review ongoing. The OIM did not review any cases during the First Quarter of 2014 where this requirement was implicated.

7. Elements of RMS Protocol (Paragraph 64): The VIPD has implemented a protocol for using the RMS that includes the components identified in ¶ of the Consent Decree.
 Status: Satisfied.

The VIPD has implemented a protocol that includes an automated system to analyze the data according to the criteria identified in ¶ of the Consent Decree.
 Status: Satisfied.

Reports are generated and distributed to appropriate sworn personnel (e.g., Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, and supervisors) on a monthly basis.
 Status: Satisfied.

Reviews conducted by the Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors comport with the RMS protocol.
 Status: Satisfied, but additional work needed. The VIPD has provided the OIM with limited documentation that the Department has carried out action plans as required by the RMS protocol, or met to address certain patterns and trends regarding conduct by VIPD personnel.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 82 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

80

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

Deputy Chiefs, managers and supervisors have initiated intervention in instances based on activity and pattern assessment contained in the RMS. The chief or designee will also have overall responsibility for ensuring that interventions are initiated as appropriate.
 See requirement immediately above.
Interventions, as exemplified in paragraph 64 of the Consent Decree, comport with the RMS protocol.
 Status: Review ongoing. The VIPD and the OIM are in the early stages of assessing this requirement.
Interventions are based on all relevant and appropriate information, including the nature of the officer’s assignment, crime trends and crime problems, and not solely on the number or percentages of incidents in any category of information recorded in the risk management system.
 See requirement immediately above.
In instances when officers are transferred to a new section or unit, Deputy Chiefs, managers and supervisors for the relevant section or unit have promptly reviewed the RMS records of such officers.
 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD has not provided any documentation that RMS records are reviewed upon transferring VIPD personnel to a new section or unit.
The VIPD has established a protocol for evaluating whether deputy chiefs, managers and

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 83 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

81

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE STATUS

supervisors are able to use the RMS system to enhance effectiveness and risk.
 Status: Not satisfied. The VIPD has not provided the OIM with any documentation that it has established a protocol.

This evaluation protocol is followed with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
 See requirement immediately above.

The RMS is managed and administered by IAU.  Status: Satisfied.

8. Disciplinary matrix (paragraph 70): Disciplinary penalty decisions are consistent with the penalties set forth in the matrix.
 Status: Review ongoing. The VIPD finalized its revised Disciplinary Matrix on November 1, 2013. As such, there have only been a limited number of violations of VIPD policy adjudicated using the revised Disciplinary Matrix. The OIM did not assess this requirement during the First Quarter of 2014. We also note that the VIPD reported in its Status Report that it conducted eighteen disciplinary proceedings during the First Quarter of 2014 in the St. Thomas District and an unknown number of hearings in the St. Croix District. According to the VIPD, “the disciplinary matrix was referenced and implemented” in each proceeding. We do not know if the discipline (or lack of discipline) that was imposed in each proceeding was consistent with the Disciplinary Matrix

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 84 of 117

CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPH

ACTION/REVIEW/AUDIT

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE
because the VIPD has not provided documentation for those proceedings.

COMPLIANCE STATUS

82

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 85 of 117 Appendix A
VIPD Report for the First Quarter of 2014
CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT
STATUS REPORT Issued April 7th 2014

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 86 of 117
Virgin Islands Police Department Status Report#18
Introduction
In March 2004, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) initiated an investigation of an alleged pattern or practice of excessive force throughout the Virgin Islands Police Department (“VIPD”) under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (“Section 14141”). Virgin Islands officials met with DOJ officials to facilitate the Virgin Islands’ cooperation with the Department of Justice investigation and craft a consent decree addressing all the parties’ concerns. The consent decree (“CD”) is the result of a cooperative effort that evinces a commitment to constitutional policing on the part of the Department of Justice; the Territory of the Virgin Islands; and the Virgin Islands Police Department.
This progress report is the eighteenth (18th) submitted by the Virgin Islands Police Department’s (VIPD) Compliance Monitoring Team (CMT). The CMT was created to ensure the timely implementation of and compliance with the Consent Decree (CD) [United States of America v. The Territory of the Virgin Islands; and the Virgin Islands Police Department; 08-CV-00158; dated March 24, 2009].
This report focuses on the work completed this quarter, and on the paragraphs of the CD which have “substantive” requirements that either VIPD or the Virgin Islands Government is responsible for complying with. A status is provided for each of these provisions as well as a summary of the steps taken by VIPD during this quarter in order to comply with the Agreement.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TRAINING
During this reporting quarter, the Training Bureau and the VIPD as a whole is proud to announce and report that in the St.Thomas/ St.John District police recruit class 2013-1 graduated 14 Officers on Friday January 10, 2014. A listing identifying each of these Officers by their full names was submitted to OIM via email communication. Although, this is a small number of graduates that is dwarfed even more when compared to the number of Officers retiring, the VIPD nonetheless is pleased to have these Officers and welcome them as new members of the VIPD law enforcement family. These Officers after their graduation were immediately paired with Field Training Officers to commence their yearlong probationary and field training period and will go through a rotational period that will afford each of them the opportunity to experience working at each Zone/ Command in the St. Thomas/ St.John District and after their rotation is completed, will be assigned to a Zone or Command. Each of the probationary Officers was assigned a PDN (Permanent Designator Number) and were also administered the blue team training and their competency exam scores were submitted to OIM January 30, 2014. In contrast, in the St. Croix District, police recruit class 2014- started during this reporting quarter and will be reported on in future quarterly reports.
The Training Bureau during this reporting quarter conducted training which included the following disciplines: Law enforcement resiliency training conducted January 20-25, 2014. This was a 40 hour law enforcement resiliency and peer support training that was delivered in the St. Croix District. A total of twelve (12) Officers from the St. Croix District and ten (10) from the St.Thomas /St. John District were selected to attend and participate. This training included topics such as principles of police stress, peer support, overview of mental and emotional health issues, psychological aspects of stress, effective communication, police suicide, coping with stress, human resiliency and law enforcement and conducting psychological debriefings. A competency examination was also administered at the conclusion of the training.
ii

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 87 of 117
Medical Preparedness and Response to Bombing Incidents training took place January 30-31, 2014 sponsored by the Department of Homeland Security and in conjunction with Texas A & M Engineering Extension Service. This was a sixteen hour training session and was hosted at VITEMA Headquarters in St.Thomas. Three Officers from the St.Thomas/St. John District were selected and participated in this training. Domestic violence and sexual assault training took place February 18-21, 2014 in Raleigh North Carolina and one (1) Supervisor and four (4) Officers from the St.Thomas/St. John District attended this training. Hostage Negotiation trainings levels 1&2 also took place during the month of February 2014 in the St.Thomas/St .John District and level three (3) took place in St. Croix and St.Thomas/St.John District March 31- April 4, 2014. Also, Leadership Training Course was delivered in both Districts during the month of March 2014, and a training summary report for this training was submitted to OIM during this reporting quarter.
In preparation for upcoming in-service trainings tentatively scheduled for June 2014, the Training Bureau disseminated department wide a memorandum requesting from the Commands, suggested topics to be covered during the impending in-service trainings. In response to this request, the IAB submitted correspondence dated February 3, 2014 and requested training in the following areas: refresher training on EIP; refresher training on blue team use(Supervisors and Officers);training on blue team protocol; refresher on Arrest policy; refresher training on Reporting Review and Investigating use of force; Customer Service; Training on counseling(Supervisors); Training for dealing with persons with mental defects; Ethics; Training on performance evaluations and refresher training on criminal procedures. More will be reported in future reports as these requested trainings are delivered.
Consistent with requirements to provide fire arms training, the Training Bureau initiated semi-annual firearms qualification training during the month of March 2014, in the St.Thomas/St.John District. A memorandum dated January 20, 2014 from the Training Bureau established firearms training beginning February 24 & 25 and February 27 & 28 for Supervisors and the month of March beginning March 3, 2014 for Officers in the St.Thomas/St. john District. Lesson plan and course outline for this firearms qualification training including service weapon and shotgun course was submitted to OIM 2/19/14 via email. As with other trainings and consistent with established norms, the Training Bureau is expected to compile a training report reflective of this semi-annual firearms training.
With respect to VIPD’s Action plan requirement to implement a tracking system to ensure that all staff are trained on policies, efforts continue during this reporting period which included communication meetings held between MIS, Training Bureau and representatives of Power DMS with regards to VIPD’s implementation of Power DMS. The MIS Bureau further submitted to USDOJ correspondence dated February 27, 2014 that delineated goals for the month of March through April 30, 2014 as it relates to the implementation and full operation of Power DMS. Among the established goals are the following: MIS conducting training with Instructors, Administrative Training Staff and the Policy Committee on their roles in Power DMS and the uploading of historical annual training data to include uploading and publishing existing policies to Power DMS system.
Thus far, Training with respect to Power DMS has been completed for MIS and the Training Staff. The Instructors have already began uploading training information to Power DMS. Additionally, all consent decree related policies have also been uploaded to Power DMS of which OIM and USDOJ have been made aware through email communication.
The Training Bureau provided notice in a memo dated January 27, 2014 of the creation of a six member (from both Districts) Use of Force Assessment Committee, which constitutes two (2) Sergeants, one(1) Corporal and three (3) Officers. The principal purpose of this Assessment Committee is to conduct on a monthly basis, thorough and focused reviews of response to resistance reports, so as to be able to identify any training issues regarding use of force and also to gauge Officers performance as it relates to their use of the various force options available to them in the performance of their duties. This Assessment
iii

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 88 of 117
Committee, in addition to meeting monthly is also required to submit a quarterly report of their reviews to the Training Director. To facilitate this effort, the Training Bureau in a memorandum dated January 27, 2014 requested the IAB to forward response to resistance reports to the Assessment Committee in each District by the end of each month beginning January 31, 2014. An electronic copy of the memorandum dated January 27, 2014 and identifying the members of the newly formed Assessment Committee was submitted to OIM January 28, 2014.
CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS
The VIPD continues to ensure that all required complaint informational materials continue to be available at all locations to include all police vehicles as designated by the consent decree. As evidence of this effort, during this reporting quarter inspection reports for the availability of complaint materials were submitted to OIM for both Districts during this reporting quarter. Also, to simply the inspection reporting process, the VIPD revised the inspection report form making it more user- friendly, to include check boxes and also making it available in an electronic format. Some of the inspections completed during this reporting quarter were done utilizing this revised form which was also forwarded to OIM.
Remedial training was conducted in the St.Thomas/St. John District for those Supervisors that failed the preponderance of evidence standard training conducted during Commander’s call January 16, 2014. This remedial training was conducted using Power DMS.
The quarterly audit of the fourth quarter of 2013 concluded March 31, 2014 and the audit report for the respective work group were forwarded to the Chairperson of the audit group for review, compilation and submission to the Police Commissioner. Following review by the Police Commissioner, the audit reports will be submitted to OIM and USDOJ, as was the case with the third quarterly audit for 2013.
RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
During this reporting quarter, the IAB continues to generate and disseminate various reports regarding EIP to include the EIP quarterly patterns and trends which was also submitted to OIM for this reporting quarter. This report includes Officer alerts, all complaints, uses of force, vehicle pursuits, vehicle accidents and administrative investigations for this reporting quarter. Additionally, the IAB in an effort to improve Supervisor’s comprehension and application of the EIP process is coordinating training with an outside vendor to conduct training in problem solving and conflict resolution. More will be reported in future quarterly reports regarding this effort.
The Management and Supervision work group completed their audit of the last quarter of 2013 and their audit report was submitted to the Chairperson of the Audit group for review , compilation and submittal to the Police Commissioner for his review prior to being submitted to OIM and USDOJ.
The VIAG has submitted civil suits to IAB as required by the consent decree and continues to do so on an ongoing basis; However, IAB has requested assistance in inputting the data into IAPRO. In response to this
iv

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 89 of 117
response for assistance one person per District has been identified. The person identified in St. Croix District has already started to input data related to civil suits for that District and the person indentified in the St.Thomas District will commence doing likewise shortly after some scheduling issues have been rectified.
Use of Force
The use of force work group completed their audit of the last quarter of 2013 and their audit report was submitted to the Chairperson of the audit group March 31, 2014. This report, like the audit reports submitted by the other work groups will be reviewed by the Chairperson of the Audit group, compiled into a single report and forwarded to the Police Commissioner for review followed by subsequent submittal to OIM and USDOJ. Following the audit reports the next step is to conduct meetings with Supervisors and Commanders in both Districts to provide a briefing on the foregoing audit, apprise them of deficiencies, areas of compliance as well as non compliance and also, inform them of recommendations to rectify deficiencies and their role in the implementation of the recommendations. More will be reported in future quarterly reports as these meetings are conducted and the recommendations are implemented.
The use of force work group and the Training work group are working collaboratively to develop a series of mini roll call lesson plans for the purpose of delivering standardized roll call trainings in both Districts. More will be reported in future quarterly reports as these mini roll call lessons are finalized and training commences.
Additionally, as it relates to annual policy review, the use of force work group have completed their review of use of force policy 3.1 and submitted same to VIPD’s legal counsel as well as VIAG for their review. Following review by legal and VIAG which represents level three of the review process consistent with the SOP for the review of critical policies, this policy will be forwarded to the Policy Committee for level four review which is the final level of review, as delineated in the SOP for the review of critical policies. The next policy that the use of force work group has begun to review is policy 3.2, “Reporting Review and investigation of use of force”, which will follow the same process as outlined above.
As previously reported, promotional exams have been scheduled in both Districts for the ranks of Sergeant, Lieutenant and captain during the months of April to May 2014. OIM was provided with a copy of the exam notices with scheduled dates and times for each promotional exam. The VIPD is hoping that these promotional exams will provide a needed boost in its’ supervisory ranks in both Districts, which could serve to be beneficial to the department’s substantial compliance efforts, particularly as it relates to the performance of certain rank specific functions.
In addition to promotions, during this reporting quarter and specifically during the month of January 2014, the VIPD posted in-house job announcements for two vacancies, namely, Firearms/Tool Mark Examiner and Police Evidence Custodian. A copy of each of these vacancy announcements was submitted to OIM January 2014 and more will be reported as these positions are filled.
The VIPD’s use of force work group intends to implement a use of force review board and is already reviewing drafts of use of force review board policies. This will be reported in more details in future quarterly reports as the review board policy is considered in a more focused and concentrated effort.
1. Compliance Summary
CD Paragraphs
v

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 90 of 117
I. INTRODUCTION
II. USE OF FORCE POLICIES Paragraph 31- The VIPD will review and revise its use of force policies as necessary to: a. define terms clearly; b. define force as that term is defined in this Agreement; c. incorporate a use of force model that teaches disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements or calling in specialized units as appropriate responses to a situation; d. advise that, whenever possible, individuals should be allowed to submit to arrest before force is used; e. reinforce that the use of excessive force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and/or civil liability; f. ensure that sufficient less lethal alternatives are available to all patrol officers; and g. explicitly prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized. Once the DOJ has reviewed and approved these policies, the VIPD shall immediately implement any revisions.
* The use of force work group during this reporting period completed their review of the use of force policy 3.1, and submitted same to VIPD’s legal counsel and VIAG. After the policy is reviewed by legal counsel and VIAG, it will be forwarded to the Policy Committee for final review and revision if necessary before being submitted to the Police Commissioner. All use of force and or force related policies approved prior by USDOJ as per the consent decree will be submitted to USDOJ and OIM for the purpose of affording the opportunity to review any revisions made to the policy prior to re-disseminating the revised policy department wide.
The next force related policy up for review by the use of force work group is the Reporting Review and Investigation of use of force policy 3.2. The use of force work group in their initial review of policy 3.2 have decided to merge it with the officer involved shooting policy or certain aspects of it.
II. EVALUATION, DOCUMENTATION, AND REVIEW OF USE OF FORCE
A. General Use of Force Incidents (AMENDED)Paragraph 32 – The VIPD will require all uses of force to be documented in writing. The use of force report form will indicate each and every type of force that was used, and require the evaluation of each use of force. Use of force reports will include a supervisor’s narrative description of the events preceding the use of force, written by a supervisor or by the designated investigative unit. Use of force reports also will include the officer(s)narrative description of events and the officer(s) statement. Except in cases of use of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, the officer’s statement shall be audio or videotaped.
*The VIPD’s use of force reporting requirements are delineated in the approved and department disseminated policy namely, “Reporting Review and Investigation of Use of Force” which is currently being reviewed by the use of force work group as part of the annual review of use of force policies. This policy review will follow the same procedure as briefly outlined above relating to the review of the use of force policy 3.1.
During this reporting quarter each of the four work groups conducted their first quarterly audit of the third quarter of 2013 of their respective area of responsibility with respect to the consent
vi

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 91 of 117
decree. After completion of the audit each group’s final audit report to include recommendations was submitted to the Chair person of the Audit Group for review, compilation and submission to the Police Commissioner. The Police Commissioner after completing his review submitted electronically, a copy of each group’s report to USDOJ and OIM. Subsequent audits will continue to take place on a quarterly basis as per VIPD’s action plan requirement. The audit for the fourth quarter of 2013 concluded March 31, 2014 and a copy of this report will also be submitted to USDOJ and OIM after review by the Police Commissioner.
The recommendations submitted by the respective work groups in their audit report for the third quarter of 2013 are being reviewed by the Police Commissioner prior to implementation. Audit recommendations approved by the Police Commissioner will then be implemented either through directives, roll call and or Commander’s call training sessions or any other means as determined by the Police Commissioner or Police Operations chain of command.
(AMENDED)Paragraph 33 – Officers shall notify their supervisors following any use of force upon the receipt of an allegation of excessive force. Except in uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, Supervisors will respond to the scene, examine the subject for injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain, and ensure that the subject receives needed medical attention.
The VIPD, as acknowledged by OIM have developed and provided training on the appropriate policy applicable to paragraph 33, and as part of the implementation phase during the fourth quarter of 2013, conducted the first quarterly audit that measured the degree of compliance with consent decree mandates to include the specific requirements of paragraph 33. The audit of the requirements of paragraph 33 disclosed on average, a 50 percent compliance rate based upon the review of six completed use of force investigations. As future audits are completed and deficiencies are identified and recommendations made and implemented, the department anticipates a much improved compliance rate. The second quarterly audit for the fourth quarter of 2013 has concluded and will be reported in future status reports. All quarterly audit reports will be shared with OIM and USDOJ, as was the case with the first quarterly audit conducted of the third quarter of 2013.
As the VIPD’s dwindling supervisory numbers has been established repeatedly, the department however, continues its’ efforts through the coordination of promotional exams to boost supervisory numbers to levels adequate and necessary to facilitate the completion of supervisory and rank specific functions of the consent decree and police operations as a whole. These efforts thus far have resulted in the scheduling of promotional exams for sergeants, lieutenants and captains in both Districts from April to May 2014. OIM/USDOJ was provided with information regarding the promotional process as well as copies of memoranda providing notice of scheduled exam dates in both Districts. The specific number of sworn personnel in each District that signed up for each promotional exam was not immediately available from the Government’s Personnel Division as of the completion of this report and will be provided in subsequent quarterly report(s) or by other applicable means.
Consistent with consent decree requirements regarding Officers promoted to supervisory rank, the Training Bureau will continue to coordinate and execute leadership training within 90 days of supervisory promotions, as have been done in the past for those who have successfully achieved supervisory ranks. During this reporting quarter, and specifically during the month of March 2014, in both Districts, the Training Bureau coordinated and delivered through an outside vendor namely, MTAG, supervisory leadership training entitled “Mastering First Line Supervision” and a copy of the course outline and lesson plan was submitted to OIM (1/2/14) to include also, during the latter part of this reporting quarter a copy of the training summary report for this training.
(AMENDED)Paragraph 34 – Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, will
vii

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 92 of 117
review, evaluate, and document each use of force, and will complete the narrative description section of the use of force report. The narrative description will include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer’s conduct. As part of this review, the supervisor or designated investigating officer/unit will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officer’s actions were within VIPD policy. An officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized conduct leading to the use of force or allegation of excessive force, or who was present during the incident will not be eligible to review or investigate the incident.
*The use of force work group in their quarterly audit of the third quarter of 2013 reviewed six completed use of force investigations and the following were reported as it relates to the requirements of paragraph 34: Supervisors documented the investigation in the narrative of the use of force report (67%) compliance; A precise description of the facts that either justify or fail to justify the force (33%) compliance; Assessed if reasonable suspicion/probable cause was present for stop/ search (50%) compliance; Assessed that the conduct of the officer was justified (100%) compliance and Assessed whether the force was within policy (100%) compliance. The varying degrees of non-compliance percentage standards is anticipated to level off at acceptable compliance standards with the implementation on an ongoing basis of audit recommendations subsequent to each quarterly audit conducted. The next quarterly audit representing the fourth quarter of 2013 was completed March 31, 2014 and will be shared with OIM and USDOJ.
(AMENDED)Paragraph 35 – The parties agree that it is improper interview procedure during use of force reviews to ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer’s conduct when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. In each review/investigation, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. The VIPD will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. The VIPD will train all of its supervisors and officers assigned to conduct use of force investigations, including in the factors to consider when evaluating credibility.
*The VIPD as stated prior has initiated its’ first quarterly audit of the third quarter of 2013 and subsequent audits will continue quarterly on an ongoing basis. The second quarterly audit commenced during this reporting quarter and Compliance status as it relates to paragraph 35, as well as other mandates of the consent decree are expected to be disclosed through the execution of these quarterly audits. As deficiencies are identified, a plan of action based upon submitted recommendations will be developed and implemented with prior approval from the Police Commissioner where deemed necessary and appropriate.
(AMENDED)Paragraph 36 – Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall conduct an investigation of all uses of force or an injury resulting from a use of force by any officer under their command. This requirement does not apply to uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ. In an investigation, supervisors or designated investigating officers or units, shall interview all witnesses to a use of force or an injury resulting from a use of force. Consistent with the requirements of the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable law, VIPD supervisors or designated investigating officers or units shall ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all use of force reports for all levels of force identify all officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports for all levels of force indicate whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided, and whether the subject refused medical treatment. Supervisors,or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports include contemporaneous photographs or videotapes taken of all injuries at the earliest practicable opportunity, both before and after any treatment, including cleansing of wounds.
viii

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 93 of 117
*The VIPD in its’ ongoing implementation efforts with respect to paragraph 36 during this reporting quarter procured and disseminated to Commanders in both Districts hand held recorders for the purpose of recording statements associated with use of force and citizen complaint investigations. The audit of the fourth quarter of 2013 is anticipated to provide meaningful information relative to the use of recorders for the purpose of conducting interviews, as is required.
Additionally, the department through established work groups completed the first quarterly audit of the third quarter of 2013, which included paragraph 36. The completed audit report was shared with OIM and USDOJ and is self explanatory as it relates to compliance status with paragraph 36 at the time the audit was completed. The second quarterly audit of the fourth quarter of 2013 was completed on or before March 31, 2014 and will be also shared with OIM and USDOJ.
* (AMENDED)Paragraph 37 – All investigations into use of force shall be reviewed by the Officer’s Commander and /or Director, or by a Commander and /or Director in the designated investigative unit, who shall identify any deficiencies in those reviews, and shall require supervisors, or designated investigative Officers or units, to correct any and all deficiencies. Supervisors, and designated investigative Officers or units, will be held accountable for the quality of their reviews. Appropriate non-disciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary action will be taken when a Supervisor , or designated investigative Officer or unit, fails to conduct a timely and thorough review, or neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action, or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action. As provided by VIPD policy and approved by DOJ designated command staff shall further review the commander and/or Director’s reviews according to the level of force involved.
* The quarterly audit completed by the use of force work group of the third quarter of 2013 with respect to the requirements of paragraph 37 disclosed overall inconsistencies in supervisory investigations, and corrective recommendations included the creation and implementation of a template relative to use of force investigations followed by roll call and commander’s call trainings; roll call /commanders call refresher trainings pertaining to the thorough and accurate completion of RRR (response to resistance report); implementation of disciplinary proceedings for Officers who fail to fully and completely document force and also roll call/commanders call trainings geared towards providing enhanced comprehension and clarity of the definitions of the terminologies applicable to use of force investigatory findings; so as to enable Supervisor’s to correctly apply the appropriate terminology with respect to their investigatory findings. More will be reported in future quarterly reports as these corrective recommendations continue to be implemented.
(AMENDED)Paragraph 38 – The VIPD will investigate all critical firearm discharges. The VIPD will ensure that the investigation accounts for all shots and the locations of all officers who discharged their firearms. The VIPD will conduct all ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate.
*The VIPD continues to ensure the completion of ballistic reports through executed contractual agreement with a certified firearms and tool mark examiner as reported prior.
The VIPD also during this reporting quarter advertised in-house, vacancy announcements for Police Evidence Custodian and Firearms Tool Mark Examiner. Copies of both of these vacancy announcements were submitted to OIM January 22, 2014. More will be provided in future quarterly reports when these positions are filled.
The continued execution of audits on a quarterly basis will enable the VIPD to determine to what
ix

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 94 of 117
extent the mandates of paragraph 38 is being complied with and the audit reports will continue to be shared with OIM and USDOJ. The audit of the fourth quarter of 2013 was completed on or before March 31, 2014 and will likewise be shared with OIM and USDOJ after being reviewed by the Police Commissioner. The VIPD however, is requesting that OIM provide timely documented technical assistance with respect to each quarterly audit report submitted to them, as this could be beneficial to the VIPD in conducting future quarterly audits. Although OIM offered verbal comments regarding the first quarterly audit conducted of the third quarter of 2013, to date the VIPD has not received the benefit of a detailed documented feedback from OIM.
Specific Force Policies
Paragraph 39 – VIPD shall complete development of a Use of Firearms policy that complies with applicable law and current professional standards. The policy shall prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition and shall inform officers that any such use may subject them to disciplinary action. The policy shall establish a single, uniform reporting system for all firearms discharges. The policy shall prohibit officers from obtaining service ammunition from any source except through official VIPD channels, and shall specify the number of rounds VIPD authorizes its officers to carry. The policy will continue to require that all discharges of firearms by officers on or off-duty, including unintentional discharges, be reported and investigated.
* During this reporting quarter in VIPD’s continued effort to maintain substantial compliance with paragraph 39, equipment inspection training was conducted in the St. Thomas/St. john District January 16, 2014, for all Supervisors, as part of Commander’s call training. An electronic copy of the lesson plan for this training was submitted to OIM January 29, 2014. This training included inspection of department issued OC spray, service firearms, service firearm magazines, ECW (TASER), ECW cartridges , Expandable Baton and hand cuffs. The principal purpose of this equipment inspection training was to train all Supervisors in the proper and department authorized manner to conduct inspection of department issued equipments; so that Supervisors could in turn conduct inspections of the authorized equipments of the subordinate Officers that they supervise, utilizing a standardized procedural inspection method.
The instructional objectives of this training as outlined in the lesson plan includes familiarizing Supervisors with the inspection techniques, location of serial number on their service firearm, amount and type of authorized ammunition, how to prepare TASER (ECW) model# x26 for inspection, location of serial number on OC Spray, inspection of department equipment and how to prepare department issued firearm for inspection. An equipment inspection report form was developed for the purpose of documenting equipment inspections conducted by Supervisors and an electronic copy of this form was also submitted to OIM. The periodic performance of equipment inspections by Supervisors of the Officers assigned to them will ensure that the department continues to comply with the mandates of paragraph 39, specifically as it relates to authorized service ammunition type and amount and the implemented firearms policy in general.
Paragraph 40 – The VIPD shall revise its policies regarding off-duty officers taking police action to:
a. provide that off-duty officers shall notify on-duty VIPD or local law enforcement officers before taking police action, absent exigent circumstances, so that they may respond with appropriate personnel and resources to handle the problem; b. provide that, if it appears the officer has consumed alcohol or is otherwise impaired, the officer shall submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.
* The policy review process has already been initiated following the steps as outlined in the SOP for the review of critical policies which is inclusive of the “Off-Duty Official Action” policy developed specifically in response to the mandates of paragraph 40. All use of force and force
x

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 95 of 117
related policies will be reviewed consistent with the four levels of review delineated in this SOP. Thus far, during this reporting quarter, the use of force work group has reviewed use of force policy 3.1 and forwarded their recommendations to VIPD’s legal counsel and VIAG. The next policy scheduled for review by the use of force work group is the Reporting Review and Investigation of use of force policy 3.2, and progress with this review will be reported in future quarterly status report(s).
Quarterly audits will continue to be conducted to ensure compliance with the mandates of paragraph 40, as well as the other mandates of the consent decree and copies of these audits will continue to be shared with OIM and USDOJ.
Paragraph 41 – The VIPD shall continue to provide an intermediate force device, which is between chemical spray and firearms on the force continuum, that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The VIPD shall continue its policy regarding the intermediate force device, incorporate the intermediate force device into the force continuum and train all officers in its use on an annual basis.
*The VIPD as acknowledged by OIM has achieved phase 1 and 2 compliance representative of policy development and the execution of training as it relates to paragraph 41. Additionally, as reported prior, the VIPD has provided TASER as the chosen intermediate force device to Officers in both Districts and continues to provide training on this device as well as the approved corresponding policy on an ongoing basis. To systematically gauge the department’s compliance with paragraph 41, as well as other mandates of the consent decree, the department is conducting audits on a quarterly basis. The first quarterly audit was conducted of the third quarter of 2013 and the second quarterly audit conducted of the fourth quarter of 2013 commenced during this reporting quarter and was completed March 31, 2014. The first quarterly audit of 2013 was shared with OIM and USDOJ, as will all subsequent audit reports.
IV. CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS
A. Public Information Paragraph 42 - The VIPD will develop and implement a program to inform persons that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any officer. This program will include distribution of complaint forms, fact sheets, informational posters, and public service announcements that describe the citizen complaint process.
* During this reporting quarter, the VIPD continues to maintain substantial compliance with paragraph 42 through the continued implementation of the informational program developed to inform the general public on the department’s complaint process. Commercials via radio and television regarding the complaint as well as the compliment process continues to be aired on several local radio stations coupled with the availability at Zones, Substations, marked and unmarked police vehicles of complaint informational materials such as brochures and posters in English, Spanish and French. Documented inspections are conducted on a biweekly basis and copies of these inspections for both Districts continues to be forwarded to OIM, as was evident during this reporting quarter. Additionally, the form used to document these inspections was revised, simplified and is now in an electronic format which was also submitted to OIM during this reporting quarter as part of inspections completed during this reporting quarter.
Quarterly audits began during the third quarter of 2013 by work groups of their respective areas and will continue quarterly on an ongoing basis to ensure that compliance is maintained in areas of the consent decree for which the department has achieved compliance and also to identify deficiencies and make recommendations to remedy the identified deficiencies. The completed audit reports will continue to be shared with OIM and USDOJ.
xi

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 96 of 117
(AMENDED) paragraph 43 – The VIPD will make complaint forms and informational materials available at government properties such as VIPD district stations, substations, and mobile substations, libraries, the Internet, and, upon request, to community groups and community centers. At each VIPD district station, substation, and mobile substation, the VIPD will permanently post a placard describing the complaint process and include the relevant phone numbers. These placards shall be displayed in both English and Spanish, and where deemed necessary, in French or French Patois, to account for diversity in the VI population. The VIPD will require all officers to carry informational brochures and complaint forms in English and Spanish, and where deemed necessary, in French of French Patois, in their vehicles at all times while on duty. If a citizen objects to an officer’s conduct, that officer will inform the citizen of his or her right to make a complaint. Officers will not discourage any person from making a complaint.
*During this reporting quarter the VIPD provided OIM with electronic copies of documented inspections conducted in each District during the months of January and February 2014 for the availability of informational materials on the complaint process at designated locations as mandated by the consent decree.
Also, likewise documented inspections for March 2014 will be submitted to OIM. As stated in the previous quarterly report pursuant to the revision of periodic inspection form to include its conversion into an electronic format, as a follow-up, this revision was completed and the inspections submitted to OIM included the revised electronic version of the inspection form.
The VIPD continues to date to comply with all requirements as outlined in paragraph 43, which includes ensuring the continued availability of complaint informational materials at consent decree required locations in both Districts in the required languages being English, French and Spanish, permanently posting posters in English, French and Spanish describing the complaint process at required locations and including telephone numbers for IAB in each District, as well as a 1-800 complaint hotline number, requiring through policy that all Officers carry informational brochures and complaint forms in English, French and Spanish in their vehicles at all times while on duty and revising the complaint form to include survey type questions to enable the VIPD to determine if Officers are informing citizen of their rights to make a complaint and if Officers are discouraging citizens from filing complaints. Documented inspections submitted to OIM on an ongoing basis serves as evidence of the continued availability of the required materials in the required languages in both Districts.
The audit of the fourth quarter of 2013 of specific areas of the citizen complaint process was completed on March 26, 2014 and included paragraph 43. A copy of this completed audit report will be afforded OIM and USDOJ subsequent to being reviewed by the Police Commissioner.
Means of Filing and Tracking Complaints
Paragraph 44 - Complaints may be filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile or electronic mail. The duty officer at the front desk of each district station will be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints, which persons may file at any district station. Complaint intake officers may describe facts that bear upon a complainant’s demeanor and physical condition but May not express opinions regarding his/her mental competency or veracity. Each complaint will be resolved in writing. Upon receipt, each complaint will be assigned a unique identifier, which will be provided to the complainant. Each complaint will be tracked according to the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, improper search, etc.).
xii

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 97 of 117
* The VIPD as established in multiple quarterly reports submitted prior have developed policies specific to the complaint process, provided training on an ongoing basis during annual in-service, roll call and commander’s call trainings and provided documentations of these trainings to OIM. Additionally, as OIM and USDOJ are both aware, the VIPD has acquired Power DMS to among other things track all trainings. The requirements as outlined in paragraph 44 are also included in the complaint policies.
The VIPD also continues to employ the IAPRO software acquired in 2010 to track all complaints by various means including according to the basis of the complaint and by assigned complaint number. OIM has access to IAPRO and is further provided a listing of all cases on a monthly basis and by this listing it is evident that each case is assigned a tracking number or unique identifier. Further, complaints are resolved in writing as supported by copies of complaint resolution letters generated by IAB that were provided to OIM and continues to be the practice.
To further gauge compliance status, the VIPD on an ongoing basis is conducting quarterly audits as a self assessment strategy in determining what is working and what needs fixing, as it relates to consent decree requirements applicable to paragraph 44, as well as other areas of the consent decree. According to the audit report completed for the third quarter of 2013 by the citizen complaint group, one of the findings of this report disclosed that of thirty cases audited in both Districts, all were assigned unique identifier number for tracking purposes as required by the consent decree. A copy of this report as stated earlier was provided to OIM and USDOJ, as will a copy of the completed audit report for the fourth quarter of 2013 subsequent to being reviewed by the Police Commissioner.
Paragraph 45- Copies of all allegations of misconduct against the VIPD filed with the Zone Commands will be referred to Internal Affairs Unit (“IAU”) within five business days.
*The VIPD has established prior that copies of allegations of misconduct filed at the Zones are forwarded to the IAB within the specified five day requirement particularly as it relates to the use of the blue team field reporting software installed at the Zones and which continues to be used to upload reports to IAPRO, which is administered by IAB. As reported prior, a complaint taken at any Zone in either District and entered in blue team will be immediately uploaded into IAPRO and could therefore be accessed and viewed by IAB, hence the five day requirement is easily met and is therefore not an issue. Also, documented inspections are conducted weekly to ensure that blue team is functioning and the MIS Bureau is provided copies of these inspections, so if there are any issues concerning the proper functioning of blue team they could be addressed timely by MIS. OIM is also provided copies of these documented inspections conducted in both Districts. Additionally, a manual procedure was implemented in the event that the blue team software is not functioning, and requires that complaints received at the Zones are logged into log books available at each Zone for this purpose. In this case the five day requirement could also be verified by reviewing the log book to determine when the complaint was received and ascertaining from IAB, the date when a copy of the complaint was received by their office.
OIM however, in their fourth quarterly report for 2013 has recommended that “the VIPD continue to audit whether copies of all allegations of misconduct are retrieved from drop boxes in the Zones and referred to the IAB within five business days”. However, although the VIPD
xiii

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 98 of 117
continues to welcome, value and appreciate OIM’s recommendations, it is important to note that depositing a completed complaint form into any of the drop boxes provided at the Zones for this purpose is not synonymous with filing a complaint at the Zone as referenced in paragraph 45. Drop boxes as a matter of fact, although not mandated by the consent decree were provided as a matter of convenience to the Public and to ensure that complaints deposited into these drop boxes are handled equally as timely as complaint taken at the desk by an Officer or Supervisor, they are retrieved from the drop boxes on a daily basis by IAB agents in each District. When these complaints are retrieved by the IAB agent, information such as the time and date is indicated on the complaint as well as the location where the complaint was retrieved. The IAB agents also contact the complainant (assuming that a contact number was provided) on the completed complaint form and provide them with a complaint tracking number that could be used by the complainant when making references to their complaint.
Nonetheless, the VIPD is hopeful that going forward, the ongoing execution of quarterly audits which has recently been initiated, will aid in satisfactorily demonstrating to OIM, VIPD’s compliance with paragraph 45 and other mandates of the consent decree.
Investigation of Complaints
Paragraph 46 - Complaints will be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, for which the Territory will develop and implement appropriate training.
* In an effort to ensure that supervisors comprehension and application of the preponderance of evidence standard maintains or exceeds acceptable levels, the VIPD continues to implement training on an ongoing basis through in-service, roll call and commander’s call trainings. This was evident during this reporting quarter when commander’s call training was conducted for Supervisors and Commanders in the St. Thomas/St. John District at the Training Bureau on the preponderance of evidence standards on Thursday January 16, 2014. A competency exam was administered at the end of the class, which was passed by twenty of the twenty eight class participants. Remedial training was conducted by the Training Bureau during this reporting quarter using power DMS for those Supervisors that did not pass the competency exam administered on January 16, 2014.
Also, as a matter of establishing the ongoing repetition or cycle of training, particular reference is drawn to the prior quarterly report representing the fourth quarter of 2013, in which was reported training on the preponderance of evidence standards for Supervisors during in-service trainings conducted October through November 2013.
The execution of quarterly audits by the VIPD as a self assessment mechanism will serve as an effective means by which compliance and non compliance with department approved and implemented policies and procedures could be measured and in the case of non- compliance remedied appropriately through corrective measures, such as remedial trainings and disciplinary actions etc. As stated throughout this report, these quarterly audit reports will be shared with OIM and USDOJ after being reviewed by the Police Commissioner.
Paragraph 47 - The VIPD will explicitly prohibit from investigating an incident any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to the injury to a person, or who authorized the conduct that led to these reportable incidents.
* The VIPD having achieved substantial compliance with paragraph 47, as determined by OIM, is
xiv

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 99 of 117
ensuring through audits completed quarterly that compliance with paragraph 47, as well as other areas of the consent decree is maintained. The second quarterly audit conducted of the fourth quarter of 2013 concluded March 31, 2014 and will be shared with OIM and USDOJ after being reviewed by the Police Commissioner.
Paragraph 48 - The VIPD will investigate every citizen complaint. The VIPD will establish a clear policy and procedure regarding the intake of any complaint, including anonymous and confidential complaints, against a VIPD officer. This policy and these procedures will include instructions to an officer for taking a complaint and prompt delivery to a supervisor.
* As reported prior , the IAB as the central clearing house for all complaints received by the various means as established by the consent decree generates reports weekly, monthly and quarterly concerning complaint investigation through the use of the IAPRO software, which is the principal means by which the department track all complaints received, to ensure that each citizen complaint is investigated. These reports among other things, identifies the complaint as well as the supervisor assigned to investigate the complaint and also provides the due date to the IAB for the completed investigation. These reports have been shared with OIM and OIM also has authorized access to IAPRO to view cases and their corresponding investigative status.
The OIM has already established prior that the VIPD has attained phase 1 and 2 compliance with paragraph 28, as it specifically relates to policy development and training. However, OIM should have a much clearer view of VIPD’s phase 3 compliance with paragraph 48, as the quarterly audits are completed of VIPD’s compliance efforts. The second quarterly audit conducted of the fourth quarter of 2013 concluded March 31, 2014 and will be shared with OIM and USDOJ after being reviewed by the Police Commissioner.
Paragraph 49 - The VIPD will institute a centralized numbering and tracking system for all complaints, and each complaint will receive a tracking number as quickly as possible. The IAU will be designated as the primary and centralized agency to determine whether the investigation will be assigned to zone (one of the seven zones located throughout the Virgin Islands), retained by the IAU, or referred for possible criminal investigation. If the IAU refers a complaint to a zone, copies of all documents, findings, and recommendations should be immediately forwarded to the IAU for tracking and monitoring. For complaints alleging the excessive use of force or violation of a person’s constitutional rights, the Police Commissioner should be notified no less than twenty-four hours after receipt of a complaint.
The VIPD during this reporting quarter continues to comply with the requirements as outlined in paragraph 49 of the consent decree as have been reported in prior quarterly reports. The VIPD continues to forward to OIM a listing of all cases monthly and OIM also has access to IAPRO. The cases submitted to OIM all have assigned case numbers for tracking purposes as mandated by paragraph 49 of the consent decree, therefore VIPD’s compliance with that specific requirement is clearly evident and established. Also, the VIPD has in previous reports explained the assignment of complaint case numbers through VITEMA and VIPD’s IAPRO software system. As far as designation of IAB as the primary and centralized agency pursuant to the assignment of cases for investigation, that has already been established in policy and continues to be implemented and complied with.
Additionally, all complaints referred by IAB to Zones are tracked through IAPRO and reports are generated by IAB through IAPRO that identifies all assigned cases, and the due dates for submission to IAB for those cases referred by IAB to the Zones for investigation. The IAB also reviews all cases submitted from the Zones to them and any discrepancies identified results in the case being returned to be corrected and resubmitted.
xv

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 100 of 117
Notification to the Police Commissioner within twenty four hours after receipt of a complaint alleging excessive use of force or violation of a person’s constitutional rights continue to be implemented and is documented in IAB’s investigative case file. Documented evidence of this practice has been submitted during previous quarters to OIM. Although OIM has indicated receiving limited documentation of this notification, it is important to note that complaints alleging excessive use of force or violations of person’s constitutional rights occurs or are reported infrequently, hence the limited documentation of such.
Additionally, according to the completed audit report for the third quarter of 2013, (a copy of which was provided to OIM) reference was made to use of force case # cct2013-0157, classified as alleged excessive force and there was evidence that the Police Commissioner was notified within twenty four hours, as indicated in the investigative case file.
The VIPD’s efforts to ensure compliance with all mandates of the consent decree are further evident through the execution of quarterly audits by work groups of their respective areas of responsibility pursuant to the consent decree. VIPD conducted its first audit of the third quarter of 2013 and a copy of the audit report was completed and submitted to OIM and USDOJ. The second quarterly audit representing the fourth quarter of 2013 was completed on March 31, 2014 and included paragraph 49. A copy of this completed audit report will be shared with OIM and USDOJ.
Paragraph 50 - The VIPD will adopt a single policy concerning the investigation of misconduct complaints, regardless of whether the investigation is conducted by the IAU or a zone.
* As part of VIPD’s efforts to maintain substantial compliance with paragraph 50, training continues on the complaint policy which included the most recent in-service trainings conducted during the last quarter of 2013. The execution of audits on a quarterly basis as was evident for the third quarter of 2013 will further serve as a self assessment tool to enable the VIPD to gauge compliance, as well as areas of non compliance followed by the implementation of corrective action where deemed necessary and appropriate. As stated throughout this report, these quarterly audit reports will continue to be shared with OIM and USDOJ.
Paragraph 51 - The VIPD will establish policies and procedures and train all of its investigators on the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility; examination and interrogation of accused officers and other witnesses; identifying misconduct even if it is not specifically named in the complaint; and using the preponderance of the evidence standard as the appropriate burden of proof. VIPD investigators will ensure that all officers on the scene of an incident provide a statement regarding the incident. The policy will require that all interviews be mechanically recorded using an audio or video tape.
* The VIPD most recently provided training on the complaint policies 7.1 & 7.3 during in-service trainings conducted during the last quarter of 2013, as reported prior for that period. Since then and during this reporting period training was provided to supervisors on the preponderance of the evidence standard on January 16, 2014 in the St. Thomas/ St. John District, as stated earlier in this report. Also, as reported previously, hand held recorders were procured and disseminated to Commanders in both Districts for the purpose of recording statements during the course of investigations conducted. Additionally, the VIPD initiated its first quarterly audit of the third quarter of 2013, which included whether the audio recording requirement as expressed in paragraph 51 is being complied with. The completed audit report for that quarter was shared with OIM and USDOJ and the second audit of the fourth quarter of 2013 concluded March 31, 2014 and will be shared with OIM and USDOJ, as was the previous quarterly audit report.
xvi

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 101 of 117
Paragraph 52 - The policy will require that the investigative findings include whether: 1) the police action was in compliance with policy, training and legal standards, regardless of whether the complainant suffered harm; 2) the incident involved misconduct by any officer; 3) the use of different tactics should or could have been employed; 4) the incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and 5) the incident suggests that the VIPD should revise its policies, training, or tactics.
*As part of VIPD’s efforts to maintain substantial compliance with paragraph 52, training continues on the complaint policy, which included the most recent in-service trainings conducted during the last quarter of 2013. The execution of audits on a quarterly basis as was evident for the third quarter of 2013 will further serve as a self assessment tool to enable the VIPD to gauge compliance, as well as areas of non compliance followed by the implementation of corrective action where deemed necessary and appropriate. As stated throughout this report, these quarterly audit reports will continue to be shared with OIM and USDOJ.
Paragraph 53 - The policy will provide clear guidance to all investigators regarding the procedures for handling criminal misconduct allegations, referring them to the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office or other appropriate agency for possible criminal prosecution, and the entity or individual who should make the determination of whether the complaint should be investigated criminally. The policy will be revised to require the completion of an administrative investigation, irrespective of the initiation or outcome of criminal proceedings.
*As part of VIPD’s efforts to maintain substantial compliance with paragraph 53, training continues on the complaint policy which included the most recent in-service trainings conducted during the last quarter of 2013. The execution of audits on a quarterly basis as was evident for the third quarter of 2013 will further serve as a self assessment tool to enable the VIPD to gauge compliance, as well as areas of non compliance followed by the implementation of corrective action where deemed necessary and appropriate. As stated throughout this report, these quarterly audit reports will continue to be shared with OIM and USDOJ.
Paragraph 54 - In each investigation, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. There will be no automatic preference for an officer’s statement over a non-officer’s statement, nor will the VIPD completely disregard a witness’ statement merely because the witness has some connection to the complainant. The VIPD will make efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.
*The VIPD noted that the OIM in their fourth quarterly report for 2013 stated the following: “During the Fourth Quarter of 2013, the Police Practices Experts reviewed 11 closed citizen complaint investigations and concluded that evidence was preserved in 50% (2 out of 4) of the investigations; relevant evidence (including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence) was taken into consideration in 67% (4 out of 6) of the investigations; witness credibility determinations were made in 78% (7 out of 9) of the investigations; the officer did not give preference to an Officer’s statement in 82% (9 out of 11) of the investigations; a witness statement was not disregarded merely because the witness had some connection to the complainant in 90% (9 out of 10) of the investigations; and inconsistencies in witness statements were documented and addressed in 60%(3 out of 5) of the investigations”.
Although the VIPD is not agreeing with or disputing OIM’s finding, the VIPD anticipates that the
xvii

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 102 of 117
percentages as represented by OIM will improve as will be determined through audits ongoing on a quarterly basis. A copy of the VIPD’s quarterly audit report for the fourth quarter of 2013 that was completed March 31, 2014 will be afforded OIM and USDOJ.
Paragraph 55 - During an investigation, all relevant police activity, including each use of force (i.e., not just the type of force complained about) will be investigated. The investigation will also evaluate any searches or seizures that occurred during the incident. The VIPD will not close an investigation simply because the complaint is withdrawn or the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of injury or the complainant will not provide additional statements or written statements; rather, the investigating agency will continue its investigation as necessary to determine whether the original allegation(s) can be resolved based on the information, evidence, and investigatory procedures and techniques available. In each investigation, the fact that a complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense will not be considered as evidence of whether a VIPD officer used or did not use a type of force, nor will it justify discontinuing the investigation.
* As acknowledged by OIM, VIPD has developed policies applicable to paragraph 55, and the complaint process in general and has provided training, thus achieving compliance with phases 1 and 2 of a three phase compliance process. The primary strategy that the VIPD has employed to demonstrate substantial compliance during phase three is to conduct audits of various mandates of the consent decree on a quarterly basis and sharing these audit report with OIM and USDOJ.
The first audit was conducted of the third quarter of 2013 and one of the findings of this audit with respect to paragraph 55, was that of thirty cases audited in both Districts, in none of the audited cases were there any evidence that the case was closed because a complaint was withdrawn, or the alleged victim was unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of injury or the complainant did not provide additional information or written statements. Audits will continue in both Districts to ensure that established standards and procedures are being consistently adhered to and OIM and USDOJ will continue to receive copies of the audit reports.
Paragraph 56 - The complainant will be periodically kept informed regarding the status of the investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, the complainant will be notified of its outcome, including an appropriate statement regarding whether any non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action was taken.
* The VIPD through the IAB continues to disseminate through written correspondence to each complainant, upon the completion of the investigation, notification of its outcome including whether any non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action was implemented. These correspondences are included as part of the investigative case file which has also been afforded to OIM. The IAB continues to submit to OIM on a monthly basis and as requested case summaries and specific investigative case files, which includes notification letters of case out comes sent to complainants.
Additionally, According to the audit completed by the citizen complaint process work group of the third quarter of 2013, which consisted of an audit of thirty complaint cases from both Districts, letters of notification of investigative case outcomes were included in the cases reviewed.
As quarterly audits are completed of various mandates of the consent decree, to include paragraph 56, VIPD’s compliance status with respect to paragraph 56 and other areas of the consent decree will become more evident. The second quarterly audit representing the fourth quarter of 2013 was completed March 31, 2014 and will be shared with OIM and USDOJ.
Paragraph 57 - Each allegation in an investigation will be resolved by making
xviii

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 103 of 117
one of the following dispositions: “Unfounded,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that no facts to support that the incident complained of actually occurred; “Sustained,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person’s allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the incident occurred and the actions of the officer were improper; “Not Sustained,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred; and “Exonerated,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate VIPD policies, procedures, or training.
* The OIM in their fourth quarterly report of 2013 has determined that the VIPD has achieved substantial compliance with paragraph 57 of the consent decree. However, the VIPD is quite aware that achieving substantial compliance is a significant accomplishment but does not signal the end, as compliance must be maintained. As such, the VIPD’s efforts including the completion of quarterly audits are ongoing to ensure that compliance is maintained. The quarterly audit of the fourth quarter of 2013 was completed March 31, 2014 and will be shared with OIM and USDOJ.
Paragraph 58- Unit Commanders will evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command to identify underlying problems or training needs. Any such problems will be relayed in the form of a recommendation to the appropriate VIPD entity.
* The Training Bureau during this reporting quarter in a memorandum to the Police Chief of the St.Thomas/St. John District, dated February 15, 2014 requested a listing of individuals identified for remedial training, including personnel who have been disciplined and have triggered alerts within the department’s EIP system. More will be reported in future quarterly reports concerning this listing and remedial trainings implemented.
MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
A. Risk Management system Paragraph 59 - The VIPD will develop and implement a risk management system to include a new computerized relational database or paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for supervision and management of the VIPD. Priority will be given to the VIPD obtaining any established program and system. The VIPD will regularly use this data to promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts.
* The VIPD as reported prior has established the infrastructure necessary to facilitate the Risk Management System (RMS), which included the purchase, installation and implementation of software, namely IAPRO. The VIPD has further purchased and installed large capacity HP storage servers in both Districts, developed policies and received approval of those policies after making numerous revisions. Training has been provided with respect to the IAPRO software, EIP policy developed and training also continues on an ongoing basis during roll call, Commander’s call and annual in-service trainings. The necessary reports as required by paragraph 59 of the consent decree are being generated and disseminated weekly, monthly and quarterly by IAB through the use of IAPRO.
Additionally, the VIPD has implemented the audit phase as a self assessment to determine the
xix

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 104 of 117
quality of the work product being generated, overall compliance status with established policies and also as an effective means by which deficiencies could be identified and corrected. The audit of the fourth quarter of 2013 was completed March 31, 2014 and will be shared with OIM and USDOJ.
Paragraph 60 – The new risk management system will collect and record the following information:
a. all uses of force; b. canine bite ratios; c. the number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers; d. all injuries to prisoners; e. all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with “resisting arrest,” “assault on a police officer,” “disorderly conduct,” or “obstruction of official business;” f. all critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty; g. all complaints (and their dispositions); h. all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the Territory and its officers, or agents, resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel; i. all vehicle pursuits; j. all incidents involving the pointing of a firearm (if any such reporting is required); and k. all disciplinary action taken against officers.
* The VIPD continues to collect and enter information into IAPRO and is conducting quarterly audits to identify areas of compliance and non compliance. These quarterly audits will continue to be shared with OIM and USDOJ to include the quarterly audit of the fourth quarter of 2013 that was completed March 31, 2014.
The blue team field reporting software installed at various Zones and Substations in both Districts for the purpose of uploading reports including use of force reports as indicated in paragraph 60, continues to be operational as represented by the weekly blue team reports that were submitted for each District to OIM for this reporting quarter as well as previous quarters. As indicated prior, the blue team operation form was revised to a more simple and user friendly format and also digitized, so it could also be completed electronically and completed inspection reports were submitted to OIM during this reporting quarter using the revised format.
Also, during this reporting quarter to aid in the inputting of information received from VIAG into IAPRO, as indicated in subsection (h), a civilian employee in the St. Croix District has been tasked with performing this function and has already started. Likewise, a civilian employee in the St. Thomas/St. John District was also identified to perform the same task and will start shortly after some current scheduling issues are resolved.
Paragraph 61 – The new risk management system will include, for the incidents included in the database, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (e.g., name, badge number, shift and supervisor) and civilian (e.g., race, ethnicity or national origin, if available).
*VIPD’s RMS/EIP system continues to include information as outlined in paragraph 61 and OIM has access to IAPRO to view and verify the information contained. Additionally, quarterly audits are being conducted and will continue to be shared with OIM and USDOJ to include the quarterly audit of the fourth quarter of 2013 that was completed March 31, 2014.
Additionally, during this reporting quarter, VIPD’s liaison Officer(St.Thomas/St. John District) to
xx

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 105 of 117
the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands conducted reviews of 1A’s ( Offense Reports) and arrest reports for the month of February 2014 to assess to what extent Officers were using their assigned PDN on department documents. A hard copy report was generated dated March 6, 2014, which identified all the Officers in the St. Thomas /St. John District that completed 1A reports and Arrest reports during the month of February 2014. Based upon this report, there were a total of thirty three Officers identified by name, and an equal number of Supervisors assigned to various Zones, specifically A, B, C & D. All Officers and Supervisors based upon this review used their assigned PDN on the arrest and 1A offense reports reviewed. The 1A and arrest forms were attached to the report as supporting documents. As the report is voluminous, it will be made available for review by OIM during their next scheduled site visit. As of the completion of this quarterly report, a similar report was not provided for the St. Croix District.
Paragraph 62 – Within 120 days of the implementation of the new risk management system, or later with the agreement of DOJ, the VIPD will prepare, for the review and approval of DOJ, a plan for including appropriate fields and values of new and historical data into the risk management system (the “Data Input Plan”). The Data Input Plan will identify the data to be included and the means for inputting such data (direct entry or otherwise), the specific fields of information to be included, the past time periods for which information is to be included, the deadlines for inputting the data, and the responsibility for the input of the data. The Data Input Plan will include historical data that is up-to-date and complete in the risk management system. The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final review and approval within 30 days after it is presented for approval.
* The VIPD during this reporting quarter continues to enter data into the EIP system as required and delineated in the implemented data input plan. The VIPD during the last quarter of 2013 has embarked on the execution of audits on a quarterly basis to ensure that policy requirements are being adhered to. The second quarterly audit since the inception of quarterly audits during the last quarter of 2013 was completed March 31, 2014 and will be shared with OIM and USDOJ after being reviewed by the Police Commissioner.
Paragraph 63 – The VIPD will, within 120 days, prepare for the review and approval of DOJ, and thereafter implement, a protocol for using the risk management system. The VIPD will submit for the review and approval of DOJ all proposed modifications to the protocol prior to implementing such modifications.
* As have been established undoubtedly, the VIPD has developed, received approval and provided training on the EIP policy in direct response to paragraph 63, as well as other paragraphs of the consent decree specific to the EIP process. The VIPD continues its efforts during this reporting quarter to fully implement this policy. An essential and critical part of this effort is the execution of audits on a quarterly basis of all aspects of the consent decree and the subsequent sharing of these audit reports with OIM and USDOJ. The next audit report represents the fourth quarter of 2013 and was completed March 31, 2014.
Paragraph 64 – The protocol for using the risk management system will include the following provisions and elements:
a. The protocol is comprised of the following components: data storage, data retrieval, reporting, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation and audit. b. The protocol will require the automated system to analyze the data according to the following criteria: i) number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; ii) average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and iii) identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit. c. The protocol will require the system to generate reports on a monthly basis
xxi

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 106 of 117
describing the data and data analysis and identifying individual and unit patterns. d. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors will review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, system reports, and will evaluate individual officer, supervisor, and unit activity. e. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors initiate intervention for individual officers, supervisors and for units based on appropriate activity and pattern assessment of the information contained in the risk management system. f. The protocol will require that intervention options include discussion by deputy chiefs, managers, supervisors, and officers; counseling; training; and supervised, monitored, and documented action plans and strategies designed to modify activity. All interventions will be documented in writing and entered into the automated system (appropriate intervention options will be employed based on the evaluation described in subsection (e) above). g. The protocol will specify that actions taken as a result of information from the risk management system be based on all relevant and appropriate information, including the nature of the officer’s assignment, crime trends and crime problems, and not solely on the number or percentages of incidents in any category of information recorded in the risk management system.
h. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors. will promptly review the risk management system records of all officers recently transferred to
their sections and units. i. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors be evaluated on their ability to use the risk management system to enhance effectiveness and reduce risk. j. The protocol will require that the system be managed and administered by the Internal Affairs Unit of the VIPD. The IAU of the VIPD will conduct quarterly audits of the system to ensure action is taken according to the process described above. k. The protocol will require regular reviews, at no less than quarterly intervals, by appropriate managers of all relevant risk management system information to evaluate officer performance territory-wide, and to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all VIPD units in order to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents.
* As acknowledged by OIM, the EIP policy has been developed approved and training provided, as such assessing the VIPD as having achieved compliance with the two required phases deemed applicable to paragraph 64. The VIPD however continues to provide training on an ongoing basis as was evident during this reporting quarter specifically on January 23, 2014, during which the EIP Coordinator conducted follow-up training on the EIP process in the St. Croix District, which was attended by Supervisors, Deputy Chief and Commanders. An electronic copy of the completed roll call training form reflecting this training and the names of the participants was submitted to OIM January 29, 2014.
Paragraph 65- The VIPD will maintain all personally identifiable information about an officer included in the risk management system during the officer’s employment with the VIPD for at least five years. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis will be maintained indefinitely in the risk management system. On an ongoing basis, the VIPD will enter information into the risk management system in a timely, accurate, and complete manner, and maintain the data in a secure and confidential manner.
*The VIPD will continue to maintain in IAPRO all personally identifiable information pertaining to Officers consistent with the time requirement as stipulated in paragraph 65, however, it must be noted also that IAPRO has been implemented in 2010, thus far less than five years.
The IAB is the Administrator of IAPRO and continues to ensure among other things as reported in
xxii

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 107 of 117
prior quarterly reports that information is being entered timely, accurately, in a complete manner and is also maintained in a secure and confidential manner. The IAB also periodically runs quality assurance tests/reports on information maintained IAPRO.
The VIPD as reported prior has appointed an Agent of IAB as the EIP Coordinator whose responsibility includes ensuring that information from the various entities within the department are being forwarded timely for input into IAPRO. Additionally, audits will continue to be executed on a quarterly basis to include audit of the EIP process and IAPRO and these audit reports will be shared with OIM and USDOJ.
Paragraph 66 - The new risk management system will be purchased off the shelf and customized by VIPD. Alternatively, the new risk management system may be developed and implemented according to the following schedule: a. Within 150 days of the effective date of this Agreement, subject to the review and approval of DOJ, the VIPD will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP). b. Within 270 days of the issuance of the RFP, or later with the agreement of DOJ, the VIPD will select the contractor to create the risk management system. c. Within 150 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the VIPD will submit the protocol for using the risk management system to DOJ for review and approval. The VIPD will share drafts of this document with DOJ and the Monitor (a position described in Section VII) to allow DOJ and the Monitor to become familiar with the document as it develops and to provide informal comments on it. The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final approval within 30 days after it is presented for review and approval. d. Within 14 months of selecting the contractor, the VIPD will have ready for testing a beta version of the risk management system consisting of: i) server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the VIPD’s existing automated systems; ii) necessary data base software installed and configured; iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and iv) the use of force information system completed, including historic data. DOJ and the Monitor will have the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version using use of force data and test data created specifically for purposes of checking the risk management system. e. The risk management system computer program and computer hardware will be operational and fully implemented within 20 months of the selection of the risk management system contractor.
*The OIM has determined and reported in their fourth quarterly report for 2013, that the VIPD has achieved substantial compliance with paragraph 66, as the VIPD has acquired through purchase, the IAPRO software system, which is operational and continues to be used as it relates to the EIP process. Also, the VIPD continues however during this reporting quarter to ensure that IAPRO remains operational, that data continues to be entered as required, the necessary reports are generated and that IAPRO is maintained in a secure and confidential manner.
Paragraph 67 – Prior to implementation of the new risk management system, the VIPD will continue to use existing databases and resources to the fullest extent possible, to identify patterns of conduct by VIPD officers or groups of officers.
* The VIPD did continue to use existing data bases and resources as stipulated in paragraph 67 and with the procurement and installation of the IAPRO software as the database for the new Risk Management System, also has entered historical data as far back as 2009 and continues to enter current data on an ongoing basis as these data are generated.
The VIPD as stated prior is conducting audits of various mandates of the consent decree on a quarterly basis, as a form of self assessment of the department’s compliance or noncompliance
xxiii

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 108 of 117
with established policies and procedures developed with respect to consent decree mandates. These quarterly audit reports will be shared with OIM and USDOJ to include the audit report for the fourth quarter of 2013.
Paragraph 68 – Following the initial implementation of the risk management system, and as experience and the availability of new technology may warrant, the VIPD may propose to add, subtract, or modify data tables and fields, modify the list of documents scanned or electronically attached, and add, subtract, or modify standardized reports and queries. The VIPD will submit all such proposals for review and approval by DOJ before implementation.
*The VIPD will comply with the requirements of paragraph 68 as stipulated however, to date none of the changes as reflected in paragraph 68 has been made.
Oversight
Paragraph 69 – The VIPD will develop a protocol for conducting audits. The protocol will be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol will establish a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all VIPD zones.
*Thus far, as reported prior, the VIPD has developed an audit policy in response to paragraph 69 and provided training to its personnel regarding this policy and trainings continue on an ongoing basis, as it relates to this as well as other department policies. The VIPD also initiated and completed its first quarterly audit representing the third quarter of 2013, and a copy of this audit report was submitted to OIM and USDOJ during the first quarter of 2014. Recommendations generated from this audit were also included in the audit report submitted to the Police Commissioner for review and approval prior to any implementation. Additionally, the VIPD completed its second quarterly audit on March 31, 2014 representing the last or fourth quarter of 2013 and a copy of this audit report will also be submitted to OIM and USDOJ.
The VIPD attributable to certain limitations arising from manpower issues is unable to fully execute specific sections of the audit policy and is considering multiple options. Thus far, during this reporting quarter, the VIPD has initiated discussions with parties to this consent decree relative to perhaps temporarily suspending specific areas of the audit policy until VIPD’s resources are adequate enough to enable the full implementation of those areas of the policy.
As reported prior also, promotional exams have been scheduled to take place during the first half of 2014 and based upon the results should aid in boosting supervisory levels negatively impacted particularly through ongoing retirements. In the interim, the VIPD in the absence of an Audit Unit as required by the audit policy is utilizing the work groups to execute audits of their respective areas of responsibility with respect to the consent decree. Individuals within these work groups as OIM and USDOJ are aware, have all received training in conducting audits.
Beginning with the completed audit of the fourth quarter of 2013, video and or teleconferenced meetings will be held with both Districts including first line Supervisors, Commanders and other members of the chain of command, during which the audit report will be discussed to include recommendations and a plan of action implemented for the timely execution of corrective actions pursuant to any deficiencies identified in the preceding audits. Documents pursuant to these conferences to include planned corrective actions will be afforded to OIM and USDOJ.
* Discipline
Paragraph 70 - The VIPD will develop a disciplinary matrix to take into account an officer’s
xxiv

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 109 of 117
violations of different rules, rather than just repeated violations of the same rule. The VIPD will further revise this matrix to increase the penalties for uses of excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, or dishonesty, to reflect the seriousness of those infractions. The revised disciplinary matrix will provide the VIPD with the discretion to impose any appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes the officer’s misconduct exhibits a lack of fitness for duty. This revised matrix will be subject to the review and approval of DOJ.
* The VIPD continues during this reporting quarter to implement and apply the disciplinary matrix as it relates to disciplinary hearings. Thus far during this reporting quarter, there has been eighteen (18) hearings conducted by the Chief in the St.Thomas/St. John District and the specific number of hearings in the St. Croix District was pending as of the completion of this report. In all these hearing proceedings the disciplinary matrix was referenced and implemented.
Paragraph 71 - The VIPD will extend its statute of limitations for instituting disciplinary action from 50 days to 90 days. VIPD policy will identify clear time periods by which the various steps of a complaint adjudication process should be completed, from complaint receipt to the imposition of discipline, if any. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions will not be granted without the Police Commissioner’s written approval and notice to the complainant. In the limited circumstances when an extension is necessary, appropriate tolling provisions will be outlined in the policy.
*As it relates to efforts to extend the statute of limitation from 50 to 90 days, as of the completion of this report representative of the first quarter of 2014, no negotiations has been initiated with either the PBA or LESU. More will be reported in future quarterly reports when negotiations have started and the proposition pursuant to the extension of the statute of limitation is addressed during the negotiation process. The VIPD continues to comply with policy requirements as outlined in paragraph 71 specific to investigations conducted and ongoing quarterly audits will serve to further establish areas of compliance and or noncompliance as it relates to paragraph 71 and other areas of the consent decree requiring substantial compliance.
To further aid in reducing the time taken to complete and submit investigations, the IAB periodically disseminates reports to the chain of command using IAPRO, which identifies assigned cases and provides the due dates of the identified cases. Copies of these reports have been submitted to OIM previously. Additionally, Commanders are reminded during Commander’s call sessions to ensure case investigations are completed and submitted timely in order to avoid disciplinary actions.
Paragraph 72 - Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD will not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix indicates the imposition of discipline. The VIPD will not fail to consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action is required in a case because discipline has been imposed on the officer.
*The VIPD continues during this reporting quarter to implement and apply the disciplinary matrix as it relates to disciplinary hearings. Thus far during this reporting quarter, there has been eighteen (18) hearings conducted by the Chief in the St.Thomas/St. John District and the specific number of hearings in the St. Croix District was pending as of the completion of this report. In all these hearing proceedings the disciplinary matrix was referenced and implemented.
TRAINING
A.
xxv

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 110 of 117
Management Oversight
Paragraph 73 – The VIPD will continue to coordinate and review all use of force policy and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy. The VIPD will conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually.
*During this reporting quarter, the use of force work group completed their review of use of force policy 3.1 and forwarded their recommendations to legal counsel and VIAG. Consistent with the Commissioner approved SOP for the critical review of policies, the next step is for the policy to be reviewed and or revised if necessary by the Policy Committee. The next policy scheduled for review by the use of force work group is the Reporting Review and Investigation of use of force policy 3.2.
Use of force and or force related trainings coordinated and delivered during this reporting quarter includes the semi-annual firearms qualification training that was conducted during the months of February and March 2014 in the St.Thomas/St. John District. An electronic copy of the lesson plan and course outline for this training was submitted to OIM during this reporting quarter. A final training report for this training will be generated by the Training Bureau and will be shared with OIM after the report is finalized and reviewed by appropriate personnel within the Department.
Paragraph 74 – The Director of Training, either directly or through his/her designee(s), consistent with applicable law and VIPD policy will:
a. ensure the quality of all use of force training; b. develop and implement use of force training curricula; c. select and train VIPD officer trainers; d. develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service training; e. in conjunction with the Chiefs, develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures; f. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and g. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
*During this reporting quarter, with respect to subsection (e) the use of force work group in conjunction with training is developing mini roll call lesson plans to be used in both Districts to conduct roll call trainings on a regular basis and will be reported in future quarterly reports in more details when the lesson plans are completed and the trainings are implemented. The OIM in their fourth quarterly report for 2013 has determined that VIPD has achieved Satisfied but need additional work for subsection (b), Satisfied for subsection (d) and Not Satisfied for the remaining subsections. The VIPD appreciates OIM’s recommendations specific to each subsection and will continue efforts towards achieving compliance. Additionally, the execution of audits on a quarterly basis will aid the department in identifying and correcting areas of non compliance and these audit reports will be shared with OIM and USDOJ.
Paragraph 75 – The VIPD will continue to provide training consistent with VIPD policy, law, and proper police practices, and will ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by instructors. The VIPD will make best efforts to train each work shift as a Team in their use of force training.
* As reported prior, all lesson plans for courses taught at the VIPD’s Training Academy are submitted prior to the start of the training to the Training Director for review and approval and use of force or force related lessons plans are also forwarded to the VIAG for an additional level of review prior to the start of the use of force or force related training. Further, the VIPD has provided OIM copies of lesson plans reviewed and signed by the VIAG. For this reporting quarter, the Training Bureau coordinated and facilitated the following trainings conducted by outside
xxvi

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 111 of 117
entities; Law Enforcement Resiliency & Peer Support St. Croix January 20-24, 2014; level 1 & 2 Hostage Negotiation training St.Thomas during months of February 2014, Supervisory training during the month of March 2014 in both Districts, level 3 Hostage Negotiation training both Districts and Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault February 18-21, 2014 in Raleigh North Carolina (1 sergeant & 4 Officers attended from the St.Thomas District). The Training Bureau also during this reporting period conducted in-house semi- annual fire arms qualifications training during the months of February and March 2014, in the St.Thomas/St. John District. A copy of the firearms training lesson plan and course outline was submitted to OIM on February 19, 2014.
Paragraph 76 – The VIPD shall continue to keep adequate records of lesson plans and other training materials, such that the most current training documents are maintained in a central, commonly accessible file, and are clearly dated.
*As have been established prior, the VIPD’s Training Bureau maintains records of all lesson plans and other training materials applicable to each District and these records are accessible and clearly dated. However, the VIPD in an effort to improve and expand its record keeping capabilities and implement improved technologies in file management, record keeping and its training data base etc, procured the Power DMS application as its primary data base for all training related information. The MIS Bureau is the primary unit within the VIPD that is spearheading the initial configuring and set up of Power DMS. During this reporting quarter, there have been multiple communication meetings between representative of Power DMS , MIS and the Training Bureau towards the initial set up of Power DMS and MIS have been uploading data into appropriate fields in Power DMS, and also addressing additional licenses for users, specifically crossing guards.
The MIS has established in writing and shared with OIM and USDOJ an interim plan that delineates phases and goals for each phase towards the full implementation of Power DMS. These phases start from March 1st to April 30, 2014. The goals for this reporting quarter included the following from March 1-15, 2014: conduct training with instructors, administrative training staff and the Policy Committee on what their roles are in the Power DMS system,(which has already begun), MIS working with each group of user’s on automating their business rules. The March 16-21, 2014 goals: entering of historical annual training data; uploading and publishing of existing policies to Power DMS by the Policy Committee and the compilation by Instructors of course materials for uploading to Power DMS. Thus far, all consent decree related policies have been uploaded to Power DMS, a total of twenty three and OIM and USDOJ were notified of this via email communication. Also, the MIS, and Training Staff have all received training on the application of Power DMS and Instructors have already begun to upload instructional information to Power DMS.
As these functions are ongoing, more will be reported in subsequent quarterly reports as to the status of progress with respect to the accomplishment of each identified goal.
* Paragraph 77 – The VIPD shall continue to maintain training records regarding every VIPD officer that reliably indicate the training each officer has received. The training records shall, at a minimum, include the course description and duration, curriculum, and instructor for each officer.
* The VIPD’s Training Bureau continues to maintain training records regarding every VIPD Officer and these training records are inclusive of information as specified in paragraph 77. Additionally, as stated earlier in this report, the VIPD in an effort to improve and expand its record keeping capabilities and implement improved technologies in file management, record keeping and training data bases etc, procured the Power DMS application as its primary data base for all training related information to include completing competency exams and serving overall as a tracking system for all trainings including training on policies. This application is currently being
xxvii

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 112 of 117
implemented. It is important to note here also that Power DMS is capable of creating multiple versions of the same test thus alleviating OIM’s concern prior to Power DMS about Officer’s being able to memorize the test administered.
Curriculum
Paragraph 78 – The Training Director, in consultation with the Attorney General’s Office, will review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure compliance with applicable laws and VIPD policy.
* The Training Director continues to submit to VIAG for review, all lesson plans related to use of force trainings and or policies prior to the implementation of the training.
Additionally, the execution of audits on a quarterly basis will aid the department in identifying and correcting areas of non compliance and these audit reports will be shared with OIM and USDOJ.
Paragraph 79 – The VIPD will continue to provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on use of force. Such training will include and address the following topics:
a. the VIPD’s use of force model, as described in this Agreement; b. proper use of force decision-making; c. the VIPD’s use of force reporting requirements; d. the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements; e. examples of scenarios faced by VIPD officers that illustrate proper use of force decisionmaking; f. interactive exercises that emphasize proper use of force decision-making; g. de-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without using force, and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation even when the use of force would be legally justified; h. threat assessment; i. appropriate training on conflict management.
*The VIPD continues to provide annual trainings consistent with and inclusive of the requirements as indicated in paragraph 79 and these trainings are continually being coordinated, as reflected in the Training Bureau’s Training calendar of which a copy is periodically afforded OIM to include updated copies. Upcoming trainings include Crisis Intervention training as a form of conflict management that is scheduled to take place in May in both Districts. Also, Hostage negotiation trainings level 1&2 was executed in the St.Thomas/ St. John District during the month of February 2014. The VIPD also continue to employ the Simulator in each District for use of force trainings, including and relating to paragraph 79, and in particular subsections b, e, f and d.
Additionally, the execution of audits on a quarterly basis will aid the department in identifying and correcting areas of non compliance and these audit reports will be shared with OIM and USDOJ.
Paragraph 80 – The VIPD will continue to provide training to all its officers on the VIPD citizen complaint process. The VIPD will develop a protocol for all its officers on appropriate conduct and responses in handling citizens’ complaints and will train officers in the protocol.
* The VIPD continues to provide a wide spectrum of training in various disciplines on an ongoing basis including training on citizen complaint policies 7.2 & 7.3 applicable to paragraph 80 and other specific mandates of the consent decree, as it relates to the citizen complaint process. During the last quarter of 2013, training was provided on citizen complaint process for Officers
xxviii

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 113 of 117
and Supervisors as part of annual in-service trainings. A copy of the in-service training summary report was submitted to OIM during this reporting quarter. Also, follow-up training was conducted on January 16, 2014 in the St.Thomas/St. John District on the preponderance of evidence standard during Commander’s call. Additionally, in-service training is again being coordinated and is anticipated to start June 2014 and will also include training on VIPD’s policies including the citizen complaint process policies 7.2 & 7.3.
Paragraph 81 – The VIPD will provide training on appropriate burdens of proof to all supervisors, as well as the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility (to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform, and legally appropriate). The VIPD will also continue to provide training to supervisors on leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training will be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities, and will be made part of annual inservice training.
* As part of VIPD’s continuing effort to comply with paragraph 81, as well as other mandates of the consent decree, training on the citizen complaint process policies is delivered on an ongoing basis during roll call and or commanders call and in-service trainings. As stated earlier, the inservice training completed during the last quarter of 2013 included training on the preponderance of evidence standard as well as the complaint policies. Additionally, in the St. Thomas/ St. John District follow-up training was conducted on the preponderance of evidence standard that included a competency exam that was administered to twenty eight participating Supervisors of which eight did not pass the test. The eight Supervisors received remedial trainings using Power DMS during the latter part of this quarter.
Additionally, during this reporting quarter and specifically during the month of March 2014, Supervisory trainings entitled “Mastering First Line Supervision” were conducted in both Districts. An electronic copy of the course outline and lesson plan was submitted to OIM during this reporting quarter. This training was conducted by an outside vendor namely, MTAG. A Training report produced by the Training Bureau for this training was submitted to OIM March 25, 2014.
*The paragraphs highlighted in green (for tracking purpose) represent those paragraphs for which the VIPD has achieved substantial compliance as determined by OIM.
V. MONITORING, REPORTING, AND IMPLEMENTATION
B. Independent Monitor
Paragraph 82 – By 150 days from the date of this Agreement, the Territory and the DOJ shall together select an Independent Monitor, acceptable to both, who shall monitor and report on the VIPD’s implementation of this Agreement. The parties recognize that one person, or team of people, may be selected to fulfill the role of Monitor. The selection of the Monitor shall be pursuant to a method jointly established by the DOJ and the Territory. If the DOJ and Territory are unable to agree on a Monitor or an alternative method of selection within 150 days from the date of this Agreement, the DOJ and the Territory each shall submit two candidates who have experience as a law enforcement practices expert or monitor, or as a Federal, state or local prosecutor or judge, along with résumés and cost proposals, to the Court. The Court shall then appoint the Monitor from among the names of qualified persons submitted. The selection of the Monitor shall be conducted solely pursuant to the procedures set forth in this Agreement, and will not be governed by any formal or legal procurement requirements.
No report required
xxix

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 114 of 117
Paragraph 83 – 87 – 83. The Monitor, at any time after the initial selection of the person or team of persons as the Monitor, may request to be allowed to hire or employ such additional persons or entities as are reasonably necessary to perform the tasks assigned to him or her by this Agreement. Any person or entity hired or otherwise retained by the Monitor to assist in furthering any provisions of this Agreement shall be subject to the provisions of paragraphs 94, 96, and 97, governing testifying, conflicting employment and confidentiality. The Monitor shall notify the Territory and the DOJ in writing if the Monitor wishes to select such additional persons or entities. The notice shall identify and describe the qualifications of the person or entity to be hired or employed and the monitoring task to be performed. If the Territory, through its Department of Justice, and the DOJ agree to the Monitor's proposal, the Monitor shall be authorized to hire or employ such additional persons or entities. The Territory or the DOJ have ten days to disagree with the proposal. If the Territory and the DOJ are unable to reach agreement within ten days of receiving notice of the disagreement, the Court shall resolve the dispute. The Monitor and any person he or she retains to assist in furthering any provisions of this Agreement must successfully pass a background check in order to be eligible to carry out his or her role under this Agreement.
No report required
84. The Territory shall bear all reasonable fees and costs of the Monitor. In selecting the Monitor, DOJ and the Territory recognize the importance of ensuring that the fees and costs borne by the Territory are reasonable, and accordingly fees and costs shall be one factor considered in selecting the Monitor. In the event that any dispute arises regarding the reasonableness or payment of the Monitor’s fees and costs, the Territory, DOJ and the Monitor shall attempt to resolve such dispute cooperatively prior to seeking the assistance of the Court to resolve such dispute.
No report required
85. The Monitor shall only have the duties, responsibilities and authority conferred by this Agreement. The Monitor shall not, and is not intended to, replace or take over the role and duties of the Governor of the Territory or the Police Commissioner. In order to monitor and report on the VIPD’s implementation of each substantive provision of this Agreement, the Monitor shall conduct the reviews specified in paragraph 86, infra, and such additional reviews regarding the implementation of this Agreement as the Monitor deems appropriate. At the request of the DOJ or the Territory, based on the Monitor’s reviews, the Monitor may make recommendations to the parties regarding measures necessary to ensure full and timely implementation of this Agreement. 86. In order to monitor and report on the VIPD’s implementation of this Agreement, the Monitor shall regularly conduct compliance reviews to ensure that the VIPD has implemented and continues to implement all measures required by this Agreement. The Monitor shall provide reasonable notice to VIPD prior to conducting any on-site compliance reviews.
No report required
87. Subject to the limitations set forth in this paragraph and applicable collective bargaining agreements, the VIPD will reopen for further investigation any use of force or citizen complaint investigations the Monitor determines to be incomplete. The Monitor will provide written instructions for completing any investigation determined to be incomplete. The Monitor will provide these recommendations so that the directive given by the Police Commissioner to implement the Monitor’s instructions is given within a reasonable period following the investigation’s conclusion. The Monitor may not exercise this option concerning any investigation the disposition of which has been officially communicated to the officer who is the subject of the investigation.
xxx

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 115 of 117
No report required
Paragraph 88 – The parties agree that the VIPD will hire and retain, or reassign a current VIPD employee for the duration of this Agreement, to serve as a full-time VIPD Compliance Coordinator. The Compliance Coordinator will serve as a liaison between the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office, the VIPD, the Monitor and DOJ, and will assist with the VIPD’s compliance with this Agreement. At a minimum, the Compliance Coordinator will: coordinate the VIPD’s compliance and implementation activities; facilitate the provision of data, documents and other access to VIPD employees and material to the Monitor and DOJ as needed; ensure that all documents and records are maintained as provided in this Agreement; and assist in assigning compliance tasks to VIPD personnel, as directed by the Police Commissioner or his designee. The VIPD Compliance Coordinator will take primary responsibility for collecting the information the Monitor requires to carry out the terms of this Agreement.
Currently executed
Paragraph 89 – 95 – 89. In monitoring the implementation of this Agreement, the Monitor shall maintain regular contact with the Police Commissioner and Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office, as well as the DOJ.
90. The Monitor shall have reasonable access to all VIPD employees and facilities that the Monitor reasonably deems necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by this Agreement. The Monitor shall cooperate with the VIPD to access people and facilities in a reasonable manner that, consistent with the Monitor’s responsibilities, minimizes interference with daily operations.
91. The Monitor shall have reasonable access to all Territory and VIPD documents for monitoring purposes only that the Monitor reasonably deems necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by this Agreement, except any documents protected by the attorneyclient privilege. Should the Territory or the VIPD decline to provide the Monitor with access to a document based on attorney-client privilege, the Territory shall provide the Monitor and DOJ with a log describing the document.
92. For the purpose of implementing this Agreement, the DOJ and its consultative experts and agents shall have reasonable access to all VIPD employees, facilities, and VIPD documents, to the extent permitted by law. The DOJ and its consultative experts and agents shall cooperate with the Territory and the VIPD to access involved personnel, VIPD facilities, and documents in a reasonable manner that minimizes interference with daily operations. Should the Territory and the VIPD decline to provide the DOJ with access to a document based on attorney-client privilege, the Territory shall provide the DOJ with a log describing the document.
93. The Monitor and DOJ shall provide the Territory, the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office, or the VIPD with reasonable notice of a request for copies of documents. Upon such request, the Territory and the VIPD shall provide the Monitor and DOJ with copies (electronic, where readily available) of any documents that the Monitor and DOJ are entitled to access under this Agreement.
xxxi

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 116 of 117
94. All non-public information provided to the Monitor or DOJ, whether by the Territory or the VIPD, shall be maintained in a confidential manner. Other than as expressly provided in this Agreement, this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege or right the Territory or the VIPD may assert, including those recognized at common law or created by statute, rule or regulation, against any other person or entity with respect to the disclosure of any document.
95. For the purpose of implementing this Agreement, the Monitor shall have reasonable access to all documents in criminal investigation files that have been closed by the VIPD. The Monitor shall also have reasonable access to all arrest reports, warrants, and warrant applications whether or not contained in open criminal investigation files; where practicable arrest reports, warrants and warrant applications shall be obtained from sources other than open criminal investigation files
C. Independent Monitor Reports
Paragraph 96 – 97 – 96. The Monitor shall issue quarterly written, public reports detailing the Territory of the Virgin Islands’ compliance with and implementation of each substantive provision of this Agreement. These reports shall be written with due regard for the privacy interests of individual officers and the interest of the Territory and the VIPD in protecting against disclosure of non-public information. At least 16 business days before filing a report, the Monitor shall provide a copy of the draft to the parties for input as to whether any factual errors were made or whether any sensitive data or non-public information is disclosed. The Monitor shall consider the parties’ responses and make appropriate changes, if any, before issuing the report. The Monitor may testify in this case regarding any matter relating to the implementation, enforcement or dissolution of this Agreement. 97. Except as required or authorized by the terms of this Agreement or the parties acting together: neither the Monitor, nor any member of their staff, shall make any public statements or issue findings with regard to any act or omission of the Territory, or its agents, representatives, or employees; or disclose non-public information provided to the Monitor pursuant to the Agreement. Any press statement made by the Monitor or any member of the Monitor’s staff regarding their employment must first be approved by DOJ, the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office, and VIPD. Neither the Monitor nor any member of its staff shall testify in any other litigation or proceeding with regard to any act or omission of the Territory, the VIPD, or any of their agents, representatives, or employees related to this Agreement or regarding any matter or subject that the Monitor or their staff may have received knowledge of as a result of his or her performance under this Agreement. Unless such conflict is waived by the parties, the Monitor shall not accept employment or provide consulting services that would present a conflict of interest with the Monitor’s
responsibilities under this Agreement, including being retained (on a paid or unpaid basis) by any current or future litigant or claimant, or such litigant’s or claimant’s attorney, in connection with a claim or suit against the Territory or its departments, officers, agents or employees. The Monitor is not a state or local agency, or an agent thereof, and accordingly the records maintained by the Monitor shall not be deemed public records subject to public inspection. Neither the Monitor nor any person or entity hired or otherwise retained by the Monitor to assist in furthering any provision of this Agreement shall be liable for any claim, lawsuit, or demand arising out of the Monitor’s performance pursuant to this Agreement. This paragraph does not apply to any proceeding before a court related to performance of contracts or subcontracts for monitoring this Agreement.
*
xxxii

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 99-1 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 117 of 117
D. Virgin Islands Police Department Reports and Records Paragraph 98 – Within 90 days following entry of this Agreement and no later than every three months thereafter until this Agreement is terminated, the VIPD shall file with the Monitor and Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office, with a copy to the DOJ, a status report delineating the steps taken by the VIPD during the reporting period to comply with each provision of this Agreement. The VIPD shall also file such a report documenting the steps taken to comply with each provision of this Agreement during the term of this Agreement 120 days before the end of the Agreement’s term. *This report is filed this 7th day of April 2014, in compliance with the Consent Decree.
xxxiii

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-6 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 1 of 25
Second Quarterly Report of 2014 from the
Independent Monitor for the Virgin Islands Police Department
CHARLES A. GRUBER CONSULTING INC. INDEPENDENT MONITOR AUGUST2014 www.imt-policemonitor.org

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-6 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 2 of 25
INDEPENDENT MONITORING TEAM
Independent Monitor Chief Charles A. Gruber
Elgin, Illinois Police Department GR (retired)
Police Practices E:merts Superintendent Ann Marie Doherty
Boston, Massachusetts Police Department (retired) Chief Robert L. Stewart
Ormond Beach, Florida Police Department (retired)
CAG Staff & Consultants Jerome A. Needle, Project Manager
Director of Program & Research, International Association of Chiefs of Police (retired) Palmer D. Wilson, Technical Manager Lieutenant, Commander, Office ofAudits & Inspections, Montgomery County, Maryland Department of Police (retired) Leon A. Casey, Sr., Field Coordinator Resident Agent in Charge, U.S. Customs Service (retired)
CHARLES A. GRUBER CONSULTING INC. INDEPENDENT MONITOR AUGUST2014 www Jmt-policemonitor.org

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-6 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 3 of 25

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 1

The Events.............................................................................................................................. I

Compliance Status .................................................................................................................. I

The Compliance Continuum ...................................................................................................2

Compliance Keys....................................................................................................................3

Technology Transition and Business Development Process .....................................................3

I.

INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................5

ll. RESETTING COMPLIANCE STRATEGY AND PROGRAMMING .......................................5

The Events.................................................................................................................................6

The Amended Order ..................................................................................................................6

Independent Monitor Transition .................................................................................................8

Virgin Islands Police Department Leadership Transition ............................................................8

ill. COMPLIANCE STATUS..........................................................................................................9

Overall Status ............................................................................................................................9

The Compliance Continuum..................................................................................................... 13

Goals Compliance Requirements & Achievements .................................................................. 13

Second Quarter Record ............................................................................................................ 14

IMT Comments & Recommendations ...................................................................................... 14

Compliance Analytics .............................................................................................................. 17

IV. COMPLIANCE KEYS ............................................................................................................ 17

V. MOUNTING A STRONGER COMPLIANCE PROGRAM ..................................................... l8

The Policing Environment........................................................................................................ 18

Policies & Practices ................................................................................................................. 19

A VIPD Consent Decree-Tailoroo Database.............................................................................20

VI. TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION & DEVELOPMENT.............................................................21

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-6 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 4 of 25
TABLES & CHARTS Table 1: Current Consent Decree Compliance - All Paragraphs, As Of 08/15/14 ................................ 10 Table 2: Group 1 Use of Force- CD Compliance Levels by Phase ..................................................... 10
Group 2 Citizen Complaints - CD Compliance Levels by Phase ........................................... 11 Group 3 Management & Supervision- CD Compliance Levels by Phase .............................. 11 Group 4 Training- CD Compliance Levels by Phase ............................................................ 12 Group 5 Implementation- CD Compliance Levels by Phase................................................. 12

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-6 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 5 of 25
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Second Quarter of 2014 is notable for change and transition. Two major events occurred, which when combined with a third that will occur later this calendar year, compel a comprehensive and concentrated reexamination of compliance program strategy and operations (the process). The objective of the reexamination, which the IMT views as a Reset, is to identify and implement actions to reinforce successes to date and to correct shortfalls to better enable the VIPD to achieve full and fmal Substantial Compliance with CD requirements and to conduct and institutionalize constitutional policing.
The Events. In the Second Quarter of 2014, the District Court of the Virgin Islands ordered amendments to the Consent Decree that materially refocuses priorities and timetables. The implications for the Virgin Islands Police Department compliance operations are consequential. Less consequential, but of extreme importance nonetheless, authority and responsibility for Independent Monitoring passed from Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, LLP to Charles A Gruber Consulting Inc. The impending consideration is the election-inspired transition in Virgin Islands government and its certain but currently ambiguous impact on police department leadership and command. Any number of scenarios may eventuate that will influence the efficiency, progress and sustainability of CD compliance. Best-case scenario for the CD enterprise is minimal, controlled interruption and dislocation. A deliberately planned and smoothly executed change strategy is called for, beginning as immediately as is possible.
Compliance Status. Having just completed five years of work to satisfy mutually agreed upon action to correct the patterns and practices that led to the Consent Decree originally, the VI and the VIPD have achieved Substantial Compliance with 19 of 51 provisions (paragraphs) of the Consent Decree, 37%. Greatest success has occurred in meeting the Citizen Complaint Process Group, 10 of 17 paragraphs, 59%. Compliance with the Management & Supervision Group (Risk Management) standards at 42%, 5 of 12 paragraphs. The VI and VIPD are struggling with Use of Force compliance, only 3 of 11, 27%. Only one of the nine (9) Training paragraphs is in Substantial Compliance.
1

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-6 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 6 of 25

The District Court of the Virgin Islands is not satisfied with progress to date. It has issued two principal Orders that ca ll for prioritization of compliance goals and stringent timetables "Quarterly Goals."

Paragraphs currently in Substantial Compliance are:

31

39

40

42

43

45

46

47

48

49

50

52

53

57

62

64

66

70

80

During the Second Quarter, the VIPD gained Substantial Compliance with three paragraphs, 46, 49 and 80. This matched First Quarter performance, three paragraphs: 43 , 45 and 48.

The Compliance Continuum. To gain compliance, a sequence of thresholds must be met with regard to policy, training, and practice (sustained execution). For Use of Force, policy compliance has been achieved successfully for all eleven (11) paragraphs. Training has been successfully achieved for each applicable paragraph. The work remains to be done to satisfy Practice Compliance requirements, and thereafter to sustain achievements.

The Citizen Complaint compliance performance record mirrors that of the Use of Force Group in pattern. All 17 policy requirements have been met. All applicable training compliance paragraphs have been met. Practice Compliance is the challenge.

The Group 1 and 2 pattern repeats for Group 3, Management & Supervision. The policy phase has been achieved for every applicable paragraph as has training. The two (2) Policy requirements have been met for the Training Group. One-third, (3 of 9) training paragraphs remain to be achieved. The Practice/Execution Phase remains for eight (8) mandates.

Aggregating the Continuum data to produce a collective overview, it is reasonable to conclude that the Policy Phase has been accomplished in full. Updates must be completed as conditions warrant and monitoring will continue. Full compliance in the Training Phase is reachable. Practice (sustainability), arguably the most challenging phase, will dominate compliance activity for the next several years.
- 2-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-6 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 7 of 25
Compliance Keys. The Court-ordered Quarterly Goals approach can only serve to bring needed direction to Consent Decree compliance programming. It prioritizes compliance objectives, sets timetables, and enables the VIPD to invest its energies for maximum return. The ability of the VIPD to satisfy the Court will benefit measurably from a series of capacity building actions, several of them recommended by the IMT repeatedly. Several of the actions have been discussed with the VIPD. Their intent and/or commitment to move forward has been expressed.
D Establish the Force Review Board D Establish the Shooting Investigation Team D Establish the Audits & Inspection Unit D Demand Greater Managerial and Supervisory Accountability with regard to all
Consent Decree obligations
The foregoing four recommendations have self-evident direct linkage to Consent Decree compliance. Still direct, but more complicated in transformation requirements are the following:
D Ensure promotional preparation, readiness and a productive testing scheme. D Ensure and sustain an integrated academy, field and in-service training regimen
that foster the values and understanding of constitutional policing. D Engage community members in compliance activities. A citizen survey and
VIPD website postings are easy ways to inform the public about compliance activities and progress.
Technology Transition & Business Development Process. During Quarter Two, the IMT invested heavily in development of business process technology as well as in improving tools for monitoring, primarily for case review and analysis. A Data Management System received the most attention. Case Review & Analysis Templates were refined and redesigned. We have developed a Records Management System to support access to CD reports and documents. A web-based Calendar and a prototype website have been developed, the latter to support pending and much needed community engagement initiatives. We prepared for a summit to be held during the Third Quarter to clarify any differences that exist in assessing substantial compliance and to ensure that all parties are in agreement, to the maximum extent possible, with the current
-3-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-6 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 8 of 25
status of each CD paragraph and 8\lb-paragraph. Last, the IMT has begun work to introduce a series of metrics to measure outcomes (Constitutional Policing) and policies and CD processes designed to foster Constitutional Policing.
-4-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-6 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 9 of 25
I. INTRODUCTION
This is the Second Quarter Report of2014 from the Independent Monitoring Team (IMT) for the quarter that ended June 30, 2014. During the quarter the IMT, along with the CRT from the United States Department of Justice, attended the Consent Decree progress review by District Judge Curtis V. Gomez, participated in three Monthly Meetings - by conference call and on-site, examined Use of Force and Citizen Complaint policies and procedures for review, and conducted a week-long on-site (June 9-13). We conducted technical assistance and provided guidance, direction and exemplars to Work Group leaders and in some cases group point persons. The IMT monitored VIPD training programs on site and completed documents to the satisfaction of Property and Procurement related to contract provisions of this Consent decree.
The Second Quarter marked a shift in the monitoring business model. Authority and responsibility for independent monitoring passed from Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, LLP to Charles A. Gruber Consulting, Inc., the authors ofthis report. Drawing on experience of the last five years of Consent Decree activity and the accumulated knowledge of successes, failures, VIPD assets and cultural and operational barriers, and unexploited opportunities, it is evident that the Independent monitoring function and the VIPD compliance effort can benefit from revision of current program methods and practices and the aggressive introduction of more contemporary information technology. VIPD organization and staffing for CD compliance is a subject that demands immediate attention. The pages that follow will outline how the monitoring program is already being advanced. In all of these regards, Quarter Two has been a Transition Quarter.
II. RESETTING COMPLIANCE STRATEGY AND PROGRAMMING
Two major events occurred during this quarter which, when combined with a third event that will unfold during the remaining quarters of this year, compel a call for a concentrated reexamination of compliance program strategy and operations (process). The goal is to identify and implement actions that the VIPD can introduce that promise to reinforce successes to date, correct shortfalls, and introduce innovations that will carry them through to final substantial
-5-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-6 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 10 of 25
compliance with the consent decree. The parties to the Consent Decree have before them what may be the best one-time window to energize a Virgin Islands Police Department compliance effort that demands a range of improvements that are crucial to future compliance success.
The Events. In the Second Quarter of 2014, the District Court of the Virgin Islands ordered amendments that materially refocus Consent Decree priorities and timetables. The implications for the Virgin Islands Police Department compliance business methods are consequential Less consequentia~ but of extreme importance nonetheless going forward, authority and responsibility for Independent Monitoring passed from Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, LLP to Charles A. Gruber Consulting Inc.. The impending consideration is the election-inspired transition in Virgin Islands government and its impact on police department leadership and command. A new governor will be elected in November 2014. Transition will occur in January 2015. Top leadership positions in the VIPD are gubernatorial appointments. The current commissioner has declared his intent to retire. Past elections have resulted in numerous leadership and supervisory changes in the command structure of the VIPD. Any number of scenarios could eventuate that will influence the efficiency, pace, progress and sustainability of CD compliance. Best-case scenario for the CD enterprise is minimal, controlled interruption and dislocation. A deliberately planned and smoothly executed change strategy is called for.
The Amended Order. On May 27, 2014, the District Court of the Virgin Islands issued an Amended Order that calls for reprioritization of Consent Decree compliance goals, an action which seems to us to introduce requirements to refocus Virgin Islands Police Department compliance program organization, staffing and operations. Most important, it clarifies and sets the stage for better focused compliance achievement. It is, in our view, a well-conceived and department-friendly action.
The two principal Orders of the Court that pertain to the Action Plan & Quarterly compliance requirements are:
D The Action Plan is Stricken From the Consent Decree. The Action Plan has been guiding the operations of the Virgin Islands Police Department leadership and the Work Groups that have hands-on everyday responsibilities for
-6-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-6 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 11 of 25
engineering the organizational and behavioral change called for by the Consent Decree. Whether and how suspension of the Plan impacts Work Group direction and functioning is not totally clear at this point. The IMT intends to concentrate some attention to this issue. It is worthy of direct discussion, which will occur in Quarter Three. D Quarterly Goals. The Virgin Islands Police Department February 25, 2014 agreement to submit quarterly goals to the Court and to accomplish any (all) goals accepted by the Court by the end ofeach respective quarter is adopted.
The Court's reasoning for the Orders is illuminating as a retrospective and a judgment on the Consent Decree compliance effort since inception and on its state as ofthis quarter. From the Order:
D The Consent Decree in this matter was first entered into on March, 2009. It has been amended five times, by the Court's count. Each amendment was in response to a motion by one or both parties as a result ofthe Virgin Islands being unable to comply with the deadlines for substantial compliance with some or all sections of the Consent Decree that called for improvement. (Page 2).
D Each time, the Virgin Islands and the United States indicated to the Court that changes in leadership in the Virgin Islands Police Department had resulted in renewed commitment to the consent decree . . . . However, as the Court explained at the February 25, 2014 hearing, words and promises are not enough (Page 3)...
D If history is any indication, the leadership's expressed desire to achieve compliance- not only for compliance's sake, but in order to improve the Virgin Islands Police Department so that it could effectively serve the community it is supposed to protect - will simply not, after six years and five amendments, be enough. (Page 3).
It is not possible to misinterpret the mood of the Court and the urgency introduced for measurable progress toward substantial compliance. A tipping point has been reached!
The impact and benefits of the Order appear to be visible and positive already. The IMT observed a surge of activity in the Virgin Islands Police Department compliance work, at least in June. Still, and in recognition of CO-allocated resource (staff) pressure, to reinforce forward movement and fulfill its legal obligations to the Court, the Virgin Islands Police Department is advised to remix the focus of compliance efforts. It must prioritize work to concentrate on the goals submitted to and approved by the Court. At the same time, it cannot permit progress and work toward remaining goals, those for which substantial compliance has already been achieved
-7-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-6 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 12 of 25
and those not yet in substantial compliance, to atrophy or languish. To allow overall progress to date to regress will not be acceptable. Continued, even intensified diligence by all parties is required to ensure this condition does not eventuate.
Independent Monitor Transition. From 2009 through to the end of Quarter One, 2014, independent monitoring authority and responsibility was held by the firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, LLP. At the outset of Quarter Two, 2014, authority and responsibility passed to Charles A. Gruber Consulting Inc. Fried, Frank exhibited ultimate cooperation and professionalism in support of the transition. We are grateful and thank them for all of their efforts. Having served as the Police Practices Experts cadre for Fried, Frank, the CAG team is well positioned to carry compliance monitoring forward. It is our declared intent to reinforce and build upon the entire Consent Decree experience to date, minimizing disruptions for all parties to the Consent Decree, while promising innovation based on lessons learned since 2009 and the new urgency introduced by the aforementioned Court Orders.
For the IMT, the Second Quarter blended continuing monitoring work, staffing augmentation to replace Fried, Frank resources, and considerable infrastructure capacity building. The transition resulted in role changes. Use of Force PPE, Charles Gruber, is now obligated to serve as the leader of the team and the Monitor. As executive responsibilities increase, time available for hands-on work, such as case review, diminishes. This reality must be, and is being controlled for. Resources and functions formerly invested and conducted by Fried, Frank are now replaced, in part, by the addition of Jerry Needle, Palmer Wilson, and Leon Casey, Sr., to the team. These professionals bring senior level experience in law enforcement evaluation, infrastructure, operations and organizational culture analysis and change management. Production and administrative capacity is off to a fast start. Section VI, Technology Transition & Development, documents progress in capacity building during Quarter Two. We expect that core transition requirements will be in place in the next two quarters (Third and Fourth, 2014). The strategy and business model will evolve and adapt continually.
Virgin Islands Police Department Leadership Transition. Change in Virgin Islands Police Department leadership is expected by the end of 2014. Being contingent on the election later in
-8-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-6 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 13 of 25
this year and the ensuing executive search and selection process, an interim may occupy the Commissioner post for a time. Whether the candidate chosen for permanent appointment comes from inside the Virgin Islands Police Department or from the outside has its own set of implications for agency direction and operations, including the composition of a Consent Decree compliance team which is currently led by top-tier commanders (Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, and Captains). The cadre of expertise will still be present in the department. It needs to be employed and cultivated further.
Leadership transition is likely to disrupt the compliance process (as has been seen in this Consent Decree and others around the country). The Independent Monitor has begun discussions with the current Commissioner and his leadership team to plan for transition, to minimize disruption and ensure ongoing commitment to compliance efforts. Discussions are not far along. Schedules to further discussions are currently being worked out.
m COMPLIANCE STATUS
Tables 1 and 2 display the status of VIPD compliance with Consent Decree requirements as of August 15, 2014 (somewhat beyond the close of Quarter Two). Table 1 presents a snapshot of overall compliance achievement (51 paragraphs). Table 2 conveys status on the policy, training, and practice continuum (phases).
Overall Status. The VI and VIPD have achieved Substantial Compliance with 19 of 51 provisions, 37% (Table 1). Greatest success has occurred in meeting the Citizen Complaint Process Group, 10 of 17 paragraphs, 59%. Compliance with the Management & Supervision Group (Risk Management) stands at 42%, 5 of 12 paragraphs. The VI and VIPD is truly struggling with Use ofForce compliance, only 3 of11, 27%. The IMT views the Use ofForce Group as, perhaps, the most difficult to achieve. Only one (1) of the nine (9) Training paragraphs are in Substantial Compliance.
-9-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-6 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 14 of 25

TABLEt
Current Consent Decree Complaince All Para hs As Of 08 15 14

35

30

25

"'c . ..1:.

20

l!

b.O

l!
~

15

10

5

0

Substantial

Not in Substantial

NA

iance

Co

• series1

19

32

2

TABLE2

Group 1 Use of Force
CD Compliance levels by Phase

12 10
8 6 4 2 0
Satisfied Not Satisfied NA

Phase 1 Polic 11

Phase 2 Traini
9

Phase 3 Practice
1

8

2

2

Compliance levels

• Satisfied • Not Satisfied . NA

- 10 -

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-6 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 15 of 25

Group 2 Citizen Complaints
CD Compliance levels by Phase

18

16

14

e.Iccll.

12 10

eb.D

8

~

6

4

2

0

Satisfied Not Satisfied NA

Phase 1 Poli
17

Phase 2 Traini
12
5 Compliance levels

Phase 3 Pract ice
3 9 5

• Sa.tisfied • Not Satisfied

Group 3 Management & Supervision CD Compliance Levels by Phase

12 10
8 6 4 2 0
ed Not Satisfied NA

Phase 1 Pol
12
2

Phase 2 Train
9
5 Compll<tnce levels

Phase 3 Practice
1 9 4

• Satisfied • Not Satisfied . NA

- 11 -

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-6 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 16 of 25

Group 4 Training
CD Compliance levels by Phase

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0 ~--------~--------~---------f

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Pol

Train

Practice

ed

2

6

1

Not Satisfied

3

8

NA

7

Compli1mce t.ev,els

• S.atisfied • Not Satisfi ed

. r---------------------------~~----------------------------~
Group 5 Implementation
CD·Compliance levels by Phase

2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1

O.B

0 .6

0.4

0 .2 0 ~--~~--~--------~---------,'

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Po li e

Traini

Pra.ctice

ed

Not Satisfied

2

2

2

NA

Compliance levels

•: • satisfied
• Not Satisfied

~------------------------~· - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >.

- 12-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-6 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 17 of 25
The Compliance Continuum. Table 2, CD Compliance Levels by Phase, adds considerable dimension and clarification to compliance status. For the Use of Force Group, policy compliance has been achieved successfully in every instance - for each of the eleven (11) paragraphs. Training has been successfully achieved for each applicable paragraph. The work remains to be done to satisfy Practice Compliance requirements, and thereafter to sustain achievements.
The Citizen Complaint compliance performance record mirrors that of the Use ofForce Group in pattern. All 17 policy requirements have been met. All applicable training compliance paragraphs have been met. Practice Compliance is a more major challenge. The Group 1 and 2 pattern repeats for Group 3, Management & Supervision. The policy phase has been achieved for every applicable paragraph as has the training phase. Practice Compliance lies ahead. Each of the two (2) required policy requirements have been met for the Training Group. One-third (3 of 9) of the training paragraphs remain to be achieved. The Practice Compliance Phase remains for eight (8) mandates.
Collectively, the Policy Phase has been accomplished in full. Updates must be completed as conditions warrant and monitoring will continue. Full compliance in the Training Phase is reachable. This must be a priority for the Training Group. Practice/Execution (sustainability), arguably the most challenging phase, will dominate compliance activity for the next several years.
Consideration for fairness and disclosure dictates that we note the presence of some confusion and disagreement between the VIPD and IMf regarding compliance status with regard to several paragraphs. A Third Quarter summit is scheduled to examine status, requirements, and to eliminate misunderstandings.
Goals Compliance Requirements & Achievements. By agreeent with the Court, the VIPD is expected to be in Substantial Compliance with all or part of 33 CD paragraphs by August 15, 2014. The IMT records indicate that the VIPD is in Substantial Compliance with ten (10) of these. Counting nine (9) paragraphs achieved previously, the VIP is currently in Substantial
-13-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-6 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 18 of 25
Compliance with 19 (as of August 15, 2014). These are Paragraphs: 31, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 57, 62, 64, 66, 70 and 80.
Second Quarter Record. Owing the First Quarter of 2014, the VI and VIPD achieved Substantial Compliance with three Paragraphs, 43, 45, and 48. Despite their best efforts, the VIPD, during the reporting period, only came into Substantial Compliance with paragraphs 46, 49 and 80. Paragraph 80, unfortunately, is not a paragraph contained in the Court's order of 07/03/14.
IMT Comments & Recommendations. In keeping with past practice, the IMT has examined the VIPD Status Report for the First Quarter (#19). Item-by-item Comments and Recommendations are documented in Appendix A. Global observations are in order here.
The efforts of the Force Working Group are commendable. They are attacking some of the most frequently occurring themes in their review of force incidents that have caused and continue to cause the department to miss opportunities to find compliance. Supervisors not making it to the scenes of force incidents are one example. Working on templates and other resources to focus both officers and supervisors on their recurring duties consistent with the VIPD's force policies and the Consent Decree is another. Development of the Force Review Board and its related investigation policy will address a myriad of issues the department has been struggling with and have been identified in both IMT audits and VIPD audits. We expect that the VIPD leadership will put a priority on completing and implementing this policy in the 3rd Quarter of2014. Delay will only continue to exacerbate issues for the department and its personnel as well as the citizens who deserve this level of professional policing. We are encouraged that, for the second time, the UOF Working Group concurs with IMT fmdings that force reporting and investigation are not occurring consistently, timely, nor adequately as required. While we have again provided the VIPD with exemplars for both Use of Force Review Board policies and procedures and Firearms and Serious Use of Force Investigation Team policy and procedures, the VIPD has yet to submit those policies to the commissioner for their implementation. The VIPD reports that the Working Group is writing and developing these policies and procedures and bi-weekly reports indicate that they are being worked on. Neither has been completed. We are encouraged that the
-14-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-6 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 19 of 25
VIPD now sees that implementation of these policies and procedures will help identify system, training and process failures that are keeping them from achieving compliance with a majority of CD force paragraphs. We anticipate positive results from implementation. No change in status occurred in Quarter Two with regard to any ofthe UOF CD compliance requirements.
The Citizen Complaint Process Working Group continues to move forward toward substantial compliance. The most significant challenge in the Citizen Complaint Process area continues to be the timely completion of investigations. This occurs territory-wide and ranges from insignificant complaints to the most serious allegations. While there have been limited efforts to address this issue, more attention and action must occur to ensure that supervisors and managers are paying attention to the issue. Supervisors and managers must be held accountable for their actions and inactions. This concern threads throughout the CD Citizen Complaint paragraphs.
The IMT is generally in agreement with the VIPD's current assessment oftheir status in the area of Management and Supervision. The appointment of a new chair and point person at the end of the second quarter is significant. The IMT has already seen some concentrated attention and action. The IMT is very hopeful that this will continue.
During the Second Quarter, IAPro access, territory-wide, was provided to the lAB, lAB Director and Assistant Director, a positive. There are concerns related to training documentation. The IMT anticipates that with full implementation of PowerDMS, these concerns will be addressed. The IMT wil~ in future quarters, continue to review those areas deemed in compliance. The IMT will continue to work with the VIPD to ensure continued compliance.
The VIPD has been generating and disseminating reports from their RMS. Critical information has been shared with supervisors and managers that directly impacts EIP. However, the response to such information from supervisors and managers has been inconsistent and, sometimes nonexistent. Once again, the IMT emphasizes the importance of holding supervisors and managers accountable for their actions/inactions. (During the July 2014 monthly meeting the VIPD acknowledged similar shortcomings.)
-15-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-6 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 20 of 25
There is substantial work to be done in this area. As stated above, the IMT has seen good attention since the appointment of the new chair and point persons. The IMT looks forward to assessing what is accomplished during the next few quarters.
For Training, the IMT is pleased with the acquisition and implementation ofPowerDMS. We've asked for updates on the progress of populating the data categories. The return memos have not, however, delineated the number of files, by category that have been entered into the system. They have been general, repetitive statements about the broad c1asses of information being entered but not specific numbers and descriptions of records. We believe that, by now, we would be receiving reports of training events that were produced in PowerDMS and we are not. This is the first accounting that we've received concerning remedial training. Prior to this, we have received reports that have included "make-up" training and remedial training and we were unable to differentiate between the two. Following a discussion about this, the Commissioner directed the Interim Training Director to develop a field in PowerDMS, separate and apart from "make-up" training. To date, as we point out above, we have not yet seen reports of this type produced directly from PowerDMS.
The process of data entry could be clearer to us if we could see a plan with anticipated completion dates. This would enable us to get a grasp on when we might see PowerDMS reports and the types of reports that we might be seeing. While we appreciate this update, it doesn't describe, in enough detail, where we are in the process or where we can anticipate being in the coming days and months.
The IMT cannot stress too strongly that the ad hoc group assembled on May 20, 2014 to evaluate use of force training be made a standing committee that meets monthly to review, analyze and evaluate the way in which training is taking hold in the field. There is much to be gained from having this kind ofhigh level review of the entire training process not just its delivery.
We now believe that the VIPD has met the requirements ofParagraph 80.
-16-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-6 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 21 of 25
Compliance Analvtics. It is the IMT's intent to position all parties to better understand the status of compliance and non-compliance and especially to be better able to clarify and convey where barriers exist, in order to address and attack them. Accordingly, future activity will concentrate and document compliance activity at the sub-paragraph level. We have constructed a diagnostic tool to examine each and every paragraph and its component sub-paragraphs. Appendix B displays the tool. The IMT intends to use it to structure the work at the aforementioned summit.
IV. COMPLIANCE KEYS
The Court-ordered Quarterly Goals approach can only serve to bring needed direction to the Consent Decree compliance programming. It prioritizes compliance objectives, sets timetables, and enables the VIPD to invest its energies for maximum return. In keeping with the transition/reset theme introduced in this report, the IMT wishes to single out a set of actions that we believe the VIPD should emphasize to improve the speed, efficiency and effectiveness of compliance achievement.
Our choices are guided by "manageability." The list is limited. Implementation should not be complicated. The VIPD may or may not have the staff resources. This question remains to be answered. (See Section V). Many ofthe actions have been discussed with the VIPD and in most cases intent and/or commitment has been expressed.
D Establish the Force Review Board D Establish the Shooting Investigation Team D Establish the Audits & Inspection Unit D Demand Managerial and Supervisory Accountability with regard to all Consent
Decree obligations
The foregoing four recommendations have self-evident direct linkage to Consent Decree compliance. Still direct, but more complicated in transformation requirements are the following:
D Ensure promotional preparation, readiness, and a productive testing scheme.
-17-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-6 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 22 of 25
D Ensure and sustain an integrated academy, field and in-service training regimen that foster the values and understanding ofconstitutional policing.
D Engage community members in compliance activities. A citizen survey and VIPD website postings are easy ways to inform and to report progress.
V. MOUNTING A STRONGER COMPLIANCE PROGRAM
The VIPD asserts that its capacity to advance compliance with CD provisions is impaired by staff shortages. Supervisors, pressed by competing and priority workload, sometimes fmd CD case review obligations challenging. Creating the Audit and Inspection Unit, stocking a Force Review Board and Shooting Investigation Team is difficult. Data analysts to support the Risk Management Group must await positive action on the 2015 budget. Working Group leaders acknowledge shortfalls in the amount of time that can be devoted to audits. The cumulative impact ofjust this set ofconditions is impairing the progress ofthe IM function as well- an echo effect.
The VIPD may be correct that it lacks the resources to intensify CD compliance operations. The IMT is not yet positioned to definitively judge the merits of VIPD decisions - more properly indecisions, with regard to the foregoing CO-focused staffing issues as well as others. We do not have sufficient data-supported familiarity with the totality of the VIPD's policing environment, organization, workload, and staffing. Comprehensive examination of these aspects of the VIPD has never been a monitoring focus. At this transitional juncture, however, it is necessary. We can help the VIPD by building a policy and practice database and searching for resource recovery opportunities by conducting CO-specific mini-management studies. Surely, we can clarify the staffing issues. We should note that our multi-year attempts to obtain personnel rosters have been frustrating.
The Policing Environment. The contextuaVdiagnostic database required to more fully understand the VIPD, the community it serves, agency operations and CO-staffing capacity, would have two types of information. The frrst aggregates factors and trends that condition the policing environment:
-18-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-6 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 23 of 25
D Population/Demographics D Economic Factors D Social Indicators D Crime, Violence, and Disorder D Service Requirements D Order Maintenance Requirements D Workload D Resources - Staffing and Financial D Performance/Outcome Indicators
These data, with their dimensions, also have implications for department and officer
performance, including conduct, misconduct, and constitutional policing capacity.
Policies & Practices. This second category focuses on how the police mission is conducted-
leadership, management, operations.
D Mission, goals, objectives D Accountability D Policing Philosophy D Community Engagement D Organizational Culture D Ethics, Integrity and Citizen Complaints D Organization D Staffmg D Leadership D Management and Supervision D Management and Labor Rights and Relationships D Management controls and internal affairs D Management support services D Marketing and public information D Crime prevention and fear reduction D Personnel and risk management D Education and training D Patrol, traffic, investigations D Data and information assembly and analysis D Information and operations techno logy D Communications D Interagency relationships D Recruitment, Selection, Retention D Training D State-of-the-art programming D Effectiveness and productivity
-19-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-6 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 24 of 25
A VIPD Consent Decree-Tailored Database. Creating a portfolio of diagnostics (a database) that addressed all of the considerations itemized above is the ideal. To do so would require completing a comprehensive organization and management study. Neither the IMT commitments, priorities, nor resources allow pursuit ofthe ideal at this time. What is practicaland necessary, is to begin to accumulate data that would enable us to answer critical priority Consent Decree-specific questions. Examples:
D Are there times when frrst responder deployments to calls and situations is limited to the point that officers fear for their safety and/or pressed to control a situation, increasing the likelihood of improper or too-early resort to force? (Answer comes from calls-for-service analysis).
D Are there constraints on supervisors' capacity to respond in a timely way to field situations? (Also a CPS-directed analysis).
D Are recruitment, selection, field training, promotional and performance evaluation practices designed and carved out to maximize constitutional policing?
D Does the VIPD culture encourage/allow officers to believe in the principles of procedural justice? (The primary precept of which is that if officers view their internal environment to be fair and just, they are more likely to model the behavior on-the-street/with citizens. The reciprocal is evident.)
D Are officers supplied with adequate information to prepare them to manage citizen constitutionally and with regard to public and officer safety? (A dispatch/IT technology review.)
The IMT has scheduled on-site data-collection required to begin to build the database needed to address the questions itemized above and to begin to construct the larger database outlined. For its part, the VIPD will have to supply data it currently possesses, in a very timely way, gather/produce data that is not readily available, and assign a well-placed point person to work with us directly. The result will be clear answers to CO-specific issues, staffmg and operational.
-20-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-6 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 25 of 25
VI. TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION & DEVELOPMENT During Quarter Two, the IMT invested heavily in development ofbusiness process (monitoring) technology as well as tools for monitoring, primarily for case review and analysis. A Data Management System received the most attention. Case Review & Analysis Templates were refmed and redesigned. These are subject to further refinement. We have developed a Records Management System to support access to CD reports and documents. A web-based Calendar and a prototype website have been developed, the latter to support pending and much needed community engagement initiatives. All of these developments are discussed in detail in Appendix C, Technology Transition. IMT work to introduce outcome (and process) measurement began in Quarter two as well. Appendix D, The Constitutional Policing Index, outlines results to date. The metrics we hope to develop and apply will not only capture the state of compliance, progress and police behaviors, but will serve as diagnostic tools to achieve and sustain constitutional policing.
-21-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 1 of 39
Second Quarterly Report of2014 for the
Independent Monitor for the Virgin Islands Police Department
Appendix A IMT Review, Comments and Recommendations
CHARLES A. GRUBER CONSULTING INC. INDEPENDENT MONITOR JULY 2014 www.imt-policemonitor.org

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 2 of 39
I. USE OF FORCE
VIPD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. During this reporting quarter, an equipment audit was completed in both Districts. The audit comprised equipment inspections executed during the first quarter 2014. Audit objectives (5) included the following as a matter of example: Determine if the VIPD has met the compliance standard for paragraph 39, specifically, whether sworn personnel do not possess or use unauthorized firearms and Determine if the VIPD has met the compliance standard for paragraph 39, specifically, whether sworn personnel do not possess or use unauthorized ammunition. The completed audit report was submitted to select individuals within the chain of command including the Police Commissioner and Assistant Police Commissioner for review and comment. As of the completion of this report, a copy of this audit report is not yet forwarded to IMT and USDOJ as VIPD's internal review is not yet completed.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
This type ofaudit/inspection is standardpractice within most police agencies. Generally completed by the first line supervisorprior to the officers tour ofduty. Incorporating this practice and oversight is recommended The audit should really address whether the supervisors and managers are requiring that the inspections be done or not. We lookforward to reviewing the results ofthis audit and expect that the VIPD will provide the results soon as this audit has been done.
VIPD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. The use of force work group in a previous audit conducted determined that it was necessary for Supervisors to travel to the scene of all use of force incidents including level four incidents. As a result, a Commissioner's directive #002-2014 (Supervisor's Response to Use of Force Events) was developed, approved by the Commissioner and disseminated in both Districts. A copy of this directive was also submitted to IMT May 28, 2014. Additionally, this directive mandated that any available on-duty Supervisor shall be dispatched to the scene of an incident of use of force if no supervisor is available in the Zone where the use of force incident occurred.
However, it was subsequently disclosed that the specific section of the directive requiring appearance of Supervisors to level four uses of force incidents contravened current force related policy. Consequently, the suggestion of rescinding the directive and reissuing same excluding the section requiring the appearance of Supervisors to level four incidents of use of force was entertained briefly. A revised directive however, has not been generated as of the completion of this report and will be followed up in future quarterly status reports.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
There should be more explanation ofwhat occurred. Audits determined that officers werefailing to notify their supervisors offorce events promptly. The result is that both important information about witnesses
andpotential evidence litiS not available to the leaders ofthe department. The question remains ifthe
commissioner's directive is beingfollowed or not? This answer is confusing. We should ascertain and answer in our report.
-1-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 3 of 39
VIPD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Also, the VIPD and more specifically the use of force work group continues its efforts to develop templates for Supervisors that will be utilized for use of force investigations and Response to Resistance Reports. These templates will be instrumental in establishing across the board consistency in the quality and format of force investigations and also in the completion of RRR's.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS &RECOMMENDATIONS
The question remains: What was actually accomplished on the production ofthese resources? Are the temp lates close to completion? Is there a target date? The IMT would like to see p rototypes ASAP.
VIPD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Additionally, work continues as it relates to the review of policy 3.2(reporting, review and investigation of use of force), draft policy for the proposed Force Review Board and use of force policy 3.1 which was submitted to the Policy Committee for review. Anticipated challenges as it relates to the proposed force review board includes but not limited to identifying appropriate personnel as members of this review board, considering the challenges the department is already facing pursuant to inadequate levels of command or supervisory personnel.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Promotional exams were conducted during th is quarter; however, the number ofsuccessful comp letions fell below desired levels. More will be reported in subsequent reports as to the next step(s) going forward.
VIPD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. The use of force work group compl eted t heir audit of the first quarter of 2014. This report likewise will be shared with IMT and USDOJ. Going forward th e use of force work group tweaked their section of the consent decree establishing a matrix that identified sections of the use of force section of the decree further broken down in subsections, so as to be able to target and address each mandate contained in each paragraph . A copy of this twea ked matrix was submitted to IMT June 30, 2014 along with a biweekly report. The following use of force paragraphs 32-36, i nclu ding subsections were submitted to th e Court for possible compliance by Au gust 15, 2014.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The IMT has also reworked the CD into subsections f or use goingforward. We will review the VIPD/work group "tweaking" for cons istency.
The efforts of the Force Working Group have been commendable. They are attacking some of the most frequently occurring themes in their review of force incidents that have caused the department to miss opportunities to find compliance. Supervisors not making it to the scenes of force incidents being just one example. Working on templates and other resources to focus both officers and supervisors on their recurring duties consistent with VIPO's force policies and the Consent Decree is another. Finally, the development of the Force Review Board and its related investigation policy will address a myriad of issues the department has been struggling with. We hope that the VIPD leadership team will put a priority on completing these policies and implementing them in the 3rd Q
-2-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 4 of 39
of 2014. Any delay will only continue to exacerbate issues for both the department and its personnel as well as the citizens who deserve this level of professional policing.
Paragraph 31- The VIPD will review and revise its use of force policies as necessary to:
a) define terms clearly; b) define force as that term is defined in this Agreement; c) incorporate a use of force model that teaches disengagement, area containment,
surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements or calling in specialized units as appropriate responses to a situation; d) advise that, whenever possible, individuals should be allowed to submit to arrest before force is used; e) reinforce that the use of excessive force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and/or civil liability; f) ensure that sufficient less lethal alternatives are available to all patrol officers; and g) explicitly prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized.
Once the DOJ has reviewed and approved these policies, the VIPD shall immediately implement any revision s.
VIPD REPORT: During thi s reporting period, the VIPD and speci fically the use of force work group continued to review th e Officer Involved shooting policy in conjunction with the Reporting review and investigation of use of force policy 3.2. As previously reported the use of force work group will incorporate the Officer Involved Shooting Policy with policy 3.2. Al so, a draft force review board policy is also being reviewed and policy 3.1 already reviewed by the use of force work group, VIAG and VIPD's legal Counsel is currently with th e Policy Committee for review. All of the policies identified above will be shared with USDOJ and IMT prior to department dissemination.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Each ofthese policies should be stand-alone. The investigation ofan officer involved shooting should be a stand-alone policy. The Force Review Board should be a stand-alone policy. Remedial care for a police officer after a shooting incident should be a stand-alone policy. Most police agencies see each of these plus others separate policies relevant to the area ofdeadly force as significant and worthy of individual attention.
(AMENDED) Paragraph 32: The VIPD will require all uses of force to be documented in writing. The use of force report form will indicate each and every type of force that was used, and require the evaluation of each use of force. Use of force reports will include a supervisor's narrative description of the events preceding the use of force, written by a supervisor or by the designated investigative unit. Use of force
-3-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 5 of 39
reports also will include the officer(s) narrative description of events and the officer(s) statement. Except in cases of use of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, the officer's statement shall be audio or videotaped.
VIPD REPORT: As previously reported, the VIPD in an effort to assist Supervisors in complying with paragraph 32, developed and posted posters at designated locations within all Zones in both Districts. These posters provided information on reporting requirements and time limits and outlined elements of each of the four levels of force. These posters were also forwarded to IMT more than two quarters prior. Continuing with this effort to assist Supervisors and Officers in use of force reporting requirements, and overall assist the VIPD in achieving substantial compliance, the use of force work group is currently developing templates inclusive of use of force investigation and Response to Resistance Reports (RRR). They are expected to serve as a guide for Supervisors as they conduct their investigations and also lends to consistency in format and quality of investigations. These templates as they are being developed will be shared with IMT for their anticipated input.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The VIPD has made significantprogress in making sure the reports and reviews offorce incidents get reported and reviewed. The glitch is contemporaneous response ofa supervisor to the scene ofthe use of force (which the VIPD issued a Commission's directive) and consistent application ofthe policies throughout the territory. Templates alluded to in the VIPD report are not yet completed by the working group. They are, however, a good learning and reminder tool which should assist the department. We are encouraged by their willingness to engage this process, but mindfUl that developing the documents is but one small step in a process oflearning and implementation ofa whole process. Develop templates and checklistsfor both supervisors and officers to follow in completing and investigating all reportable uses offorce as required by VIPD policy.
(AMENDED) Paragraph 33: Officers shall notify their supervisors following any use of force upon the receipt of an allegation of excessive force. Except in uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, Supervisors will respond to the scene, examine the subject for injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain, and ensure that the subject receives needed medical attention.
VIPD REPORT: During this reporting quarter, the use of force work group determined through previous audits completed that a directive is required to mandate the appearance of an on-duty Supervisor to the scene of all use of force incidents regardless if it occurred outside of their area of assignment. This will ensure at a minimum Supervisory preliminary on scene assessment of all use of force incidents regardless of force level and will further ensure that required steps as per the consent decree are being followed. However, subsequent to the approval and dissemination of this directive, it was disclosed that a section of this directive conflicted with current force related policy which, requires Supervisors to travel to all use of force incidents with the exception of level 4. Brief ensuing discussions entertained the suggestion of amending the directive to only mandate the appearance of an on duty Supervisor from outside his or her assigned area to the scene of a use of force incident, if no Supervisor is available in the area or Zone where the use of force incident occurred. A copy of the original directive# 002-2014
-4-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 6 of 39
(effective date May 30, 2014) was submitted to IMT May 28, 2014. However, as of this report, a revised directive has not yet been generated and disseminated.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The VIPD has not been consisted in ensuring that contemporaneous to a force use that the supervisors respond in a timely way to the scene ofa use offorce, that they have examined the subjectfor injuries, that they have interviewed the person for complaints ofpain or injury andfinally to ensure that subject(s) receive timely medical attention. The monitors arefully aware that some ofthese requirements are done (and properly reported) in some cases while, in others they are not. The inconsistency ofapplication of these requirements is notjust an isolated issue. It is territory wide. It is district wide and even disparate by shifts and supervisors. Develop templates and checklistsfor both supervisors and officers to follow in completing and investigating all reportable uses offorce as required by VIPD policy.
(AMENDED) Paragraph 34: Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, will review, evaluate, and document each use of force, and will complete the narrative description section of the use of force report. The narrative description will include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer's conduct. As part of this review, the supervisor or designated investigating officer/unit will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officer's actions were within VI PO policy. An officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized conduct leading to the use of force or allegation of excessive force, or who was present during the incident will not be eligible to review or investigate the incident.
VIPO REPORT: The VI PO since the initiation of quarterly audits by work group of their respective areas has conducted three quarterly audits thus far. The third audit conducted of the first quarter of 2014 concluded June 30, 2014 of this reporting period. The audit report for this audit will be shared with USDOJ and IMT after VI PO's internal review of the report is completed. As deficiencies are identified in these audits, a plan of action based upon submitted recommendations will be developed and implemented with prior approval from the Police Commissioner where deemed necessary and appropriate. These quarterly audits are expected to disclose the extent to which there is compliance or non-compliance with the mandates as outlined in paragraph 34 of the consent decree; to which the VIPO will respond with the implementation of corrective measures in a timely manner.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The supervisors and department chain ofcommand have been designated as the investigating body of force incidents by VIPD policy. They are to review, evaluate and document each use offorce. The VIPD leadership team has had a mixed response to completing these requirements. Based on VIPD 'sown audits, not all supervisors address all the elements required, not all managers evaluate and document inconsistencies in reporting on in the investigation itself. Territory wide the application has been mixed. To its credit the VIPD has recognized this and is in the process ofadopting severalprograms and methods to address the identified weaknesses or issues outlined in our reviews and later corifinned by their audits. It is not lost on us that this could be expected to occur. The whole system and their
-5-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 7 of 39
associated processes are new to everyone including the leadership team.
Write, train all relevant personnel and implement a Force Review Board policy. Write, train all relevant personnel and implement a Critical Incident Investigation Team for the VI Territory. Complete the Supervisor's template and checklistfor the investigation and review ofofficers' use offorce. Train and implementfor all relevant members ofthe staff. Complete, train all relevantpersonnel and implement a template for how to properly document, write and complete all the necessary documents for an officer's use offorce.
NOTE: The PPE Comments andRecommendationsfor Paragraph 34 apply equally to Paragraphs 35, 36, 37, and 38.
Paragraph 39: VIPD shall complete development of a Use of Firearms policy that complies with applicable law and current professional standards. The policy shall prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition and shall inform officers that any such use may subject them to disciplinary action. The policy shall establish a single, uniform reporting system for all firearms discharges. The policy shall prohibit officers from obtaining service ammunition from any source except through official VIPD channels, and shall specify the number of rounds VIPD authorizes its officers to carry. The policy will continue to require that all discharges of firearms by officers on or off-duty, including unintentional discharges, be reported and investigated.
VIPD REPORT: An equipment audit was conducted in both Districts during the first quarter of 2014 to assess if the VIPD has attained compliance with paragraph 39 & 41, and to specifically assess the following: whether sworn personnel do possess or use unauthorized firearm; determine whether sworn personnel possess or use unauthorized ammunition; determine whether the service ammunition obtained by Officers is obtained through official VIPD channels; determine whether in cases where an Officer is found to be in possession of unauthorized firearms or ammunition, there is evidence that an investigation was conducted and appropriate corrective action was taken, which includes bringing the Officer's conduct into compliance with the VIPD firearms policy and Whether Officers carry an intermediate force device at all times while on-duty. This equipment audit was forwarded to the Police Commissioner and others for review. Subsequent to the completion of this review process the report will be shared with IMT and USDOJ.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
This type ofaudit/inspection is standardpractice within mostpolice agencies. Generally completed by the first line supervisor prior to the officers ' tour ofduty. Incorporating this practice and oversight is recommended The audit should really address whether supervisors and managers are requiring that the inspections be done. We lookforward to reviewing the results ofthis audit and expect that the VIPD will provide the results soon.
Develop a line tool to implement throughout the territory where supervisors are required to inspect all personnel and the associated work areas ofthe VIPD for compliance with this requirement and other safety regulations associated with policing.
-6-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 8 of 39
Paragraph 40: The VIPD shall revise its policies regarding off-duty officers taking police action to:
a) provide that off-duty officers shall notify on-duty VIPD or local law enforcement officers before taking police action, absent exigent circumstances, so that they may respond with appropriate personnel and resources to handle the problem;
b) provide that, if it appears the officer has consumed alcohol or is otherwise impaired, the officer shall submit to field sobriety, Breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.
VIPD REPORT: The VIPD continues to provide training on an ongoing basis to include roll call and annual in-service trainings, which is again scheduled for August 2014, and will be reported further in subsequent quarterly reports. Annual in-service and roll call trainings includes in -class review of department policies, including the Off-duty Official Action policy developed in direct response to paragraph 40 and the administering of a competency exam to assess both retention, application and comprehension of information presented.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The policy has been written and issued. The paragraph has been taught to the relevant personnel. However, it has not been implemented. Where opportunities to demonstrate compliance have occurred the VIPD has not provided documentation to show whether or not the relevant subsections ofthis paragraph were acted upon or even considered. Given that officers takingpolice action while offduty is a rare event, when it does occur the VIPD needs to have in place a procedure to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to document its response.
We recommend that the commission issue a directive that outlines steps to be taken when an officer takes
officialpolice action while offduty. It should include all the relevant tasks ofthis paragraph plus if
appropriate where personnel are not on scene with the authority to implement the tasks ofthis paragraph. The on-scene supervisor is directed to call outpersonnel to handle the event.
Paragraph 41: The VIPD shall continue to provide an intermediate force device, which is between chemical spray and firearms on the force continuum, that can be carried by officers at all times while onduty. The VIPD shall continue its policy regarding the intermediate force device, incorporate the intermediate force device into the force continuum and train all officers in its use on an annual basis.
VIPD REPORT: An equipment audit was conducted in both Districts during the first quarter of 2014 to assess if the VIPD has attained compliance with paragraph 39 &41 and specific to paragraph 41, determine whether Officers carry an intermediate force device at all times while on-duty. This equipment audit will be shared with USDOJ and IMT after the VIPD competes it internal review of the report. Also, as it relates to training, the VIPD continues to provide training on an ongoing basis to include roll call and annual in-service training, which is again scheduled for August 2014, and will be reported further in subsequent quarterly reports.
-7-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 9 of 39
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
This type ofaudit/inspection is standardpractice within mostpolice agencies. Generally completed by the first line supervisor prior to the officers ' tour ofduty. Incorporating this practice and oversight is recommended. The audit should really be addressing ifthe supervisors and managers are not requiring that the inspections be done. We lookforward to reviewing the results ofthis audit and expect that the VIPD will provide the results soon.
Develop a line inspection tool to implement throughout the territory where supervisors are required to inspect all personnel and the associated work areas ofthe VIPD for compliance with this requirement and other safety regulations associated with policing.
II. CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS
VIPD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. During this reporting quarter, VIPD's public service announcement consistent with consent decree mandates continue through various means, including radio, television and printed materials. The VIPD continues to receive complaints through the designated means and at the consent decree authorized locations in both Districts. Although the Action Plan was rescinded by the Court, the VIPD continues to require the completion and submission of inspection reports for the availability of information materials at all required locations in both Districts. This was evident during this reporting quarter as inspection reports were submitted along with biweekly reports for the citizen complaint process work group.
In response to timeliness issues pertaining to the completion of complaint investigations, the Police Commissioner issued a directive in each District that required "identified Supervisors" to complete all assigned investigations that are outstanding for 2013. All cases submitted as a result of this directive will be reviewed to ensure that the quality of the investigations was not compromised in an effort to meet deadline for case submission. Cases not meeting quality standards will be returned for correction. A similar directive is anticipated for outstanding 2014 cases and will be reported in future quarterly reports.
The VIPD during this reporting quarter was able to accomplish the task of affording access to IAPRO from either District for the Director and Assistant Directors of lAB. This was verified by the IMT during a site visit to both Districts the week of June 9-13, 2014. Both Directors could now view and access IAPRO cases from either District. A collaborative effort between MIS and lAB made this possible.
Additionally, the citizen complaint process work group completed their audit of the first quarter of 2014, June 30, 2014. All audit reports completed by the respective work groups will be submitted to the Chairperson of the Audit work group for review, compilation and submission to the Police Commissioner for final review. Upon the completion of this internal review process the final audit report will be shared with IMT and USDOJ.
-8-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 10 of 39
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The most significant challenge in the Citizen Complaint Process area continues to be the timely completion ofinvestigations This occurs territory wide and ranges from the most insignificant complaints to the most serious allegations While there have been some limited efforts to address this issue, obviously more attention and action must occur to insure that supervisors and managers are paying attention to the issue,· they must be held accountablefor their actions/inactions This concern threads through most paragraphs regarding citizen complaint process. As recently as the July CD monthly meeting. the VIPD acknowledged timeliness continues to be an issue, but is improving.
The lMT has heard repeated promises to hold supervisors accountablefor not completing work required/related to the CD. Historically. application ofsuch promises has been uneven. We recommend (again) that supervisors, territory wide, be held accountablefor their actions and inactions. including discipline.
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY- CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPHS
Paragraph 44: Complaints may be filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TOO}, facsimile or electronic mail. The duty officer at the front desk of each district station will be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints, which persons may file at any district station. Complaint intake officers may describe facts that bear upon a complainant's demeanor and physical condition but May not express opinions regarding his/her mental competency or veracity. Each complaint will be resolved in writing. Upon receipt, each complaint will be assigned a unique identifier, which will be provided to the complainant. Each complaint will be tracked according to the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, improper search, etc.).
VIPD REPORT: The VI PO continue this reporting period towards compliance with paragraph 44 by ensuring that complaints could be filed in the various means as indicated. Also, the duty officer is authorized by implemented policy to take complaints including third party complaints filed at any Zone. Each complaint is resolved in writing and forwarded to complainant as notification of the final disposition of their complaint. Evidence of this practice has been provided to IMT and IMT also has access to IAPRO to view case files. Additionally, lAB submits to IMT a monthly case listing, which affords the opportunity to select and review any cases they wish to review. A review of a case file discloses all accompanying documentation associated with that case file to include notification to complainant of final case disposition. Additionally, each complaint continues to be assigned a complaint number which is also provided to the complainant and each complaint is tracked.
The IMT has indicated that timeliness of complaint investigation is an issue and the VI PO during this reporting period as a first step to address this issued a commissioner's directive. A copy of this directive for each District was submitted to IMT. This directive provided specific deadline for the submission of all outstanding 2013 complaint investigations and a similar directive will be forth coming for outstanding 2014 complaint investigations. All the completed investigations received as a result of the directive will be scrutinized through the appropriate channels and any not meeting established standards will be returned to be corrected and resubmitted.
-9-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 11 of 39
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The most significant challenge in the Citizen Complaint Process area continues to be the timely completion ofinvestigations This occurs territory wide and ranges from the most insignificant complaints to the most serious allegations While there have been some limited efforts to address this issue, obviously more attention and action must occur to insure that supervisors and managers are paying attention to the issue,· they must be held accountablefor their actions/inactions This concern threads through most paragraphs regarding citizen complaint process* - will not continue to repeat this concern thru all paragraphs.
The IMT has heard repeatedpromises to hold supervisors accountablefor not completing work required/related to the CD. Historically, application ofsuch promises has been uneven. We recommend (again) that supervisors. territory wide, be held accountablefor their actions and inactions, including
discipline. *
Historically, documentation regarding training on the components listed in this paragraph have been incomplete or not to befound Ongoing training related to this paragraph must be documented in PowerDMS,· VIPD needs to provide IMT off-site access.
Paragraph 46: Complaints will be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, for which the Territory will develop and implement appropriate training.
VIPD REPORT: As stated previously, training is a repetitive cycle that principally occurs during roll call and annual in-service trainings. The Next scheduled in-service annual training is scheduled for August 2014, in both Districts and will include training on the preponderance of evidence standards. Also, as the
use of Power OMS increases and is fully established, the delivery of training including the administering
of competency exams will be more expedient and effective in targeting employees for training.
PPE RESPONSE: CQMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS During the second quarter of2014, VIPD did provide documentation demonstrating that supervisors who did not attend the preponderance ofevidence training and/orfailed the post training examinations were provided remedial training. The IMT will continue to monitor the application ofthe standard to investigations; VIPD should do the same through their audit process. The IMT considers that the VIPD reached substantial compliance in the Second Quarter.
Paragraph 47: The VI PO will explicitly prohibit from investigating an incident any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to the injury to a person, or who authorized the conduct that led to these reportable incidents.
VIPD REPORT: Through the completion of quarterly audits, the VI PO is ensuring that substantial compliance with paragraph 47 as well as other consent decree mandates is maintained. The third
-10-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 12 of 39
quarterly audit was conducted of the first quarter of 2014 and was completed June 30, 2014. This report will be shared with USDOJ and IMTafterVIPD's internal review process is completed.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS& RECOMMENDATIONS
The VIPD provided information regarding Second Quarter during the Third Quarter. The IMT will verify VIPDfindings during the Third Quarter. The IMT will continue to monitor level ofcompliance; VIPD should do the same through their audit process.
Paragraph 49: The VIPD will institute a centralized numbering and tracking system for all complaints, and each complaint will receive a tracking number as quickly as possible. The IAU will be designated as the primary and centralized agency to determine whether the investigation will be assigned to zone (one of the seven zones located throughout the Virgin Islands), retained by the IAU, or referred for possible criminal investigation. If the IAU refers a complaint to a zone, copies of all documents, findings, and recommendations should be immediately forwarded to the IAU for tracking and monitoring. For complaints alleging the excessive use of force or violation of a person's constitutional rights, the Police Commissioner should be notified no Jess than twenty-four hours after receipt of a complaint.
VIPD REPORT: The VIPD continues during this reporting quarter to implement the requirements of paragraph 49 to include in particular ensuring the numbering and tracking of all complaints received. Also, through lAB providing notification to the Police Commissioner on an ongoing basis and within twenty four hours or less for specific violations such as allegations of excessive force and or violations of constitutional rights, as required by the consent decree.
As tangible evidence of compliance, the VI PO has provided IMT with complaints with assigned complaint numbers, copy of investigative check sheet utilized by lAB to indicate date and time of notification to the Police Commissioner for cases of excessive force or allegations of constitutional rights violations and this practice of documentation continues. Also, during recently instituted quarterly audits completed by work groups of their respective areas of the consent decree and shared with IMT, the citizen complaint process group reviewed complaint cases in both Districts. This affirmed among other things that each complaint was assigned a complaint number. The VIPD also continues to provide IMT on a monthly basis, an electronic copy of all case listings for each preceding month, as was evident during this reporting quarter for the months of April May and June 2014. Additionally, the VIPD has provided IMT with onsite access to IAPRO to view all cases and the MIS Bureau is further working to provide IMT access to IAPRO offsite or from their Residential location in the United States.
The lAB as established through department policy continues to be the primary and centralized Bureau responsible for determining whether an investigation will be assigned to a Zone or retained by lAB. The lAB further generates reports through IAPRO that identifies all cases received, the area of assignment for investigative purposes, and whether the case has been assigned to the Command or Zones or retained by lAB. These reports as stated prior continue to be shared with IMTon a monthly basis and or as requested.
-11-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 13 of 39
Additionally, during this reporting quarter, the VIPD is pleased to report that the Director as well as the Assistant Director of lAB are now both able to access cases in IAPRO from either District as a result of collaborative efforts between MIS and lAB. The MIS Bureau provided the lAB with updated laptops in each District and MIS further made the necessary "IT configuration" which facilitated access to cases in IAPRO from either District. As a matter of fact during IMT's site visit to the Territory during the week of June 9-13, 2014, lAB demonstrated this accessibility to IMT in each District.
On the basis of the preceding accomplishments with respect to paragraph 49, the VIPD submits that it has substantially complied with the requirements of paragraph 49 as outlined in the consent decree.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS During the second quarter of2014,JAPro access, territory wide, was provided to the JAB Director and Assistants. VIPD is in substantial compliance at this time. VIPD should continue to monitor through their audit process; IMT to continue to monitor. VIPD must work to provide IMT offsite access to IAPro.
Paragraph SO: The VIPD will adopt a single policy concerning the investigation of misconduct
complaints, regardless of whether the investigation is conducted by the IAU or a zone.
VIPD REPORT: VIPD's efforts to maintain substantial compliance with paragraph 50, includes the coordination and implementation of training on the complaint policies on an ongoing basis. In addition to annual in service trainings, roll call trainings are also being conducted to supplement and reinforce annual in-service trainings. The complaint policies previously approved by the department are included in these trainings. Annual in service training is again scheduled for August 2014, and will be reported in more details in subsequent status reports.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS Substantial Compliance: VIPD should continue to do actions described above. Historically, documentation oftraining on the components listed in this paragraph have been incomplete or not to be found. Historical and ongoing training related to this paragraph must be documented in PowerDMS. VIPD needs to provide IMT off-site access.
Paragraph 51: The VIPD will establish policies and procedures and train all of its investigators on the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility; examination and interrogation of accused officers and other witnesses; identifying misconduct even if it is not specifically named in the complaint; and using the preponderance of the evidence standard as the appropriate burden of proof. VIPD investigators will ensure that all officers on the scene of an incident provide a statement regarding the incident. The policy will require that all interviews be mechanically recorded using an audio or video tape.
-12-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 14 of 39
VIPD REPORT: The VIPD's Training Bureau is currently coordinating annual in-service training that is scheduled to start July 2014 in both Districts. This training is anticipated to include policies such as the Citizen Complaint process policies 7.1, 7.3 and also training on the preponderance of evidence standard. Quarterly audits continue to occur on an ongoing basis and thus far since the initiation of quarterly audits by work groups of their respective areas of the consent decree, they have completed their third quarterly audit June 30, 2014. This audit was completed of the first quarter of 2014 and will be shared with IMTand USDOJ, after an internal review of the audit reports by the VI PD.
Also, as reported previously hand held recorders were procured and disseminated to Commanders in both Districts for the purpose of recording statements during the course of investigations conducted. The completion of audits on a quarterly basis will continue to be instrumental in aiding the VIPD in gauging compliance or noncompliance with paragraph 51 as well as other areas of the consent decree.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Historically documentation regarding training on the components listed in this paragraph have been incomplete or not found. Historically and ongoing, training related to this paragraph must be documented in Power DMS. VIPD needs to provide IMI' offsite access.
Paragraph 54: In each investigation, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. There will be no automatic preference for an officer's statement over a non-officer's statement, nor will the VIPD completely disregard a witness' statement merely because the witness has some connection to the complainant. The VIPD will make efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.
VIPD REPORT: As previously reported the VIPD has developed and implemented policies 7.1 and 7.3 in
relation to paragraph 54, as well as other paragraphs akin to the citizen complaint process, as delineated in the consent decree. Training continues to be provided on an ongoing basis through roll call and inservice trainings.
During this reporting period and specifically beginning the latter part of May 2014, the Training Bureau initiated a systematic process where Commanders and Supervisors are receive training on an ongoing basis on how to conduct roll call trainings using prepared roll call training materials from the Training Bureau. They (Supervisors) then conduct roll call trainings for their subordinates based upon the roll call training that they received from the Training Bureau. Documentation relative to these roll call trainings were submitted to IMT during this reporting period.
Additionally, annual in-service trainings are pending for August 2014, in both Districts. The continuation of quarterly audits will aid the VIPD in identifying areas of compliance and noncompliance as it relates to paragraph 54, and also in developing and implementing corrective measures aimed at acquiring substantial compliance. These quarterly reports will continue to be shared with IMT and USDOJ.
-13-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 15 of 39
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS The VIPD provided information regarding substantial compliance during the Third Quarter. We will assess on the next site visit This note also applies to Paragraphs 55 and 56.
Paragraph 58: Unit Commanders will evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command to identify underlying problems or training needs. Any such problems will be relayed in the form of a recommendation to the appropriate VIPD entity.
VIPD REPORT: During the previous (First quarterly for 2014} the following was reported "The Training
Bureau during this reporting quarter in a memorandum to the Police Chief of the St. Thomas/St. John District, dated February 15, 2014 requested a listing of individuals identified for remedial training, including personnel who have been disciplined and have triggered alerts within the department's EIP system. More will be reported in future quarterly reports concerning this listing and remedial trainings implemented". As a follow-up for this quarterly report, remedial trainings were conducted March 25, 2014 on the preponderance of evidence standard for six (6} Supervisors in the St. Thomas/St .John District and an electronic copy of the training summary report for this training to include attendance roster was submitted to IMT April 22, 2014. Additionally, remedial training requested by the lAB for six individuals in the St. Thomas/St. John District for violation of rules and procedures that did not warrant disciplinary actions, also implemented March 25, 2014. An electronic copy of the training summary report to include attendance roster were also submitted April14, 2014 to IMT.
Additionally, the continuation of quarterly audits will aid the VIPD in identifying areas of compliance and noncompliance as it relates to paragraph 58. These audits are also expected to aid in developing and implementing corrective measures aimed at acquiring substantial compliance.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS The IMT agrees with the VIPD assessment.
Ill. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
VIPD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. An electronic copy of the quarterly patterns and trends data representing the first quarter of 2014 for the St. Croix District was submitted to IMT April 9, 2014. This is a
comprehensive report delineating incidents reported for the reporting quarter including complaints, administrative investigations, discretionary arrest, use of force, vehicle accidents and alerts triggered.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS While the VIPD has been generating and disseminating reports from their RMS. Specifically, there has been critical information shared with supervisors and managers that directly impacts EIP. However, the response from supervisors and managers to such infonnation has been inconsistent and, sometimes non-
-14-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 16 of 39
existent. Once again, the IMT emphasizes the importance ofholding supervisors and managers accountablefor their actionslinactiom. (As ofthe July 2014 monthly meeting, the VIPD acknowledged similar shortcomings.)
VIPD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. The VIPD in an effort to provide training on an ongoing basis has identified and consulted with Mardenborough & Associates as a potential vendor to conduct training including areas such as conflict resolution and crisis management. Thus far, a proposal has been received from the vendor and is being reviewed and will be reported in further detail in subsequent status reports.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS The IMI' will continue to monitor applicability oftraining to CD concerns.
VIPD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. During this reporting quarter the VIPD in an effort to address the need for Data Analysts for both Districts, included in their 2015 Budget request to the USVIlegislature, a request for a Data Analyst for each District. However, there is no guarantee that this request will be granted, the VIPD however is hopeful that it will. While on the subject of Data Analyst, the lAB completed the entry of all civil suits received to date in both Districts. However, some of the civil suit cases are missing information pertinent to complete each case entry. The lAB has completed a listing of the cases that are missing information for submission to the VIAG. If the missing information is available and could be provided by the VIAG it will be entered.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The "iffy" nature ofthis approval to resource acquisition is causefor concern. Even ifthe Legislature
approves the budget request, data analysts would not be in placefor a period oftime. We urge the VIPD to continue to lookfor alternatives within existing resources and staffing shaping the patterns and practices it is conceived to address.
VIPD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. As it relates to the VIPD's audit policy, full implementation is stymied attributable to challenges such as inadequate command level personnel and financial limitations to name a few. The VIPD however, is considering alternatively editing specific language in the policy to allow a frame work of operation more conducive and practical based upon current availability of resources. More will be reported in future quarterly reports reflective of this effort. None the less, the VIPD continued this reporting quarter to follow through with the completion of audits on a quarterly basis by work groups of their respective areas of responsibility with respect to the consent decree. The third quarterly audit conducted of the first quarter of 2014 was completed June 30, 2014 and the audit report for this audit will be shared with IMT and USDOJ after review by the VI PD.
-15-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 17 of 39
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATWNS
Shaping the audit process to available resources may be a necessity. Ifso, the Work Group has to be
cognizant offocusing on critical priorities. A more robust resource commitment to allowforfull effort is a better option, compliance with existing VIPD policy to stand up the Inspection Unit would be the best option.
VIPO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. The Director of lAB informally has been designated as the Point person for the Management and Supervision work group. Also, the Assistant Police Commissioner was designated as the Chairperson. Since recently being designated as the point person for this group, three draft directives were developed and submitted to the Assistant Commissioner June 30, 2014, concerning the following: (1) revision to the Vehicle Pursuit policy; (2) specific timelines for submission of EIP data from Human Resources Bureau, Payroll Section and Training Bureau and (3) the submission of all K-9 Deployment data and K-9 bites, holds, apprehensions or other use of force involving VIPD K-9 on a monthly basis to lAB, Planning and Research Bureau and the Office of the Chief. More will be reported in future quarterly status reports with respect to these proposed draft directives submitted for approval and implementation.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS The appointment ofa new chair andpoint person to this group is significant. It portends positive achievements.
Paragraph 59: The VIPD will develop and implement a risk management system to include a new computerized relational database or paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for supervision and management of the VI PD. Priority will be given to the VIPD obtaining any established program and system. The VIPD will regularly use this data to promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts.
VIPD REPORT: The lAB continues to generate and disseminate reports as required by paragraph 59 of the consent decree on a weekly, monthly and quarterly basis through the use of IAPRO. Quarterly patterns and trends data are submitted to the VIPD's chain of command to include IMT, as was the case on April9, 2014. Also, EIP allegation alerts are also submitted to the chain of command and IMT as was the case April 22, 2014. However, it is important to note that VIPD's RMS is not limited to IAPRO, although IAPRO is a principal data source.
Also, in an effort to assist the chain of command in being more competent with the use of IAPRO, the lAB is currently coordinating with IAPRO representatives to conduct free webinar training. More will be reported concerning this effort in future quarterly status reports.
-16-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 18 of 39
Quarterly audits continue to be completed as a self-assessment to aid the VIPD in identifying areas of compliance, obstacles to achieving compliance and also in identifying corrective measures. The third quarterly audit was conducted of the first quarter of 2014 and was completed June 30, 2014 and will be shared with IMT and USDOJ.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS& RECOMMENDATIONS IMT acknowledges that JAB is generating and disseminating reports as required by this paragraph. However, the management and supervisory response to such information has been inconsistent and, sometimes, non-existent VIPD, at monthly CD meeting in July, acknowledged similar shortcomings.
Paragraph 60: The new risk management system will collect and record the following information:
a) all uses of force; b) canine bite ratios; c) the number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers; d) all injuries to prisoners; e) all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with "resisting arrest," "assault on a
police officer," "disorderly conduct," or "obstruction of official business;" f) all critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty; g) all complaints (and their dispositions); h) all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all
civil lawsuits served upon, the Territory and its officers, or agents, resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel; i) all vehicle pursuits; j) all incidents involving the pointing of a firearm (if any such reporting is required); and k) all disciplinary action taken against officers.
VIPD REPORT: During this reporting quarter the VIPD continues to collect and enter into IAPRO information as represented in paragraph 60 subsections a, b, d, e, f, g, h, I, j, and k. Subsections (b) and (c) are not currently being captured in IAPRO. In fact, as it relates to subsection (b) or canine bite ratios, this is computed using the number of deployments to canine bites and an excel spreadsheet is utilized to accommodate the data. Additionally, with respect to information on the number of canisters of Chemical Spray used by Officers, since the Training Bureau issues the Canister of OC Spray the records pertaining to issuance is maintained with said Bureau and shared with JAB for analysis purposes.
Additionally, with respect to subsection (h) all of the civil cases to date have been entered into IAPRO for both Districts. However, some of the cases entered are still missing certain fields of information and the JAB is completing a list identifying the cases in each district that is missing information. This list will be
-17-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 19 of 39
forwarded to VIAG. The VI PO however, is still working to employ permanent data analyst and have included a budgetary request in their 2015 budget for a data Analyst for each District.
Quarterly audits continue to be completed as a self-assessment to aid the VI PO in identifying areas of compliance, obstacles to achieving compliance and also in identifying corrective measures. The third quarterly audit was conducted of the first quarter of 2014 and was completed June 30, 2014 and will be shared with IMT and USDOJ.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS The IMI' agrees with VIPD information. Additionally, at monthly CD meeting in July, VIPD mentioned a new canine directive issued in cu"ent quarter (third quarter) to help address this paragraph VIPD must continue to work towards compliance byfollowing up on issues regarding canine, oc spray, prisoners injured outside ofuse offorce and the civil cases. IMT to assess on next on-site visitfor substantial compliance.
Paragraph 61: The new risk management system will include, for the incidents included in the database, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (e.g., name, badge number, shift and supervisor) and civilian (e.g., race, ethnicity or national origin, if available).
VIPD REPORT: VI PO's RMS/EIP system includes information as identified in paragraph 61 and as it relates specifically to civilian's race, ethnicity or national origin, these information are also entered if available or provided. Additionally, a recommendation was made from a previous audit conducted by the Management and Supervision group for the modification of the citizen complaint form to include a field for race, ethnicity or national origin However, that change is not effected on the complaint form.
PPE RESPONSE: CQMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS VIPD acknowledges that audit recommendation to address this has not been completed. VIPD should adjust complaintform to assist VIPD in reaching compliance. IMT to assess on next on-site visitfor substantial compliance.
Paragraph 63: The VI PO will, within 120 days, prepare for the review and approval of DOJ, and thereafter implement, a protocol for using the risk management system. The VI PO will submit for the review and approval of DOJ all proposed modifications to the protocol prior to implementing such modifications.
VIPD REPORT: As part of VI PO's compliance efforts with paragraph 63, training will continue to take place on the EIP policy during roll call and in service trainings. In-service trainings are again scheduled for July 2014 in both Districts. Also, a critical part of this effort is the execution of audits on a quarterly basis of all aspects of the consent decree to include paragraph 63. The third quarterly audit was
-18-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 20 of 39
conducted of the first quarter of 2014. This audit was completed June 30, 2014 and will be shared with IMT and USDOJ.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
VIPD has not, at this time, provided documentation that their own protocol is beingfol/owed. VIPD should continue to monitor through the audit process,· IMT to continue to monitor.
Paragraph 64: The protocol for using the risk management system will include the following provisions and elements:
a) The protocol is comprised of the following components: data storage, data retrieval, reporting, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation and audit.
b) The protocol will require the automated system to analyze the data according to the following criteria: i) number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; ii) average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and iii) identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit.
c) The protocol will require the system to generate reports on a monthly basis describing the data and data analysis and identifying individual and unit patterns.
d) The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors will review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, system reports, and will evaluate individual officer, supervisor, and unit activity.
e) The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors initiate intervention for individual officers, supervisors and for units based on appropriate activity and pattern assessment of the information contained in the risk management system.
f) The protocol will require that intervention options include discussion by deputy chiefs, managers, supervisors, and officers; counseling; training; and supervised, monitored, and documented action plans and strategies designed to modify activity. All interventions will be documented in writing and entered into the automated system (appropriate intervention options will be employed based on the evaluation described in subsection (e) above).
g) The protocol will specify that actions taken as a result of information from the risk management system be based on all relevant and appropriate information, including the nature of the officers assignment, crime trends and crime problems, and not solely on the number or percentages of incidents in any category of information recorded in the risk management system.
h) The protocol will require that VI PO deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors will promptly review the risk management system records of all officers recently transferred to their sections and units.
-19-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 21 of 39
i) The protocol will require that VI PO deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors be evaluated on their ability to use the risk management system to enhance effectiveness and reduce risk.
j) The protocol will require that the system be managed and administered by the Internal Affairs Unit of the VI PD. The IAU of the VI PO will conduct quarterly audits of the system to ensure action is taken according to the process described above.
k) The protocol will require regular reviews, at no less than quarterly intervals, by appropriate managers of all relevant risk management system information to evaluate officer performance territory-wide, and to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all VI PO units in order to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents.
VIPD REPORT: In service training is pending for August 2014, in both Districts and will include training on policies to include the EIP policy. The VIPD is also coordinating and researching additional EIP training and will report in further details in future quarterly status reports.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Earlier, VIPD was given substantial compliancefor having a protocol approved by DOJ. Since then, additional training has been identified as necessary. VIPD reports that training is cun-ently scheduled for the third quarter.
The implementation ofthis paragraph had been moved to paragraphs 100-101. Thefollowing applies: IMT acknowledges that JAB is generating and disseminating reports as required by this paragraph. However, the management and supervisory response to such information has been inconsistent and sometimes, non-existent VIPD, at monthly CD meeting in July, acknowledged similar shortcomings.
Regarding implementation, the VIPD should ensure that cun-ent policies covering how management and supervisors are to respond to these reports is followed. Once again, managers and supervisors need to be held accountablefor their actions and inactions.
Paragraph 65: The VIPD will maintain all personally identifiable information about an officer included in the risk management system during the officer's employment with the VI PO for at least five years. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis will be maintained indefinitely in the risk management system. On an ongoing basis, the VI PO will enter information into the risk management system in a timely, accurate, and complete manner, and maintain the data in a secure and confidential manner.
VIPD REPORT: During this reporting quarter, the VIPD and more specifically the lAB continues to ensure among other things that information is being entered Into IAPRO timely, accurately, and in a complete manner. This information is also maintained in a secure and confidential manner. The lAB also periodically runs quality assurance tests/reports on information maintained in IAPRO. The VIPD also will maintain information consistent with the time requirement as stipulated in paragraph 65; however, IAPRO's full implementation was in 2010.
-20-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 22 of 39
Quarterly audits continue to be completed as a self-assessment to aid the VIPD in identifying areas of compliance, obstacles to achieving compliance and also in identifying corrective measures. The third quarterly audit was conducted of the first quarter of 2014 and was completed June 30, 2014 and will be shared with IMT and USDOJ.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS IMT to assess on next site visitfor substantial compliance.
Paragraph 69: The VIPD will develop a protocol for conducting audits. The protocol will be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol will establish a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all VIPD zones.
VIPD REPORT: During this reporting quarter a meeting was convened on Monday April 7, 2014 with both Districts via video and telephone conference to review, discuss and critique the audit report completed by the work groups of their respective areas for the fourth quarter of 2014. This meeting was chaired by the Police Commissioner. Each work group reviewed their audit report and fielded questions relative to their audit and audit recommendations. A third audit was completed June 30, 2014 of this reporting period covering the first quarter of 2014 and will be shared with IMT and USDOJ after the completion of the internal VIPD review process.
Additionally, with respect to the department approved audit policy, considering the issue of personnel shortage particularly in specific command ranks, full implementation of this policy is not yet accomplished. The policy requires the creation of an Audit Unit which in itself presents some challenges, principally manpower and financial to name a few. Consequently, the department has considered at least one viable option of editing specific language in the policy. More will be reported in future status reports as it relates to full implementation of the audit policy, however, audits continue on a quarterly basis by work group of their respective areas of the consent decree, as reported previously.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
VIPD cun-ently in violation ofown auditpolicy. Audits, particularly in this area, have been very deficient. VIPD should work towards establishment ofthe audit unit (as required by their own policy) and, meanwhile, continue to improve auditprocess. IMT to assess on next on-site visitfor substantial compliance.
Paragraph 70: The VIPD will develop a disciplinary matrix to take into account an officer's violations of different rules, rather than just repeated violations of the same rule. The VI PO will further revise this matrix to increase the penalties for uses of excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, or dishonesty, to reflect the seriousness of those infractions. The revised disciplinary matrix will provide the VIPD with the discretion to impose any appropriate punishment when the VIPD
-21-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 23 of 39
believes the officer's misconduct exhibits a lack of fitness for duty. This revised matrix will be subject to the review and approval of DOJ.
VIPD REPORT: The VIPD continue to implement the disciplinary matrix consistent with the requirements of paragraph 70. During this reporting quarter, ten disciplinary hearings including three grievances were held in the St. Thomas/St. John District in which the disciplinary matrix was applied. However, as of the close of this reporting quarter the number of hearings in the St. Croix District was not received and will be reported in future status reports. Also, a listing generated at lAB representing administrative hearings for the first and second quarter 2014 with sustained disposition was submitted to IMT June 30,2014.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Earlier VIPD given compliancefor having matrix approved by DOJ; implementation moved to 100-1OJ. VIPD is reporting that all hearings reviewed are consistent with matrix last quarter. VIPD is to provide infonnation for review at next site visit. IMT to assess at that time.
Paragraph 71: The VIPD will extend its statute of limitations for instituting disciplinary action from SO days to 90 days. VIPD policy will identify clear time periods by which the various steps of a complaint adjudication process should be completed, from complaint receipt to the imposition of discipline, if any. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions will not be granted without the Police Commissioner's written approval and notice to the complainant. In the limited circumstances when an extension is necessary, appropriate tolling provisions will be outlined in the policy.
VIPD REPORT: During this reporting quarter, the Police Commissioner issued a directive dated May 16, 2014, with an attachment that delineated outstanding 2013 cases for investigation and also identified the individual responsible for each case listed. Each individual listed were directed to complete the outstanding investigations by Friday May 23, 2014. An electronic copy of this memo was also submitted to IMT May 28, 2014. An update will be provided in subsequent quarterly reports as far as number of investigations completed and also including those cases if any returned as a result of deficiencies.
Relative to efforts to extend the statute of limitation from SO to 90 days, as of the completion of this report representative of the second quarter of 2014, negotiations has not been initiated with either the PBA or LESU. Consequently, there is no progress to be reported at this time.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATWNS
A significant challengefor the VIPD continues to be the timely completion ofinvestigations. This occurs territory-wide and ranges from the most insignificant complaints to the most serious allegations. While there have been some limited efforts to address this issue, obviously more attention and action must occur to ensure that supervisors and managers are paying attention to the issue. They must be held accountablefor their actions/inactions. As recently as the July CD monthly meeting, the VIPD acknowledged timeliness continues to be an issue. but is improving.
-22-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 24 of 39
The IMT has head repeatedpromises to hold supervisors accountablefor not completing work required/related to the CD. Historically, application ofsuchpromises has been uneven. We recommend (again) that supervisors, territory-wide, be held accountablefor their actiom and inactions, including discipline.
Paragraph 72: Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD will not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix indicates the imposition of discipline. The VIPD will not fail to consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action is required in a case because discipline has been imposed on the officer.
VIPD REPORT: Since the approval of the disciplinary matrix and policy, the VIPD has continued to implement same with respect to the imposition of discipline. During this reporting period there were ten (10) disciplinary hearings and three (3) grievances held in the Office of the Chief in the in the St. Thomas/St. John District. In all of the hearings held the disciplinary matrix was adhered to. Documentation pursuant to these hearings is available for IMT's review during their monitoring site visit.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
VIPD is reporting that all hearings reviewed are consistent with the matrix last quarter. VIPD should provide informationfor review at next site visit. IMT to assess at that time.
IV. TRAINING
VIPD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Memo dated April14, 2014 from the Acting Director of the Training Bureau concerning Power OMS and instructions for logging into Power OMS was disseminated to all Sworn and Civilian personnel in the St. Thomas, St. John and St. Croix Districts. Power OMS as the software to accommodate the department's training data base will be utilized for a diverse spectrum of training related functions to include the electronic dissemination of policies to Sworn and Civilian personnel thus eliminating immense volumes of paper reproduction. Also, online competency testing, roll call and policy refresher trainings during annual in-service trainings. A copy of this memorandum was submitted to IMT and USDOJ via email April15, 2014.
The Training Bureau at the request of lAB, conducted remedial training for five of six Officers cited for violations of the rules and procedural manual that did not rise to the level for disciplinary actions. The sixth Officer was on emergency leave at the time the remedial training was conducted on March 25, 2014 and will have to be rescheduled. This remedial training was conducted by one of the Training Cadres and specifically covered the following: Professional Conduct, Law Enforcement Code of Ethics and Communication Skills for Law Enforcement. This was a two hour training session conducted at the Training Academy in the St. Thomas/St. John District. A copy of the remedial training summary report completed by the Cadre that conducted the training to include sign in sheet and a memorandum dated April 3, 2014 identifying the six Officers for remedial training was submitted to OIM April14, 2014.
-23-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 25 of 39
Additionally, as reported during the first quarterly report of 2014, Commander's call training was conducted in the St. Thomas/St. John District on January 16, 2014 on the Preponderance of evidence Standard by the Deputy Chief Of the St. Thomas/St. John District and a follow-up remedial training was conducted March 25, 2014 for the Supervisors that failed to achieve a passing score. An electronic copy of the remedial training summary report to include signature sheet dated March 25, 2014 was submitted to OIM April 22, 2014.
During an on-site visit to the St. Thomas/St. John District, the second week of May 2014, by two Police Practice experts of the IMT (Independent Monitor Team) MIS (Management Information Systems) conducted at IMT's request, a Power OMS power point presentation at the Training Academy. In attendance in addition to the IMT Police Practice experts were the following; Compliance Coordinator, VIPO's consent decree legal representative at the VIAG level, Acting Training Director and Deputy Chief St. Thomas/St. John District. At the conclusion of the presentation IMT noted that the VIPD is much further along with Power OMS than they had thought, which is very welcoming for the VI PO to hear. However, the VIPD is mindful that additional work still needs to be completed to fully benefit from the capabilities of Power OMS.
IMTalso noted during that same presentation that PDN assigned to each sworn personnel were not uploaded into Power OMS. This however was remedied during this reporting quarter as the Planning and Research Bureau at the request of the Compliance Coordinator forwarded an updated listing of assigned PDN's for upload into Power OMS. The VIPD procured the software Power OMS not only in response to consent decree mandate to established a training data base, but more significantly to computerize its entire training operation, such that all training data is readily accessible. Towards this end, the VIPO's Training Bureau in collaboration with its' MIS Bureau has received training in the operation of Power OMS, uploaded Sworn/Civilian personnel information, policies, exams, trainings, lesson plans and historical data.
The uploading of historical data as expected is an ongoing process, however, the primary priority is to upload certifying courses that have expiration dates, so as to be able to track and maintain current and up to date Instructor Certifications. Also, as information will be disseminated via Power OMS using department email address assigned to each employee, Sworn as well as Civilian, the Training Bureau as stated earlier in this report issued correspondence dated April14, 2014 to both Districts. This correspondence advised the chain of command and all personnel to ensure that their department email is operational by April 21, 2014. More will be reported in future reports concerning this effort.
At the request of IMT, a list of policies, lesson plans and trainings conducted to include competency online testing via Power OMS was submitted to IMT May 30, 2014. As reported prior, to date the VIPD has completed online testing using Power OMS and is preparing to expand online testing to include all or as many trainings as feasible for both Sworn and Civilian employees.
As the VIPD continue to expand on Power OMS usage, IMTwill continue to be apprised ofVIPD's application of Power OMS towards the establishment of a comprehensive training data base. In addition to being used as a training data base other intended functions include for example, distribution of new policies, general orders, directives, notification of impending certification expiration, remedial trainings and scheduled trainings. As the department becomes more competent and familiar with the operation
-24-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 26 of 39
of Power OMS, the uses of this software will more than likely be expanded even more. The Training bureau is also simultaneously considering the creation and implementation of an SOP applicable to the operation of Power OMS that will delineate procedurally, guidelines applicable to the proper usage and operation of Power OMS and will be reported in further details in subsequent reports.
Additionally, during this reporting period Commissioner's Directive#003-2014 "Instructor selection process" was disseminated within the department in both Districts in direct response to consent decree mandate as outlined in paragraph 74 subsection (c). A copy of this directive was also submitted to the IMT. This directive specifies the qualification and criteria for Sworn and non-sworn VI PO personnel Instructors, as well as Instructors from agencies outside of the VI PD.
The Training Bureau in its continuing effort to comply with the mandates of the consent decree conducted a Use of force training and policy review meeting Tuesday May 20, 2014 in both Districts via video conference. In attendance at this meeting were members of the Training work group, Chief of Police St. Thomas/St. John District, representative of VIAG, VI PO's Legal Counsel and the point person of the Use of force work group. The purpose of this meeting was to review use of force training and policies in specific reference to consent decree mandate as delineated in paragraph 73 & 78. The following policies and corresponding trainings were discussed; Spike Strip 3.10, Vehicle Pursuit 3.9, OffDuty Official Action 3.8, O.C Spray 3.7, Electric Control Weapon 3.6, Impact Weapon 3.5, Firearms 3.4, Reporting Investigation & Review of use of Force 3.2, Use of Force 3.1, Canine 3.11, Tactical Operations 3.12, and Arrest 12.1. An electronic copy of internal memo dated May 19, 2014 announcing this meeting was submitted to the Independent Monitor Team {IMT) on said date, May 19, 2014. Also, a summary report of this meeting dated May 21, 2014 was submitted to IMT May 22, 2014. A follow-up meeting was tentatively scheduled for November 2014.
Trainings conducted during this reporting quarter in both Districts include the following: Prescription Drug Crimes one day April1, 2014, fifteen Officers (15) were selected to attend; Practical Kinesics Interview & Interrogation April21-25, 2014 twenty three {23) Officers were selected to attend; Crisis Intervention May 13-14 & May 15-16,2014, Active Shooter June 9-13, 2014; Customer service May 9, 2014; Mastering leadership performance for executives June 16&17, 2014; Federal Hate Crime Law; USVI Hate Crime Legislation And Roll call.
Firearm training was conducted during the first quarter 2014 in the St. Thomas/St. John District as part of in service trainings as previously reported and will also be conducted August 2014, in the St. Croix District during in-service trainings. This training was scheduled to occur sooner in the St. Croix District, but was delayed due to ongoing issues relative to contracting with a private entity for use of their firearms training range.
Also, the Police Recruit class that graduated in the St. Thomas/St. John District during the first quarter of 2014 received training on April26, 2014, by the Training Bureau on consent decree mandated policies specifically, the following; Acceptance of citizen complaints, Blue team protocol, Data Input Plan, Early Intervention and Off-duty Official Action Plan. IMT was advised of this training through a memo dated May 14, 2014.
-25-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 27 of 39
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The IMI' is pleased with the acquisition and implementation ofPowerDMS. We've askedfor updates on the progress ofpopulating the data categories. The return memos have not, however, delineated the number offiles, by category that have been entered into the system. They have been general, repetitive statements about the general classes ofinformation being entered but not specific numbers and descriptions ofrecords. We believe that, by now. we would be receiving reports oftraining events that were produced in PowerDMS and we are not.
This is the first accounting that we've received concerning remedial training. Prior to this, we have received reports that have included "make-up" training and remedial training and we were unable to differentiate between the two. Following a discussion about this, the Commissioner directed the Interim Training Director to develop afield in PowerDMS, separate and apartfrom "make-up" training. To date, as we point out above, we have not yet seen reports ofthis type produced directlyfrom PowerDMS.
The process ofdata entry could be clearer to us ifwe could see a plan with anticipated completion dates.
This would enable us to get a grasp on when we might see PowerDMS reports and the types ofreports that we might be seeing. While we appreciate this update, it doesn't describe, in enough detail, where we are in the process nor where we can anticipate to be in the coming days and months.
Accordingly, we anticipate that the VIPD will produce and make available all records ofallfuture training from Power DMS.
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY- CONSENT DECREE PARAGRAPHS
Paragraph 73: The VI PO will continue to coordinate and review all use of force policy and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VI PO policy. The VI PO will conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually.
VIPO REPORT: Efforts toward attaining compliance with paragraph 73 during this reporting period included the convening of a meeting on Tuesday May 20,2014 in the Commissioner's conference rooms in both Districts for the purpose of reviewing all use of force courses and policies. This review among other things aimed to identify any areas where improvement is warranted, determine if any Use of Force material required updating and to solicit suggestions on how training could be improved. The following policies and corresponding trainings were reviewed: 3.10 Spike strip; 3.9 Vehicle Pursuit; 3.8 Off duty Official Action; 3.7 OC Spray; 3.6 Electronic Control Weapon; Impact Weapon; Firearm; 3.2 Reporting, Investigation & Review of use of Force ; 3.1 Use of Force; 3.11 Canine; 3.12 Tactical Operations and 12.1 Arrest. An electronic copy of a summary report for this meeting was submitted to IM May 22, 2014. Also submitted to IMT May 20,2014 pursuant to this meeting was an electronic copy of memorandum dated May 19,2014 anticipated participants. The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for November 2014.
-26-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 28 of 39
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATWNS
The significant tasks to be completed in this paragraph are: Review use offorce training semi-annuallyNot Satisfied; Ensure the quality, consistency and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policySatisfied; Review use offorce training semi-annually -Not Satisfied
For some time the Training Bureau has been participating in the semi-annual review ofuse offorce policy in corgunction with the Use ofForce Working Group and the VIAG 's Office. That review has been proceedingfor much, ifnot all, ofthe past two years. The review oflesson plans by VIAG or VIPD legal staffhas been sufficient to ensure that those lesson plans to ensure "quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy. "
For the life ofthe Consent Decree, however, VIPD has never put a process in place to review use offorce training. Training has relied upon the semiannual review ofuse offorce policy to satisfy the requirements ofthis paragraph. We have indicated on a number ofoccasions that the review offorce policy did not satisfy the requirement to review training semi-annually.
On May 20, 2014, the Interim Training Director convened a meeting ofcommand staffand training staff members to conduct the review referenced in this paragraph. We commend VIPD for taking this step forward and assembling the appropriate people who should be involved in this kind ofevaluation process. We find that the "committee" also discussed several other training topics that are critically important to the substantial compliance ofa number ofConsent Decree paragraphs and efforts. While this was an important step in the right direction, we believe that a more rigorous standardfor evaluating use offorce training must be established.
We did not see the development ofa set ofcriteria upon which judgments and evaluation would be established. We did not see a review and evaluation ofuse offorce data, by type, utilized in an analytical way to interpret how training has affected operationalperformance in thefield nor how training might need to be adjusted to meet operational needs. This kind ofdata is available in IAPRO and shouldform the basis ofan enlightened discussion ofthe connections between use offorce training and its application by officers in the field.
While we believe that this committee is the right group ofadministrators to have present and participating in this kind ofevaluation, we think that there should be more structure to its purpose and duties. We also believe that the criteriafor evaluating use offorce training should match the criteria employed in the required audit protocol.
Ensure the quality, consistency and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy which has been satisfied
The IMT recommends that this Committee meet before Nov. 201 which is the tentative date for its next meeting. There is significant workfor this committee. It really needs to create a protocolfor this meeting andfocus attention to a methodologyfor conducting analysis ofthe trainingfunction. Theirfirst meeting was an ad hoc unstructured discussion without looking at critical indicators that reflect the effectiveness oftraining in the field.
We need to see a review ofuse offorce information, by type, produced in IAPRO. We also need to see an
-27-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 29 of 39
analysis and review ofRRR 's thatfocusses on problems, experiences and new goals for officers and reviewers.
Additionally, the categories ofreview established by this working group shouldform the basis ofthe Training Audit Reports. Moreover, the Working Group should determine how well training on policy affects policy implementation. compliance and administration in the field. This too should be an integral part ofany Training Auditprotocol.
Paragraph 74: The Director of Training, either directly or through his/her designee(s), consistent with applicable law and VIPD policy will:
a) ensure the quality of all use of force training; b) develop and implement use of force training curricula; c) select and train VIPD officer trainers; d) develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service training; e) in conjunction with the Chiefs, develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol division roll
call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures; f) establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and g) conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
VIPD REPORT: During this reporting quarter the Training Bureau conducted roll call trainings for Commanders and Supervisors in both Districts. The plan being implemented requires the Training Bureau to train Commanders and Supervisors on the fourth Thursday of each month and the Commanders and Supervisors will in turn provide the training received to their subordinates. The first block of roll call training for Commanders and Supervisors was conducted by the Training Bureau Thursday May 29, 2014 and included topics such as the following: Conduct roll call training, demonstrate how to conduct roll call training and issued materials to conduct roll call trainings. Documentation associated with this training was submitted to IMT June 17, 2014 and specifically were the following: memo dated May 27, 2014 re: Commanders and Supervisors meeting Thursday May 29, 2014; memo dated May 30, 2014 re: roll call guidelines and training schedule; mini power point; five question roll call training test re: policy 3.2; five question test re: Arrest policy 12.1 and Commanders and Supervisors attendance roster for both Districts.
Based upon a memorandum dated June 23, 2014 another session of roll call training was scheduled to take place on Thursday June 26, 2014 and topics for this roll call training included the following: conduct roll call training; demonstrate how to conduct roll call training; issue materials to conduct roll call training and Retrieve prior roll call training documents. As of the completion of this report, no documentation was provided the compliance coordinator for this roll call training and will be forwarded to IMT as soon as they are received.
-28-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 30 of 39

Additionally, in response to subsection (c) of paragraph 74, directive #003-2014 "Revised Instructor Selection Process" was developed for the expressed purpose of delineating the criteria for selection of Law enforcement Instructors. This directive was reviewed and approved by the Police Commissioner and IMT's input was also received. The effective date of this directive is May 16, 2014 and it was also disseminated in both Districts. A copy was provided to IMT May 21, 2014.

PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS

The significant tasks to be completed in this paragraph are:

•

Ensure the quality ofuse offorce training- Not Satisfied

Develop and implement use offorce training curricula - Satisfied

Select and train VIPD officer trainers- Not Satisfied

•

Develop and oversee in-service training -Satisfied

•

Develop and oversee roll call training with the Chiefs ofPolice -Not Satisfied

Establish a procedurefor evaluating all training- Not Satisfied

•

Conduct regular needs assessment- Not Satisfied

•

Ensure the quality ofuse offorce training- Not Satisfied

This is the same as the requirements for Paragraph 73.

•

Develop and implement use offorce training cu"icu/a- Satisfied

•

Select and train VIPD officer trainers- Not Satisfied

While VIPD has published a directive outlining this process, other work remains. The directive refers to "re-certification " We've not seen a definition in a directive or S. O.P. We fully understand that certain tactical trainer certifications come with their own certification or renewal criteria. We have askedfor, but have yet to receive, a certification period and re-certification process for general instructors. These are trainers who have successfully completed a basic instructor class. We cannot move forward with this task until these questions are answered. We still have a level ofdiscorrifort about the application ofthe directive since we've not heard a credible argumentfor delaying the full implementation ofthe Commissioner's Directive.

•

Develop and oversee in-service training -Satisfied

•

Develop and oversee roll call training with the Chiefs ofPolice -Not Satisfied

While we are pleased to see that a product ofthe May 20, 2014 Working Group meeting is collaboration between the Training Director and the Police Chiefs to better coordinate roll call and Commander's Call training, we have not yet had an opportunity to see outcomes. We are aware ofthe plans to conduct commander and supervisor instruction on proceduresfor roll call training. We lookforward to seeing the actual training and the corresponding record keeping.

•

Establish a procedurefor evaluating all training- Not Satisfied (See Paragraph 73.)

Conduct regular needs assessment -Not Satisfied

We 've not yet seen a comprehensive needs assessment that surveys the entire organization in a systematic way to gather information that would befed back into the training planning agenda. The IMI' recommends that the VIPD develop a "master plan" for roll call training and how it will intersect with PowerDMS. It shouldprepare a report on officer trainer certification, re-certification and

-29-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 31 of 39

how many "waivers" are given. Also: develop needs assessment tool (questionnaire, focus groups, feedback from command staff/instructions); establish in-service training schedulefor the year; and revise lesson plans identified as being deficient.

Paragraph 75: The VIPD will continue to provide training consistent with VIPD policy, law, and proper police practices, and will ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by instructors. The VIPD will make best efforts to train each work shift as a Team in their use of force training.

VIPD REPORT: During this reporting period the Training Bureau continued to coordinate and deliver training for both Districts. In cases where the training was delivered by a vendor outside the Territory, a course outline was submitted in advance of the start of the training and this outline was reviewed by the Training Bureau and copy also submitted to IMT. An example of this is the "Mastering Leadership Performance strategies for executives" and the pending (July 2-9, 2014) "Managing Police Misconduct for Police Supervisors" trainings. The Mastering Leadership Performance Strategies for executives training was conducted by MTAG and PATC (Public Agency Training Council) is scheduled to conduct "Managing Police Misconduct for Police Supervisors" July 2014. The outline and agenda for this training was submitted to IMT June 23, 2014. A Training summary report reflective of the "Mastering Leadership Performance strategies for executives" training is not yet received from the Training Bureau as of the completion of this report. A copy of this training summary report was requested by the Compliance Coordinator and will be submitted to IMT when received.

Lesson plans continue to be submitted to the VIAG for review prior to the implementation of the training. Combination reviews by the Training Bureau and the VIAG ensures that training is consistent with VIPD policy, Law, proper police practices and also ensures that only mandates objectives and approved lesson plans are implemented by Instructors, as required by paragraph 75 of the consent decree. Trainings conducted during this reporting period includes but is not limited to the following: Crisis Intervention; Customer Service; Federal Hate Crime Law and USVI Hate Crime Legislation; Managing Police Misconduct for Police Supervisors; Prescription Drug Crimes; Practical Kinesic Interview and Interrogation; Active Shooter; Mastering Leadership Performance Strategies for Executives and Trainings conducted by the Training Bureau for Commanders and supervisors in both Districts on "how to properly conduct Roll call trainings".

As it relates to training each work shift as a team, this is little more complex to accomplish but the VIPD is exploring various strategies for accomplishing this task without creating too much of a negative impact on patrol operations. Progress with respect to this task will be reported in future quarterly status reports.

PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS

The significant tasks to be completed in this paragraph are:

•

Provide training consistent with VIPD policy and law- Satisfied

Ensure that only approved lesson plans are taught - Satisfied

-30-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 32 of 39

•

Make effort to train work shift as a team -Not Satisfied

•

Provide training consistent with VIPD policy and law- Satisfied

•

Ensure that only approved lesson plans are taught -Satisfied

Despite the fact that VIPD has all ofits Consent Decree related lesson plam approved by the VIAG, we have noted deficiencies with several lesson plam. These lesson plans do not conform to standards that ~ generally see in place in the agencies that we are familiar with. We would urge VIPD to undertake a comprehensive review and, where necessary, update and/or revise those lesson plans that do not conform with the standards that we have previously identified.

•

Make effort to train work shift as a team -Not Satisfied

As we have statedpreviously, most training in all departments is delivered to groups ofemployees who typically don't all work the same shifts or assigned to the same area. It is generally not easy to pull a
whole squad orplatoon offshift to attend training at the Academy. The only time that the whole shift team
is likely to be all together is at roll call. Team training, ifaccomplished at all, must usually be conducted
during roll call sessions. VIPD has echoed these sentiments and has proposed that they will look at enlarging the roll call agenda to include activities that would satisfy this requirement.

We have indicated in several other places in this report that the "Working Group" meeting ofMay 20, 2014 was critically important to the compliance ofseveral Consent Decree paragraphs. One ofthese areas is the coordination ofroll call training between the Training Director and the Police Chiefs. We again suggest that this group meet again and often to assist with the expamion ofroll call training to include a component that would begin to address this Consent Decree requirement. This initiative will require imagination and ingenuity. The more command officers involved in the process, the more likely we are to develop a comprehensive approach and hopefully, sound and workable solutions.

Paragraph 76: The VI PO shall continue to keep adequate records of lesson plans and other training materials, such that the most current training documents are maintained in a central, commonly accessible file, and are clearly dated.
VIPD REPORT: The VI PO maintains records of lesson plans and other training materials and these are both accessible and clearly dated however, IMT has indicated that the records are not adequate, no documentation on instructor certification or evaluation of instructors. The VI PO appreciates IMT's input and will reevaluate to address the areas considered deficient. The VI PO has taken a giant step in the purchase and implementation of the Power OMS software that is expected to resolve any remaining data base or record management issues. To date, the VI PO has uploaded the following but not limited to lesson plans, policies, exams, historical training data, administered test and uploaded sworn and civilian personnel information to Power OMS, provides notification of impending expiration of certification, upcoming trainings and remedial trainings.
Also, at the request of IMT during this reporting quarter, a listing was provided electronically on May 30, 2014 of all the policies, Trainings and test that have been uploaded to Power DMS to date.

-31-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 33 of 39

PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS

The significant tasks to be completed in this paragraph are:

•

Keep adequate records oflesson plans and other training materials -Not Satisfied

Keep training documents in a centralfile - Satisfied

Keep adequate records oflesson plans and other training materials -Not Satisfied

While these tasks have remained incompletefor the life ofthis Consent Decree, major improvements are currently being implemented. VIPD has purchased a software system specifically designedfor maintaining training records. This system is very powetfol and is state ofthe art. While it will take some time to enter data and records, this paragraph is clearly on its way to completion.

•

Keep training documents in a centralfile -Satisfied

We recommend that the Training Bureau begin compiling their training records in PowerDMS. Each new training class should be entered into the computer system and reports to commandstaffand IMT should be generated in PowerDMS.

Paragraph 77: The VI PO shall continue to maintain training records regarding every VI PO officer that reliably indicate the training each officer has received. The training records shall, at a minimum, include the course description and duration, curriculum, and instructor for each officer.
VI PO REPORT: The VI PO currently continue to maintain training records consistent with the requirements of paragraph 77. Additionally, as reported prior the department has invested in new software namely Power OMS, a cloud base software to accommodate its training data base. Thus far, since acquiring and implementing this software the VI PO has provided periodic updates to IMT via electronic memoranda sent during this reporting quarter specifically April15, 2014 and May 19, 2014. Also, an onsite Power OMS presentation was conducted at the Training Academy in the St. Thomas/St. John District by one of VI PO's MIS personnel and was attended by a member of the IM team. The application of Power OMS will be to varying extent including but not limited to delivering certain training materials online, to conduct roll call trainings, online testing and the distribution of new policies, general orders and written directives.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The significant tasks to be completed in this paragraph are:
• Maintain training records for every officer that document: Training received; Course description and duration,· Curriculum,· Instructor- Not Satisfied
• Maintaining training records for every office that document: Training received; course description and duration; Curriculum; and Instructor- Not Satisfied

-32-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 34 of 39
We have held since the initiation ofthis engagement that this particular paragraph was designed to implement a record keeping system that was equivalent to that typicallyfound in police agencies around the country. This particular paragraph was designed specifically because the investigators in the course oftheir work did notfind a record keeping system that captured basic elements typicallyfound in police training records. While VIPD has maintained that it has all ofthe data elements required by this paragraph, we have notfound that they exist in a system that allows for recall ofeach data elementfor each employee nor are they in a contiguous file system so that the data elements can be retrieved together.
There are any number ofreasons for the assembly and maintenance ofrecords ordained by this paragraph but chiefamong them is be able to prove that an employee actually attended successfully completed a training course; that the curriculumfor the course was "certified" and current; and that the instructor(s) who taught the course were properly credentialed at the time that they taught the class.
This is most important in those classes which are tied to the risk management effort ofthe agency or the "high liability" areas associated with the exercise police powers.
As police practitioners, we have seen standard police training record keeping in a variety ofpolice agencies ofall sizes. The current methodology employed by VIPD does not approach this standard.
The adoption ofPowerDMS as the VIPD Training Bureau record system should vastly improve the effort.
As the adoption and implantation ofPowerDMS takes place, we recommend its maximum usage. While it may be easier to resort to memos to record training events, we encourage the exclusive use ofPowerDMS as the repositoryfor all training records and the linking oflesson plans, tests, instructors and attendance as a standard practice.
We are more than happy to assist VIPD with the development ofPowerDMS. We arefamiliar with the system and its features.
Paragraph 78: The Training Director, in consultation with the Attorney General's Office, will review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure compliance with applicable laws and VI PO policy.
VIPD REPORT: The VI PO continue to ensure compliance with applicable laws and VI PO Policies consistent with paragraph 78 by continuing to submit to the VIAG all use of force and other force related policies for review prior to the initiation of training. Additionally, the VIPO and specifically the Training Bureau during this reporting period as mentioned earlier in paragraph 73 of this report, convened a meeting to review use of force policies and Trainings and legal representative from the VIAG was also a participant of said meeting. A follow up meeting is scheduled for November 2014.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The significant tasks to be completed in this paragraph are:
-33-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 35 of 39
• Review use offorce training andpolicy regularly- Not Satisfied • Review use offorce training andpolicy regularly- Not Satisfied
The PPE Comments and Recommendations for Paragraph 73 applies equally to this Paragraph.
Paragraph 79: The VIPD will continue to provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on use of force. Such training will include and address the following topics:
a) the VIPD's use of force model, as described in this Agreement; b) proper use of force decision-making; c) the VIPD's use of force reporting requirements; d) the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements; e) examples of scenarios faced by VIPD officers that illustrate proper use of force decision-making; f) interactive exercises that emphasize proper use of force decision-making; g) de-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without using force, and
instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation even when the use of force would be legally justified; h) threat assessment; i) appropriate training on conflict management.
VI PO REPORT: Consistent with the ongoing delivery of annual in-service trainings, the next in-service trainings are scheduled for July 2014 in both Districts. This training is expected to include various subsections in paragraph 79 and in addition to the recommended increase usage of the simulator as recommended by IMT, the VIPD anticipates achieving substantial compliance with paragraph 79 in its' entirety in the near future. Also, during this reporting period training was conducted in Crisis Intervention May 13-14 and 15-16, 2014 in the St. Thomas/St. John District and May 19-20, 2014 and May 21-22, 2014 in the St. Croix District. There were internal VIPD discussions as to whether or not the crisis intervention training referenced above satisfies subsection (i) of paragraph 79, to which the compliance coordinator recommended that course information relative to said training be forwarded to IMT to enlist their input in said determination.
PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The significant tasks to be completed in this paragraph are: Provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on use offorce. Such training will include and address the following topics:
a. the VIPD's use offorce model, as described in this Agreement - Satisfied b. proper use offorce decision-making- Not Satisfied
-34-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 36 of 39
c. the VIPD's use offorce reporting requirements -Satisfied d. the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements - Satisfied e. examples ofscenarios faced by VIPD officers that illustrate proper use offorce decision-making-
Not Satisfied
f interactive exercises that emphasize proper use offorce decision-making- Not Satisfied
g. de-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without using force, and instruction that disengagement. area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject. summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation even when the use offorce would be legallyjustified- Not Satisfied
h threat assessment- Not Satisfied i. appropriate training on conflict management- Not Satisfied
Provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on use offorce.
While a number ofthe tasks relating to use offorce training in this paragraph have been satisfied, we are very concerned that parts ofthis area were omitted during the most recent recruit class. When this fact was discovered by the monitors, the class had to be puOedfrom their Field Training to return to the Academy to receive these blocks ofinstruction.
The fact that such an important block ofinstruction was not conducted during recruit training is significant, on its own; we are extremely troubled that this omission mzs hardly noticed by command staff. We've not seen any inquiry, investigation or explanation by the senior members ofVIPD about how this could happen and the implementation ofmeasures to ensure that it could re-occur.
Such training will include and address the following topics:
a. the VIPD's use offorce model, as described in this Agreement - Satisfied b. proper use offorce decision-making- Not Satisfied
We have indicated previously that during the last round ofin-service training, VIPD initiated the use ofa force simulator. This was an important upgrade to the entire training operation. We have also reported that during this fust round ofsimulator training, participants alwaysfound themselves in a shooting solution.
To be effictive, simulations do not always conclude with firearms usage. The complete range ofoptions should include voice commands and the use ofless lethal weapons. The true measure ofa participant's judgment is being able to read, evaluate and respond to the threat level that theyface and, ifpossible, they de-escalate the situation without resorting to force.
There is a challenge ahead of VIPD to get all ofits officers on a simulator enough times to satisfactorily evaluate their ability to exercise and display the judgment necessary to appropriately address the force situations that they are likely to face.
c. the VIPD's use offorce reporting requirements -Satisfied d the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements - Satisfied e. examples ofscenariosfaced by VIPD officers that illustrate proper use offorce decision-making-
Not Satisfied See "b." above.
-35-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 37 of 39
f interactive exercises that emphasize proper use offorce decision-making- Not Satisfied See
"b." above. g. de-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without usingforce, and
instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation even when the use offorce would be legally justified- Not Satisfied (See "b. " above.) h. threat assessment- Not Satisfied (See "b. "above.) i. appropriate training on conflict management- Not Satisfied
We are very pleased that VIPD has begun conducting Crisis Intervention Training (CIT). To satisfy this requirement, VIPD should train a significantproportion ofits operations personnel.
Select employees (Command Staff) are not routinely included in department- wide training; especially that designedfor supervisors and managers. We recommend that VIPD should explore ways in which it might increase and accelerate simulator training and evaluation. The department should also add issues relating to de-escalation to roll call training.
Paragraph 80: The VIPD will continue to provide training to all its officers on the VIPD citizen complaint process. The VIPO will develop a protocol for all its officers on appropriate conduct and responses in handling citizens' complaints and will train officers in the protocol.
VIPD REPORT: Training on citizen complaint process as well as other department policies occurs on an ongoing basis through roll call and annual in-service trainings. The next session of in-service trainings are scheduled for July 2014, and will also include the complaint policies 7.1 and 7.3.
PPE COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The significant tasks to be completed in this paragraph are: Provide training on citizen complaint process andprotocols. -Satisfied
VIPD should create a set ofaudit tools that assess continued compliance. The audit tolls should assess the effectiveness ofcitizen complaint training as it is operationally implemented.
Paragraph 81: The VIPD will provide training on appropriate burdens of proof to all supervisors, as well as the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility (to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform, and legally appropriate). The VIPD will also continue to provide training to supervisors on leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training will be provided to all officers
-36-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 38 of 39

promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities, and will be made part of annual in-service training.

PPE RESPONSE: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS

The significant tasks to be completed in this paragraph are:

•

Provide burden ofprooftraining to all supervisors - Satisfied

•

Provide supervisory training on leadership and command accountability- Not Satisfied

The significant tasks to be completed in this paragraph are:

•

Provide burden ofprooftraining to all supervisors -Satisfied

•

Provide supervisory training on leadership and command accountability- Not Satisfied

We are aware that most, ifnot all, ofthe required training relating to burdens ofproofhas been
conducted and continues to be presented during in-service and roll call training.

We also know that training on leadership and command accountability has been conducted but we remain unsure ofspecific content. While we have seen course outlinesfor much ofthis training, we are left without complete knowledge about the training. To get a better sense ofthe delivery and reception ofthis kind oftraining, we have requested that the training sessions be video recorded. Our requests have gone unheeded.

The Monitors are therefore concerned about two critical issues:

•

The first issue relates to the tie between what is taught in the supervisory and management

classes and the work that participants perform in thefield. We do not see a con-elation between the topics

relating to supervisory leadership and command accountability and a corresponding improvement in

these areas in practice.

•

The second concern involves the apparent absence ofcommand officers in these supervisory and

management classes. This first came to light when we reviewed attendance records ofin-service training

and discovered that no command officer had attended The Training Director indicated that they did not

need to attend this training because their work brought them into routine review ofdepartmental policies.

We do notfind this explanation satisfactory.

While command officers may not attend the same training as their subordinates, it is typically the case in most departments that command officers receive an overview or briefing that outlines and explains the content and substance ofthe training that their subordinates are receiving.

We have communicated with the instructors ofseveral ofthe supervision and management courses who have indicated that they typically do not see members ofthe command staffin class nor do they have briefings where they inform command staffofthe content ofthe training and they point out noteworthy issues ofpolicy and practice that they normally conduct when they train in other departments.

The Monitors believe that this situation needs to be addressed and corrected immediately.

-37-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-1 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 39 of 39
We again make a request that classroom training be video recorded andforwarded to IMT. IMI' recommends that the "Working Group" that met May 20, 2014 examine that manner in which VIPD begins to utilize the lessons learned in supervisory and command accountability training infield operations. IMT recommends that. beginning with the upcoming Tactical Operations Command andLiability Course, the members ofthe Command Staffparticipate in training or, at a minimum, initiate a practice ofmeeting with contract instructors and those who are teaching supervisory and management classes. VIPD REPORT: The Training Bureau coordinated and delivered through MTAG (Marine Tactical Application Global) leadership training entitled "Mastering leadership performance strategiesfor executives" in the St. Croix District June 12 & 13 and in the St. Thomas District June 16 & 17, 2014. An electronic copy ofthe course outline and agenda mzs submitted to IMTMay 27, 2014. As ofthe completion ofthis report a Training Report has not been submitted to the Compliance Coordinator and will be forwarded to IMT when received. Also, during this reporting period training was conducted on April 26, 2014for Recruit Officers(that graduated January 2014) on thefollowing policies: Acceptance ofCitizen Complaints 7.2,· Blue Team 6.3; Data input Plan 6.1 ; Early Intervention Program 6.2 and Offduty Official Action 3.8. An electronic copy ofthe training summary reportfor these trainings was submitted to IMT May 15, 2014.
-38-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 1 of 63
Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task
VIPD Compliance Snapshot 2nd Quarter 2014
US v The Territory of the Virgin Islands & Virgin Islands Police Department

Consent Decree- Compliance Starns

40
.... 32 24 C:",l
..0 -~
z 1~ 8
0

(32)
(2)
Substantial Compli3n~ r~t In $t~b~nt.i_a l C~mp1r:i:n~

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 1 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 2 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status
By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Use of Force Group
Overall Compliance for Group 1 Use of Force

Sunstantial Not In

NA

Compliance Subtan tial

·Comp liance

• Sunstantial Compliance
• Not In Subtantial Compliance
•NA

Citizen Complaints Group
Overall Compliance for Group 2 Citizen Complaints

~ 12

.e~..

10
s

&! 6

4

2
0 +'------r-- - -

Sunstantlal Not In

NA

Compliance Subtantlal

C o m p lia n c e

• Surut.antla! Con1pliance
• Jllot In Subtantlal Compliance
•NA

Mgt & Supervision Group
Overall Compliance for Group 3 Management & Supervision

Training Group
Overall Compliance for Group 4 Training

-i 6
cI! 4
0!
2

0

Sunstantla l Not In

NA

Compliance Subt!lntial

Compliance

• Sunstantlal Compliance
• Not In Subtantial Complian ce

Sunstantlal Not In

NA

C.Omp_liance Subtllntfal

Compliance

• Sunrtantial Compliance
• Not In Subtantial Comp lianc e

Ra n On : 08/23/2014

Page 2 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 3 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Use of Force Group
Group 1 Use of Force CD Compliance Levels by Phase

Citizen Complaints Group
Group 2 Citizen Complaints CD Compliance Levels by Phase

• Se tlsfle d • Not Sa"sfled
.,~ ...
Mgt & Supervision Group Group 3 Management & Supervision
CD Compliance Levels by Phase
• Sellsfled • NotSoUsfred aNA
Ran On: 08/23/2014

Compliance Levels
Training Group Group 4 Training CD Compliance Levels by Phase
• ~alisfled

Compliarule levels

Page 3 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 4 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status
By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

031

Substantial Compliance

11/06/2013

Order Content

The VIPD will review and revise its use of force policies as necessary to: a. define terms clearly; b. define force as that term is defined in this Agreement; c. incorporate a use of force model that teaches disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements or calling in specialized units as appropriate responses to a situation; d. advise that, whenever possible, individuals should be allowed to submit to arrest before force is used; e. reinforce that the use of excessive force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and/or civil liability; f. ensure that sufficient less lethal alternatives are available to all patrol officers; and g. explicitly prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized. Once the DOJ has reviewed and approved these policies, the VIPD shall immediately implement any revisions.

Activity History
Competency-based training of officers and supervisors on remaining policies by Jan 31, 2013 3.8 Off-Duty Policy 3.9 Vehicle Pursuit Policy 3.10 Spike Strip 3.12 Tactical Operations 3.13 Sniper Operations will be completed by January 31, 2013 By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system} and periodically test proficiency with the policies. Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training. Incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy by Jan. 31, 2013. Yearly review of policies. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of 1As and arrest reports}. Ensure allocation of sufficient staff to input historical and current data into lAPre. Develop and implement a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to report uses of force or otherwise fail to follow the policy and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training.

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
Obtained DOJ approval for all use of force policies that require DOJ approval. Approved policies are distributed to sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees. =>95% of sworn personnel have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training for each new or revised use of force policy and demonstrated proficiency through a written examination or skill proficiency exercise (the "proficiency test(s)"}; or (b) if sworn personnel have not successfully completed the required initial training and passed the proficiency test(s}, the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s} and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel. All use of force training comports with the requirements of 31(a)-(g} of the Consent Decree, and is taught from curricula/lesson plans that: (a) follow a standard format; (b) identify training objectives; (c) incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises); and (d) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal counsel.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Training/Execution:

Status Date:

Phase 3..Conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

......................................................................................................................................................

a

Definitions of all force terms are consistent with the Consent Decree, applicable law, and generally

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 4 of109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 5 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

accepted police practices.

I Substantial Compliance

I Substantial
Compliance

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

•

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

•

•

•

..

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

•

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

Goal Date:
..........

.

.

'-·_ _ _ _ ____.
......•.............

b

Definition of "force" comports with 21 of the Consent Decree.

I Substantial Compliance

I Substantial
Compliance

I

Goal Date: .

.

c

In =>95 of use of force incidents, there is documented evidence that, as appropriate, Officers

disengaged, contained the area, conducted surveillance, waited out the subject, and/or called in

specialized units.

I Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

d

In =>95% of the use of force incidents, there is documented evidence that, when feasible, an

individual was advised that he/she is allowed to submit to arrest before force is used.

I Substantial Compliance
I Substantial
Compliance Goal Date: '-·_ _ _ _ _____,

e

See 31

I Substantial Compliance

I Substantial
Compliance

I

Goal Date: .

.

f

In =>95% of use of force incidents, the use of force review concludes that sufficient less lethal

alternatives were used where appropriate based on the totality of circumstances, and, in =>95% of

patrol and other applicable officers carry less lethal alternatives at all times while on-duty.

I Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 5 of109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 6 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

g

In =>95% of use of force incidents, choke holds and similar carotid holds were not used, except

where deadly force was authorized, and in =>95% of use of force incidents where the use of force

review concluded that use of choke holds or similar carotid holds were not authorized, VIPD took

corrective and/or disciplinary action against the officer who used the choke hold or other carotid hold.

h

VIPO satisfies all of the requirements of 31 (a)-(g) as provided in the "Definition of Substantial

Compliance" column in this Chart.

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:
I Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance Goal Date:
I Substantial Compliance
Substantial CGoomalpDliaatnec: e ''-·_ _ _ _ __,
Page 6 of109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 7 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

032

Not In Substantial Compliance

08/15/2014

Order Content

The VIPD will require all uses of force to be documented in writing. The use of force report form will indicate each and every type of force that was used, and require the evaluation of each type of force. Use of force reports will include a narrative description of the events preceding the use of force, written by a supervisor or by the designated investigative unit. Use of force reports also will include the officer(s)' narrative description of events and the officer(s)' statement. Except in cases of use of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, the officer's statement shall be audio- or videotaped.

Activity History
Yearly review of policies. By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies O.e., a tracking system). By November 30,
2012, ensure that the Virgin Islands' Attorney General's Office, the Training Working Group, and the Use of Force Working Group review all use of force policies. Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training. Incorporate competencybased training on policies into Police Academy by Jan. 31, 2013. Conduct Use of Force Review on quarterly basis commencing November 30, 2012. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of 1As and arrest reports to ensure RRRs are completed). This requires allocation of sufficient staff to input historical and current data into IAPro. By June 30, 2013, ensure that audits audit the timeliness of completion of use of force investigations. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop and implement a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to report uses of force or otherwise fail to follow the policy and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
=>95% of the use of force incidents have been documented in an RRR and investigated by a supervisor. =>95% of the RRRs will include each of the requirements identified in 32 of the Consent Decree. In =>90% of the use of force incidents, there is evidence that corrective action was taken against the sworn personnel whose use of force documentation failed to meet the requirements of the Consent Decree. =>95% of uses of force comply with applicable law.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status
Satisfied

Status Date:
10/13/2013

Phase 2-Training/Execution:
Satisfied

Status Date:
10/13/2013

Phase 3-Conslstent Application:
Not Satisfied

Status Date:

a

=>95% of Use of Force incidents are documented in reports (RRR) and investigated by a supervisor

or designated investigating officer.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

08/15/2014

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 7 of109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 8 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

b

=>95% of RRRs indciate each and every type of force that was used

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

I Substantial
Compliance Goal Date: .

08/15/2014

c

=>95% of RRRs contain an evaluation of each type of force used by a supervisor

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

I Substantial
Compliance Goal Date: .

08/15/2014

d

=>95% of RRRs contain a narrative description of the events preceding the use of force written by the supervisor or assigned investigator.

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

08/15/2014

e

=>95% of the reports will include a statement written by the officer using the force that contains a

narrative of the events

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

08/15/2014

f

=>95% of the reports will include a statement written by the officer using the force.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

I Substantial
Compliance

08/15/2014

..

..

•

.••••••••.

..

..

..

..

.

..

..

..

..

..

.

..

•

•

••.

.

..

..

..

..

..

.

..

..

..

•

•

•

•

•

•

..

..

..

..

..

.

..

..

..

..

..

.

..

..

..

..

..

.

..

..

..

..

..

...

..

..

..

•

Goal Date:
••••.••.

..

.
....

...

..

..

..

..

...

•

••

g

=>95% of the reports will include an audio or videotaped statement, unless the level of force used is

at the lowest level as described by DOJ approved VI PO policy.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

08/15/2014

.

.........

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

........

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

•

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Goal
.....

Date:
.....

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

•

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 8 of109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 9 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

h

=>95% of the RRRs will include each of the requirements identified in 32 of the Consent Decree.

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

I
08/15/2014 1

Paragraph
033

Paragraph Status
I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal
08/15/2014

Order Content

Officers shall notify their supervisors following any use of force or upon the receipt of an allegation of excessive force. Except in uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, supervisors will respond to the scene, examine the subject for injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain, and ensure that the subject received needed medical attention.

Activity History
By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system). Conduct complete Use of Force Review on quarterly basis commencing on November 30, 2012. By November 30, 2012, VIPD will Provide DOJ with an action plan for achieving sufficient numbers of supervisors or outlining how it intends to use existing supervisors to implement the polices and this action plan. The plan will include an implementation date subject to the agreement of the parties. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of 1As, arrest reports and RRRs). This requires allocation of sufficient staff to input historical and current data into IAPro By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop and implement a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to report uses of force and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
In =>95% of the identified use of force incidents, the officer using force notified his/her supervisor immediately as required by VIPD policy. In =>90% of the incidents where a supervisor was notified of the use of force by an officer, he/she responded to the scene in a reasonable amount of time. In =>90% of the incidents where the supervisor responded to the scene, he/she conducted a complete investigation, including ensuring that the subject received any needed medical attention.

Phase 1-Policy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Tralnlng/Executlon:

Status Date:

Phase 3.Conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Satisfied

......................................................................................................................................................

a

In =>95% of the identified use of force incidents, the officer using force notified his/her supervisor

immediately as required by VIPD policy.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 9 of109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 10 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Substantial

•

.

...

.

.

...

.

.

...

.

.

.•

•

••

•

.

....

.

.

...

.

.

•

•.

.

.

...

.

.

...

.

.

....

•••

.

...

.

.

...

.

.

.•

•

••

....

.

....

.

•

••

•

••...

.

....

.

....

••...

.

....

.

.

...

Compliance Goal Date:
•.••.........

.

....

.

08/15/2014
•••.........

.

.

b

In =>90% of the incidents where the supervisor responded to the scene, within a reasonable period of time, he/she conducted a complete investigation, including ensuring that the subject was examined

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

for any injuries.

Substantial

Compliance

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

Goal Date:
............

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

.

c

In =>90% of the incidents where the supervisor responded to the scene, he/she conducted a

complete investigation, including ensuring that the subject was interviewed regardign any pain and

received any needed medical attention.

Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

08/15/2014

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 10 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 11 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

034
Order Content

Not In Substantial Compliance

08/15/2014

Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, will review, evaluate, and document each use of force, and will complete the narrative description section of the use of force report. The narrative description will include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer's conduct. As part of this review, the supervisor or designated investigating officer/unit will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officer's actions were within VIPD policy. An officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized conduct leading to the use of force or allegation of excessive force, or who was present during the incident, will not be eligible to review or investigate the incident.

Activity History
By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system). Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training. Incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy by Jan. 31, 2013. Yearly review of policies. Conduct Use of Force Review on quarterly basis commencing November 30, 2012. By November 30, 2012, VIPD will provide DOJ with an action plan for achieving sufficient numbers of supervisors or outlining how it intends to use existing supervisors to implement the policies and this action plan. The plan will include an implementation date subject to the agreement of the parties. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of 1As, arrest reports and RRRs). By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop and implement a process for identifying supervisors who neglect their responsibilities to investigate as required by policy and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training.

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
In =>95% of the reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he/she was not involved in the use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize or participate in conduct leading to the use of force incident). In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completed his/her review and evaluation according to VIPD's use of force policies and all other requirements of 31 of the Consent Decree. In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completes the supervisor's narrative description of the RRR in a manner that comports with the requirements of 34 of the Consent Decree.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Trainlng/Executlon:

Status Date:

Phase 3-Conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Satisfied

............................••••...............•...................••..................••.................•••.....................................•...

a

In =>95% of the reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor had no involvement in

the incident (i.e., he/she was not involved in the use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to

an injury, and he/she did not authorize or participate in conduct leading to the use of force incident),

will review, evaluate, and document each use of force..

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 11 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 12 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Substantial

Compliance

08/15/2014

•

.••••..

..

.

..

...

...

..

...

...

...

•

•

•

•

•

•

•.

..

...

...

..

.

..

...

...

..

..••.

...

...

...

..

...

...

...

..

...

...

•

•

•

•

•

•.

.•.

...

...

...

..

...

...

Goal
..•.•

Date:
••••

•

••.

.•••..

...

..

...

...

.

b

In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completes the supervisor's narrative description of the RRR in a manner that comports with the requirements of 34 of the Consent

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Decree.

Substantial

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

Compliance Goal Date:
...........

..

.

.

.

.

08/15/2014
..........

.

.

..

.

c

In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completed his/her review and

evaluation according to VIPD's use of force policies and all other requirements of 31 of the Consent

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Decree and includeg a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to

justify the officer/s conduct.

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

d

In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completed his/her review and

evaluation according to VIPD's use of force policies and all other requirements of 31 of the Consent

Decree and will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officers actions

were within VIPD policy.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

e

See a, above.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

I Substantial
Compliance Goal Date: .

08/15/2014

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 12 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 13 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

035
Order Content

Not In Substantial Compliance

08/15/2014

The parties agree that it is improper interview procedure during use of force investigations to ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer's conduct when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. In each review/ investigation, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. The VIPD will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. The VIPO will train all of its supervisors and officers assigned to conduct use of force investigations in conducting use of force investigations, including in the factors to consider when evaluating credibility.

Actlvlty History
Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service training. By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system). Yearly review of policies. Conduct Use of Force Review on quarterly basis commencing November 30, 2012. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of use of force investigation files). By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop and implement a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to report uses of force and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
In =>90% of the interviews conducted during use of force reviews, leading questions were avoided. In =>90% of investigations where material inconsistencies are present between witness statements, reasonable efforts are made to resolve the inconsistencies. In =>90% of the use of force reviews, all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence is documented and appropriately considered, and credibility determinations made, if feasible. When evaluating witness credibility, appropriate factors are considered and documented. =>95% of supervisors are trained on how to conduct, review, and evaluate use of force incidents, including but not limited to, what factors to consider when evaluating witness credibility.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Tralnlng/Executlon:

Status Date:

Phase 3.Conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Satisfied

......................................................................................................................................................

a

In =>90% of the interviews conducted during use of force reviews, leading questions were avoided.

l I Not in Substantial Compliance

I Substantial
Compliance

~8/15/2014

.

..

.

.

•.

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

.•

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

•

•

•.

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

•

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

••

.

.

..

.

..

.

Goal Date:
.......•...

.

.
..

.

.

.

..

.

.•.

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

b

In =>90% of the use of force reviews, all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct and

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 13 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 14 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

physical evidence is documented and appropriately considered, and credibility determinations made, if feasible.

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

c

In =>90% of investigations where material inconsistencies are present between witness statements,

reasonable efforts are made to resolve the inconsistencies.

When evaluating witness credibility, appropriate factors are considered and documented.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

Goal Date:
...........

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

..

d

=>95% of supervisors are trained on how to conduct, review, and evaluate use of force incidents,

including but not limited to, what factors to consider when evaluating witness credibility.

l I Not in Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

08/15/2014
Page 14 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 15 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

036
Order Content

Not In Substantial Compliance

08/15/2014

Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall conduct an investigation of all uses of force or injury resulting from a use of force by any officer under their command. This requirement does not apply to uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ. In an investigation, supervisors or designated investigating officers or units, shall interview all witnesses to a use of force or an injury resulting from a use of force. Consistent with the requirements of the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable law, VIPD supervisors or designated investigating officers or units shall ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all use of force reports for all levels of force identify all officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports for all levels of force indicate whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided, and whether the subject refused medical treatment. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports include contemporaneous photographs or videotapes taken of all injuries at the earliest practicable opportunity, both before and after any treatment, including cleansing of wounds.

Activity History
Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service training By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system). Yearly review of policies. Conduct Use of Force Review on quarterly basis commencing November 30, 2012. By
June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies Q.e., review of sample of use of force investigation files). By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop and implement a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to report uses
of force and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, all involved officers are identified in the investigating supervisor's reports. In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, all witnesses, to the extent practicable, are identified in the investigating supervisor's reports. In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor ensured that efforts were made to identify and interview witnesses, and documented these efforts in writing. In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents that resulted in injuries, the investigating supervisor documented the extent of the injuries and any medical treatment rendered in a manner that comports with 36 of the Consent Decree. In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents that resulted in injuries, photographic evidence was collected and maintained in a manner that comports with 36 of the Consent Decree. In =>90% of all reportable use of force reviews, the investigating supervisor provided a finding on whether the use of force was justified under VI PO's use of force policies.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Tralnlng/Executlon:

Status Date:

Phase 3-consistent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Satisfied

......................................................................................................................................................

a

=>90% of the Use of Force reports, the supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, who

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 15 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 16 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

supervised the officer using the force, conducted the investigation of all uses of force or injury
resulting from the use of force by that officer. This requirement does nto apply to the lowest level use of force as defined in DOJ approved VIPD policy.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

08/15/2014

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

•

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

.•.

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

•

•

•

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

•

•

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

•

•

•

•.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

•

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

Goal Data:
.......••.

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

•

•

•.

.

b

In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, all witnesses, to the extent practicable, are identified in the investigating supervisor's reports.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Data:

08/15/2014

c

In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor ensured that efforts were

made to identify and interview witnesses, and documented these efforts in writing. This requirement

will be in compliance with the Collective Bargining Agreement and any other applciable law.

Substantial Compliance Goal Data:

I
08/15/2014

d

In =>90% of Use of Force reports, Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall

ensure that all use of force reports for all levels of force identify all officers who were involved in the

incident or were on the scene when it occurred.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Data:

08/15/2014

e

In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents that resulted in injuries, the investigating supervisor documented the extent of the injuries and any medical treatment rendered in a manner that comports

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

with 36 of the Consent Decree.

Substantial Compliance Goal Data:

08/15/2014

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 16 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 17 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status
By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

037

Not In Substantial Compliance

Order Content

All investigations into use of force shall be reviewed by the Officer's Commander and/or Director, or by a Commander and/or Director in the designated investigative unit, who shall identify any deficiencies in those reviews, and shall require supervisors, or designated investigative officers or units, to correct any and all deficiencies. Supervisors, and designated investigative officers or units, will be held accountable for the quality of their reviews. Appropriate nondisciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary action will be taken when a supervisor, or designated investigative officer or unit, fails to conduct a timely and thorough review, or neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action, or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action. As provided by VIPD policy and approved by DOJ, designated command staff shall further review the Commander and/or Director's reviews according to the level of force involved.

Activity History
Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service training. By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system). Yearly review of policies. Conduct Use of Force Review on quarterly basis commencing November 30, 2012. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies o.e., review of sample of use of force investigation files). By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ develop and implement a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to report uses of force and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
=>90% of the completed use of force case files contained signed documentation from the Chief and/or Deputy Chief indicating that he/she reviewed the completed investigation and the date of such review. In =>90% of the completed use of force investigations in which the Chief and/or Deputy Chief found deficiencies in the investigations, the deficiencies were documented, corrected, and supplemental investigative reports prepared to document the additional investigative efforts. In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, the Chief and/or Deputy Chief provided a written, signed and dated finding on whether the use of force was justified under VIPD's DOJ approved use of force policies and all other requirements of 31(a)-(g) of the Consent Decree. In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, supervisors are held accountable for the quality of their reviews, and documented non-disciplinary and/or disciplinary action has been taken when a supervisor or manager: fails to conduct a timely and thorough review; neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action; or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action. In =>95% of the use of force incidents where the Commander's/Director's review and evaluation concluded that improper tactics were used, there is evidence that the involved sworn personnel received and successfully completed remedial training, and, if appropriate, were disciplined. In =>95% of the use of force incidents deemed unjustified by the Commanders/Director's review and evaluation, the involved sworn personnel were disciplined, including separation from service with the VIPD when appropriate, and, if separation from service was not appropriate, received remedial training.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2·Training/Execution:

Status Date:

Phase 3.Consistont Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Satisfied

......................................................................................................................................................

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 17 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 18 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

a

=>90% of the completed use of force case files contained signed documentation from the Chief

and/or Deputy Chief indicating that he/she reviewed the completed investigation and the date of such

review.

b

In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, supervisors are held accountable for the quality of their

reviews, and documented non-disciplinary and/or disciplinary action has been taken when a

supervisor or manager: fails to conduct a timely and thorough review; neglects to recommend

appropriate corrective action; or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action.

c

In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, the Chief and/or Deputy Chief provided a written,

signed and dated finding on whether the use of force was justified under VIPD's DOJ approved use of

force policies and all other requirements of 31(a)-(g) of the Consent Decree.

d

In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, supervisors are held accountable for the quality of their

reviews, and documented non-disciplinary and/or disciplinary action has been taken when a

supervisor or manager: fails to conduct a timely and thorough review; neglects to recommend

appropriate corrective action; or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action.

e
Ran On:

In =>95% of the use of force incidents where the Commander's/Director's review and evaluation concluded that improper tactics were used, there is evidence that the involved sworn personnel received and successfully completed remedial training, and, if appropriate, were disciplined.
08/23/2014

I I Not in Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance Goal Date:
I I Not In Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance Goal Date:
I I Not in Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance Goal Date:
I I Not in Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance Goal Date:
I
Page 18 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 19 of 63
Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

f

In =>95% of the use of force incidents deemed unjustified by the Commander's/Director's review and

evaluation, the involved sworn personnel were disciplined, including separation from service with the

VIPD when appropriate, and, if separation from service was not appropriate, received remedial

training.

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:
I
Substantial Compliance Goal Date:
Page 19 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 20 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

038

Not In Substantial Compliance

Order Content

The VIPD will investigate all critical firearm discharges. The VIPD will ensure that the investigation accounts for all shots and locations of all officers who discharged their firearms. The VI PO will conduct all ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate.

Activity History
Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service training. By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system). Yearly review of policies. Conduct Use of Force Review on quarterly basis commencing November 30, 2012. Execute any contract(s) necessary to train supervisors or others responsible for conducting ballistic or crime scene analyses by January 31, 2013. Conduct the training by March 31, 2013. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of use of force investigation files). By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop and implement a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to report uses of force and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
=>99% of all critical firearm discharges are investigated and documented. =>95% of all investigations or reviews of critical firearm discharges accounted for all shots. =>95% of all investigations or reviews of critical firearm discharges accounted for the locations of all officers who discharged their firearms. In =>95% of all investigations or reviews of critical firearm discharges, the VIPD conducted ballistic crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate. =>95% of all supervisors (or other personnel) have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training on ballistic and crime scene analyses and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test{s); or (b) if supervisors (or other personnel) have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the supervisors (or other personnel) have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s); or Where supervisors (or other personnel) have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Training/Execution:

Status Date:

Phase 3-conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Satisfied

......................................................................................................................................................

s

=>99% of all critical firearm discharges are investigated and documented.

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 20 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 21 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

b

=>95% of all investigations or reviews of critical firearm discharges accounted for all shots.

=>95% of all investigations or reviews of critical firearm discharges accounted for the locations of all officers who discharged their firearms.

I I Not In Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance Goal Date:
I

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

In =>95% of all investigations or reviews of critical firearm discharges, the VIPD conducted ballistic crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate.

I

Substantial Compliance
............•••..............••.••••............••••••........••••••••••..........••••••...........•••.•••••...........G..o•a•l D••at•e.: •.............•••••....

=>95% of all supervisors (or other personnel) have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training on ballistic and crime scene analyses and demonstrated proficiency

I

through a proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or (b) if supervisors (or other

personnel) have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s),

the supervisors (or other personnel) have entered and successfully completed a remedial program

designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s); or

Where supervisors (or other personnel) have not successfully completed training and passed the

proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and

disciplinary action against the sworn personnel.

Substantial

Compliance

..

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

..

.

.

••

•

•

•

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

•

•

•

.

•.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.•

•.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

•

•

•

•..

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

...

.

.

•

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

Goal Date:
.....••...

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

•

.

.

.

..

.

.

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 21 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 22 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

039

Substantial Compliance

11/06/2013

Order Content

VIPD shall complete development of a Use of Firearms policy that complies with applicable law and current professional standards. The policy shall prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition and shall inform officers that any such use may subject them to disciplinary action. The policy shall establish a single, uniform reporting system for all firearms discharges. The policy shall prohibit officers from obtaining service ammunition from any source except through official VIPD channels, and shall specify the number of rounds VlPD authorizes its officers to carry. The policy will continue to require that all discharges of firearms by officers on or off-duty, including unintentional discharges, be reported and investigated.

Activity History
Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-servicetraining. By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system). Yearly review of policies. Conduct Use of Force Review on quarterly basis commencing November 30, 2012. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of firearm discharge reporting). By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop and implement a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to report uses of force and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
Obtained DOJ approval for Use of Firearms policy. Approved policy is distributed to sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees. =>99% of sworn personnel do not possess or use unauthorized firearms or ammunition. In =>99% of the cases where an officer is found to be in possession of unauthorized firearms or ammunition, there is evidence that an investigation was conducted and appropriate corrective action was taken which includes bringing the officer's conduct into compliance with the VlPD firearms policy. =>99% of the firearm discharges are documented on a RRR. =99% of the service ammunition obtained and used by officers is obtained through official VIPO channels. =>95% of sworn personnel have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training for the Use of Firearms policy and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel. =>95% of sworn personnel displayed knowledge and proficiency in the use of firearms, as evidenced by compliance with the policy requirements.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Training/Execution:

Status Date:

Phase 3-Conslstant Application:

Status Data:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

.....................................................................................................................................................,

a

The VI PO Use of Firearms policy will comply with applicable law and current professional standards,

will be approved by DOJ, and is distributed to sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees.

I Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 22 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 23 of 63
Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status
By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

b

=>99% of sworn personnel do not possess or use unauthorized firearms or ammunition. In =>99% of

the cases where an officer is found to be in possession of unauthorized firearms or ammunition, there

is evidence that an investigation was conducted and appropriate corrective action was taken which

includes bringing the officer's conduct into compliance with the VIPD firearms policy.

I Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

c

=>99% of the firearm discharges are documented on a RRR.

I Substantial Compliance

Substantial

.

.

.

.

..

..

..

..

•

•

•

•

..

..

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

•

.••.

..

..

..

..

.

.

.

.

•

.

•

•

•

..

..

..

..

..

..

.••••.

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

..

..

•

•

..

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

.•••.

..

..

..

..

.

.

.

..

•

•

CGoomalpDliaatnec: e
•..........

' .
...

.

.

.

.

..

..

..

..

..

..

.

.

. '
.

d

=99% of the service ammunition obtained and used by officers is obtained through official VIPO

channels.

I Substantial Compliance

I Substantial
Compliance

.•.

•

..

.

..

..

..

..

.

..

..

•

•

•

..

.

..

..

..

..

.

..

.••.

..

.

.

.

..

..

..

.

.

.

.••.

..

..

.

..

..

..

.

•

•

•

..

..

..

..

.

..

..

.•••.

.

..

..

..

..

.

..

..

•

.••.

.

..

..

..

Goal
.....

Date: ......_ _
...••••........

_
...

_ _____.
...••....

e

See c, above

I Substantial Compliance

I Substantial
Compliance

I

.

..

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.•.

•

•

.

..

.

.

.

..

..

.

.

.

.••

•

..

..

.

.

.

..

..

.

.

.

.•

.

.

..

..

.

.

.

..

..

.

.

•.

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

..

•

•.

..

.

.

.

..

..

.

.

.

.••

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

..

.

.

.

..

•

.

Goal Date:
...........

.

.

.
•••.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

..

•

.
•.

f

=>95% of sworn personnel have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service

training for the Use of Firearms policy and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or

I

(b) if sworn personnel have not successfully completed the required training and passed the

proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial program

designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 23 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 24 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task
Where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel.

g

=>95% of sworn personnel displayed knowledge and proficiency in the use of firearms, as evidenced

by compliance with the policy requirements.and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel.

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:
Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

I
Page 24 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 25 of 63

Appendix 8 2Q2014 Compliance Status
By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

040

Substantial Compliance

11/06/2013

Order Content

The VIPD shall revise its policies regarding off-duty officers taking police action to: a. provide that off-duty officers shall notify on-duty VIPD or local law enforcement officers before taking police action, absent exigent circumstances, so that they may respond with appropriate personnel and resources to handle the problem; b. provide that, if it appears the officer has consumed alcohol or is otherwise impaired, the officer shall submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.

Activity History
Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service training. Conduct Use of Force Review on quarterly basis commencing November 30, 2012. By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system). Yearly review of policies. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of use of force investigation files). By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ develop and implement a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to report uses of force and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
Obtained DOJ approval of use of force policy on off-duty officers taking police action. Approved policies are distributed to sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees. In =>85% of reported incidents involving off-duty officers taking police action, the off-duty officer's conduct comports with policies regarding off-duty officers taking police action and 31(a)-(g) of the Consent Decree. =>95% of sworn personnel have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training for each new or revised policy regarding off-duty officers taking police action and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel. =>85% of off-duty officers notified on-duty sworn personnel or local enforcement officers before taking police actions, except in exigent circumstances. In =>90% of the incidents where an off-duty officer taking police action appeared to have consumed alcohol, the off-duty officer submitted to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Trainlng/Executlon:

Status Date:

Phase 3-Conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Applicable

NotA licable

......................................................................................................................................................

a

In =>85% of reported incidents involving off-duty officers taking police action, the off-duty officer's

conduct comports with policies regarding off-duty officers taking police action and 31 (a)-(g) of the

Consent Decree

I Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 25 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 26 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

b

In =>90% of the incidents where an off-duty officer taking police action appeared to have consumed

alcohol, the off-duty officer submitted to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.

c

Obtained DOJ approval of use of force policy on off-duty officers taking police action.

Approved policies are distributed to sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees.

Substantial Compliance Goal Data:
I Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance Goal Data:
I Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

....

••...

.

.....

.

...••

•

••...

.

.....

.

..••

•..

.

....

.

.....

••...

.

.....

.....

•••

.....

.

....

.

••••

•••

•.

.

....

.

.....

.

•

•••

•.

.

.....

.

Goal Data:
..........•••

•.

.....

.

.....

.

....

•••

d

=>95% of sworn personnel have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service

training for each new or revised policy regarding off-duty officers taking police action and

I Substantial Compliance

demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel have not successfully

completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered

and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test

and passed the proficiency test(s); or

Where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests,

the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against

the sworn personnel.

Substantial

Compliance

...

.

.......

.

.•

•••

•...

.

.......

.

•••

••....

.

....••

.

......

.

......••

•••

......

.

..•

•••

.

......

.

.......

.

•••

......

.

.

...••••......

Goal Date:
.........•••••...

.

.

.....••

••...

.

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 26 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 27 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

041

Not In Substantial Compliance

08/15/2014

Order Content

The VIPD shall continue to provide an intermediate force device, which is between chemical spray and firearms on the force continuum, that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The VIPD shall continue its policy regarding the intermediate force device, incorporate the intermediate force device into the force continuum and train all officers in its use on an annual basis.

Activity History
Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service training. By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system) and periodically test proficiency with the policies. Yearly review of policies. Conduct Inspections of personnel with report on quarterly basis commencing November 30, 2012. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of use of force investigation files). By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop and implement a process for identifying personnel who continually fail to report uses of force and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
=>95% of patrol and other applicable officers carry an intermediate force device at all times while on-duty. =>95% of sworn personnel have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training for each new or revised policy related to intermediate force devices and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel. =>95% of sworn personnel display knowledge and proficiency on using intermediate force devices, as evidenced by compliance with the policy requirements.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Training/Execution:

Status Date:

Phase 3-Conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Satisfied

......................................................................................................................................................

a

=>95% of patrol and other applicable officers carry an intermediate force device at all times while

on-duty.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

=>95% of sworn personnel display knowledge and proficiency on using intermediate force devices, as Ran On: 08/23/2014

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

08/15/2014

Page 27 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 28 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

b
evidenced by compliance with the policy requirements..

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Data:

08115/2014

c

=>95% of sworn personnel have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

training for each new or revised policy related to intermediate force devices and demonstrated

proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel have not successfully completed

the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and

successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and

passed the proficiency test(s); or

Where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests,

the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against

the sworn personnel.

Substantial

Compliance

08/15/2014

Goal Data:

•.•........................................••......•.•.•••••....................................................................•••••••••••••••...•...

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 28 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 29 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

042

Substantial Compliance

11/06/2013

Order Content

The VIPD will develop and implement a program to inform persons that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any officer. This program will include distribution of complaint forms, fact sheets, informational posters, and public service announcements that describe the citizen complaint process.

Activity History
Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service training. By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system) and periodically test proficiency with the policies. Yearly review of policies. Biweekly inspections by Zone Commanders to ensure that all complaint process materials are available in their Zones. Zone Commanders will provide a written report of their inspections

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
In =>80% of VIPD facilities, vehicles, and governmental properties such as VIPD district stations, libraries, the internet and upon request, to community groups and community centers, complaint information brochures and forms are available

Phase 1-Policy Status
Satisfied

Status Date:
10/13/2013

Phase 2-Tralnlng/Executlon:
Not Applicable

Status Date:

Phase 3.Consistent Application:
Not Applicable

Status Date:

a

The VIPD will develop and implement a program to inform persons that they may file complaints

regarding the performance of officers.

b

In =>80% of VIPD facilities, vehicles, and governmental properties such as VIPD district stations,

libraries, the internet and upon request, to community groups and community centers, complaint

information brochures and forms are available

I Substantial Compliance I Substantial
Compliance Goal Date: ~....._ _ _ _ ____.
I Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 29 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 30 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

043

Substantial Compliance

05/23/2014

Order Content

The VIPD will make complaint forms and informational materials available at government properties such as VIPD district stations, substations, mobile substations, libraries, the Internet, and, upon request, to community groups and community centers. At each VIPO district station, substation, and mobile substation, the VIPD will permanently post a placard describing the complaint process and include the relevant phone numbers. These placards shall be displayed in both English and Spanish, and where deemed necessary, in French or French Patois, to account for diversity in the VI population. The VIPD will require all officers to carry informational brochures and complaint forms, in English and Spanish, and where deemed necessary, in French or French Patois, in their vehicles at all times while on duty. If a citizen objects to an officer's conduct, that officer will inform the citizen of his or her right to make a complaint. Officers will not discourage any person from making a complaint.

Activity History
Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service training. By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system). Yearly review of policies. Biweekly inspections

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
In =>80% of the VIPD facilities, vehicles, and government properties, complaint information brochures and forms are available. =>80% of officers carry the informational brochures and complaint forms with them at all times while on-duty. In =>80% of VIPO district stations, substation, and mobile stations, a placard is displayed describing the complaint process, including relevant phone numbers. In =>90% of the incidents where a citizen complained about an officer's conduct, the officer informed, and did not discourage, the citizen about his/her ability to make a complaint.

Phase 1-Policy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Training/Execution:

Status Date:

Phase 3-Conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Satisfied

......................................................................................................................................................

a

In =>80% of the VIPO facilities, vehicles, and government properties, complaint information brochures

and forms are available.

I Substantial Compliance

b

In =>80% of VIPD district stations, substation, and mobile stations, a placard is displayed describing

the complaint process, including relevant phone numbers.

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

I Substantial Compliance

Page 30 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 31 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Substantial

..

....

.•

•.•

•••••

•••..

....

....

....

••••••

•••••.•...

....

....

...••••

••••••

•.

....

...........•••••

•••••

••••..............

Compliance Goal Date:
.........•••••••

05/23/2014
...................

c

In =>80% of the previously noted loations, the posted placards will be deisplayed in both English and

Spanish, and where deemed necessary in French or French Patois, to account for diversity in the VI

I Substantial Compliance

population.

Substantial

Compliance

05/23/2014

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

..

••

•

..

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

..

••

.

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

•

••

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

•

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

Goal Date:
........••

•

•

•

•.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

d

In =>80% of officers carry the informational brochures and complaint forms with them at all times

while on-duty.

I Substantial Compliance

e

In =>80% of the instances, where a citizen objects to an officer's conduct, that officer will inform the

citizen of his or her right to make a complaint. Officers will not discourage any person from making a

complaint.

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

I Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014
Page 31 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 32 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

044

Not In Substantial Compliance

05/23/2014

Order Content

Complaints may be filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TOO), facsimile or electronic mail. The duty officer at the front desk of each district station will be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints, which persons may file at any district station. Complaint intake officers may describe facts that bear upon a complainant's demeanor and physical condition but May not express opinions regarding his/her mental competency or veracity. Each complaint will be resolved in writing. Upon receipt, each complaint will be assigned a unique identifier, which will be provided to the complainant. Each complaint will be tracked according to the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, improper search, etc.).

Activity History
Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service training. By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system). Yearly review of policies. Monthly review of IAU and zone files By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of citizen complaint investigation files). Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, create a periodic report that analyzes patterns of violations of VIPD policy. Using the information gathered in the report, evaluate areas for policy modification or appropriate remedial action (e.g., training)

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement

Obtained DOJ approval for a complaint intake policy. Approved policy is distributed to sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees. =>95% of sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training for each new or revised complaint related policy and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test, the sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate
corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees. All complaint intake training comports with the requirements of the Consent Decree, and is taught from curricula/lesson plans that: (a) follow a standard format; (b) identify training
objectives; (c) incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises); and (d) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal counsel. =>90% of complaints are documented and resolved in writing. In =>90% of the compliance tests conducted by the OIM, the VIPD officer properly responds to the inquiring/complaining person. In =>90% of the compliance tests conducted by the VIPD audit unit, the sworn personnel and applicable civilian employee properly responded to the inquiring/complaining party. For =>90% of the complaints lodged and recorded, a file documents the actions
taken by VIPD in response to the complaint. =>90% of documented complaints are assigned a unique identifier and are retrievable by that identifier, the complainants name, if it was provided, or the name of the accused officer, if known. =>90% of completed investigations into complaints comport with the provisions of the Consent Decree. =>90% of documented complaints do not include opinions of the intake officer about the mental competency or veracity of the complainant

Phase 1-Pollcy Status
Ran On: 08/23/2014

Status Date:

Phase 2-Tralnlng/Executlon:

Status Date:

I Phase 3-conslstent Application:

Status Date:
Page 32 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 33 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Satisfied

..••..•••........................•••••.............................••................................••••.............................................

a

Policy will include that complaints may be filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone

(or TOO), facsimile or electronic mail

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

05/23/2014

Goal Data:

......................................................................................................................................................

b

Policy will include authorization that the officer at the front desk of each district station will be

authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints, which persons may file at any district

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

station

Substantial

Compliance

05/23/2014

Goal Data:

.•••••..................••••••••................••••••••.•..............•••••........................••••..........................••••••••••.•.•.....

c

In =>90% of cases, complaint intake officers describe facts that bear upon a complainant's demeanor and physical condition but do not express opinions regarding his/her mental competency or veracity.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

05/23/2014

.

..

..

•

•

•

..

•

.

.

.

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

•

•

•

•.

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

.•••

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

•

.••

•

•

•

•

..

..

..

..

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

..

..

•

•

•

•

•.

..

Goal Data:
............

..

..

..

•

..

..

•

•.

•

..

..

..

.

d

=>90% of documented complaints are assigned a unique identifier and are retrievable by that

identifier, the complainants name, if it was provided, or the name of the accused officer, if known.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

..

...

..

..

..

.

.•••.

..

..

..

.

..

..

..

...

.•.

•

•

..

..

...

..

..

..

...

..

..

•

•

•

•

•

..

...

..

..

..

.

..

..

.•.

•

•

•

•

•

•

..

..

.

..

..

..

...

..

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

..

..

Compliance Goal Data:
..............

•

•

•

•

05/23/2014
...........

..

...

e

ln=>90% of the complaints, they are tracked tracked according to the basis for the complaint (e.g.,

excessive force, discourtesy, improper search, etc.).

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

05/23/2014

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

Goal Data:
..........

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

Obtained DOJ approval for a complaint intake policy. Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 33 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 34 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task
f Approved policy is distributed to sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees.

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

g

=>95% of sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have either: (a) attended and

successfully completed the initial in-service training for each new or revised complaint related policy

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel and applicable

civilian employees have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency

test, the sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have entered and successfully completed

a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency

test(s); or

Where sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have not successfully completed training

and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including

training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees.

h

All complaint intake training comports with the requirements of the Consent Decree, and is taught

from curricula/lesson plans that: (a) follow a standard format; (b) identify training objectives; (c)

incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises); and (d) indicate

that it has been reviewed by legal counsel.

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

05/23/2014

..

..

..

•

•.

..

..

.

.

.

..

..

..

..

••.

..

.

.

.

..

..

..

..

.

•

•

..

.

.

.

..

..

..

..

••••

..

..

..

..

.

..

..

.•.

••.

..

..

.

..

..

..

..

•••.

.

..

..

..

..

.

.

.

..

..

•

•••.

Goal Date:
...........

.

.•••

•

..

..

..

.

.

.

..

..

•

.

.

=>90% of complaints are documented and resolved in writing and completed investigations into complaints comport with the provisions of the Consent Decree.

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 34 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 35 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Substantial

Compliance

05/23/2014

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

•

•

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

.•

•

•

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

••

•

•

•

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

•

.•

.

.

..

.

..

Goal Date:
...........

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

•

•

•

••

In =>90% of the compliance tests conducted by the OIM, the VIPD officer properly responds to the inquiring/complaining person.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

.....••••••••••.•.......•.......••••••••.•................••••••••••....•••......•••••••••••••.........•........••••••CG•oo•ma•lpD.l.iaa.tn.e.c:.e.........0..5./2.3./.2.0.1•4•••••

k

In =>90% of the compliance tests conducted by the VIPD audit unit, the sworn personnel and

applicable civilian employee properly responded to the inquiring/complaining party.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

For =>90% of the complaints lodged and recorded, a file documents the actions taken by VIPD in response to the complaint.

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

m

=>90% of documented complaints do not include opinions of the intake officer about the mental

competency or veracity of the complainant

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

Page 35 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 36 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

045

Substantial Compliance

05/23/2014

Order Content

Copies of all allegations of misconduct against the VIPD filed with the Zone Commands will be referred to Internal Affairs Unit (''IAU") within five business days. - Copies of all allegations of misconduct against the VIPD filed with the Zone Commands will be referred to Internal Affairs Unit (''IAU") within five business days.

Activity History
Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service training. By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system). By Dec. 31, 2012, implement tracking system to document 5-day requirement. Monthly review of IAU files By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample of citizen complaint investigation files). Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
=>90% of the allegations filed at Zone or unit facilities are forwarded to IAU. =>90% of the allegations filed at the Zone or unit facilities are received at IAU within 5 business days.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status
Satisfied

Status Date:
10/13/2013

Phase 2-Training/Execution:
Satisfied

Status Date:
10/13/2013

Phase 3.Conslstent Application:
Not Satisfied

Status Date:

a

=>90% of the allegations filed at Zone or unit facilities are forwarded to IAU.

=>90% of the allegations filed at the Zone or unit facilities are received at IAU within 5 business days.

I Substantial Compliance

I Substantial
Compliance

05/23/2014

Goal Date:

L..._ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ .

......................................................................................................................................................

b

=>90% of the allegations filed at the Zone or unit facilities are received at IAU within 5 business days.

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

I Substantial
Compliance

05/23/2014

.

..

.

.

.

..

..

..

.

.

.

..

..

.

.

.

.

.

.•.

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

.

.

.

..

..

..

.

.

.

.•••

•

•

..

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

.

.

.

..

.••

•

•

•

•

•

.

.

.

..

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

.

.

.

..

.••

•

.

.

..

Goal Date:
...........

.

.

.
.

..

..

..

.

.

•••.

.

.

.

..

.

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 36 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 37 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

046

Substantial Compliance

08/15/2014

Order Content

Complaints will be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, for which the Territory will develop and implement appropriate training.

Activity History
Competency-based training of officers and supervisors by November 30, 2012 By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system) and periodically test supervisors'knowledge of the preponderance of the evidence standard. Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training. Incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy by Jan. 31, 2013. Yearly review of policies. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample investigatory files. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training. Monthly review of files By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop a process for identifying Supervisors who are not using the preponderance of the evidence standard and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
=>95% of sworn personnel have either: (a) attended and successfully completed training on the preponderance of the evidence standard and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel. All training on the preponderance of the evidence comports with the requirements of the Consent Decree, and is taught from curricula/lesson plans that: (a) follow a standard format; (b) identify training objectives; (c) incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises); and (d) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal counsel. =>90% of completed investigations into complaints/allegations of misconduct include a substantive analysis and assessment of the evidence, and a finding that is based upon the preponderance of evidence standard.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Tralnlng/Executlon:

Status Date:

Phase 3..Conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

08/15/2014

......................................................................................................................................................

a

=>90% of completed investigations into complaints/allegations of misconduct include a substantive

analysis and assessment of the evidence, and a finding that is based upon the preponderance of

evidence standard.

I Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

05/23/2014
Page 37 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 38 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Substantial

Compliance

..

.

..

.

•

••.

.

..

.

..

.

..

...

..

.

..

.

.•

•

•.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

...

..

.

..

.

..

•••

•

•.

.

..

...

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

•••

•

••

•

••.

.

..

.

..

...

...

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

•••

•

Goal
••..•.

Date:
.....

.

..

...

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

...

..

.

.

=>95% of sworn personnel have either: (a) attended and successfully completed training on the preponderance of the evidence standard and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s);

I Substantial Compliance

or (b) if sworn personnel have not successfully completed the required training and passed the

proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial program

designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or

Where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests,

the VIPO has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against

the sworn personnel.

All training on the preponderance of the evidence comports with the requirements of the Consent Decree, and is taught from curricula/lesson plans that: (a) follow a standard format; (b) identify training objectives; (c) incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises); and (d) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal counsel.

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

I Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

Page 38 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 39 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph
047

Paragraph Status
Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Date
11/06/2013

Goal

Order Content

The VIPD will explicitly prohibit from investigating an incident any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to the injury to a person, or who authorized the conduct that led to these reportable incidents.

Activity History
Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training. Incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy by Jan. 31, 2013. Yearly review of policies. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample investigatory files. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, develop a process for identifying supervisors who neglect their responsibilities to investigate as required by policy and provide and document discipline and/or remedial training. Monthly review of IAU files to ensure compliance

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he /she was not involved in the use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize conduct leading to the use of force incident).

Phase1-Policy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Training/Execution:

Status Date:

Phase 3-Conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

......................................................................................................................................................

a

In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor had no involvement in

the incident (i.e., he /she was not involved in the use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to

an injury, and he/she did not authorize conduct leading to the use of force incident).

I Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

Goal Date:

·······································································································································--·············

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 39 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 40 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

048

Substantial Compliance

04/01/2014

Order Content

The VIPD will investigate every citizen complaint. The VIPD will establish a clear policy and procedure regarding the intake of any complaint, including anonymous and confidential complaints, against a VIPD officer. This policy and these procedures will include instructions to an officer for taking a complaint and prompt delivery to a supervisor.

Activity History
Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training. Incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy by Jan. 31, 2013. Yearly review of policies. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample investigatory files. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training. Monthly review of files at zone level and IAU

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
Obtained DOJ approval of a policy and procedure for the intake of complaints. For =>90% of the complaints lodged and recorded, a file documents the actions taken by VIPO in response to the complaint. =>95% of all sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have been trained and demonstrated the required proficiency on the complaint intake policy and comports with the Consent Decree, including 44 and 48. =>90% of the documented complaints are promptly delivered to a supervisor. In =>90% of the compliance tests conducted by the OIM, the sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees properly responds to the inquiring/complaining person.

Phase1·Pollcy Status

Status Data:

Phase 2-Tralnlng/Executlon:

Status Date:

Phase 3.Conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Satisfied

04/01/2014

......................................................................................................................................................

a

For =>90% of the complaints lodged and recorded, a file documents the actions taken by VIPD in

response to the complaint.

I Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

I 05/23/2014
L...._ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ .

b

Obtained DOJ approval of a policy and procedure for the intake of complaints.

I Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 40 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 41 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Substantlal Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

c

=>90% of the documented complaints are promptly delivered to a supervisor.

I Substantial Compliance

I I Substantial

Compliance Goal Date:

....._ _ 05/_ 23/2_ 014___,_

............••••••.........•••••••............••••••••....•....••••••••...........•.••••••••...•...•••••••••..............••••••••................••••

d

=>95% of all sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have been trained and demonstrated

the required proficiency on the complaint intake policy and comports with the Consent Decree,

I Substantial Compliance

including 44 and 48.

Substantial

Compliance

05/23/2014

.

..

.

..

...

•

•.

.

..

..

.

..

.

..

•.

•

•.

.

..

...

..

.

.••

•

•.

.

..

...

..

.

..

.

.••

..

.

..

...

..

.

•

••..

..

.

..

.

..

..

.

..

•••

..

.

..

.

..

...

..

•••

..

.

..

.

..

...

..

Goal Date:
...••••...

...

..

.

..

.

..

•••

•

.

..

..

.

e

In =>90% of the compliance tests conducted by the OIM, the sworn personnel and applicable civilian

employees properly responds to the inquiring/complaining person.

I Substantial Compliance

I Substantial
Compliance

05/23/2014

Goal Date: '-·_ _ _ _ ____,

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 41 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 42 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

049

Substantial Compliance

08/15/2014

Order Content

The VIPD will institute a centralized numbering and tracking system for all complaints, and each complaint will receive a tracking number as quickly as possible. The IAU will be designated as the primary and centralized agency to determine whether the investigation will be assigned to zone (one of the seven zones located throughout the Virgin Islands), retained by the IAU, or referred for possible criminal investigation. If the IAU refers a complaint to a zone, copies of all documents, findings, and recommendations should be immediately forwarded to the IAU for tracking and monitoring. For complaints alleging the excessive use of force or violation of a person's constitutional rights, the Police Commissioner should be notified no less than twenty-four hours after receipt of a complaint.

Activity History
Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training. By December 31, 2012, implement a
tracking system for complaints referred to a zone and a tracking system fomotifying the Police Commissioner of complaints alleging excessive use of force.
Yearly review of policies. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies o.e., review of
sample citizen complaint investigation files. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or retraining. Quarterly inspections by committee members

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
Established a separate IAPro database for the STT/STJ and STX Districts such that: (1) each database will be accessible from each District; (2) IAU agents in each District will have access to their respective databases; (3) the Director of IAU, Assistant Director of IAU, and EIP Coordinator will have access to both databases; (4) each complaint will receive a unique tracking number, with an STT extension for the St. Thomas/St. John District and an STX extension for the St. Croix District, so that no two complaints will have the same number within or between databases: (5) information in each database will be organized by District, and can be sorted by officer; and (6) if an officer transfers from one District to another, his/her information will be transferred to the new District's database. =>90% of allegations brought to the attention of the VIPD are assigned a unique identifier. In =>90% of the complaints that the IAU
refers to a Zone, copies of all documents, findings and recommendations are forwarded to the IAU within 48 hours for tracking and monitoring. For =>90% of
the investigations, evidence exists that IAU adequately tracked and monitored the complaint. =>95% of complaints alleging excessive use of force or a civil
rights violation are reported to the Police Commissioner within 24 hours of receiving the complaint

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Tralning/Executlon:

Status Date:

Phase 3.Consistent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

08/15/2014

......................................................................................................................................................

a

Established a separate IAPro database for the STT/STJ and STX Districts such that:

(1) each database will be accessible from each District;

(2) IAU agents in each District will have access to their respective databases;

I Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 42 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 43 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

(3) the Director of IAU, Assistant Director of IAU, and EIP Coordinator will have access to both databases;
(4) each complaint will receive a unique tracking number, with an STT extension for the St. Thomas/St. John District and an STX extension for the St. Croix District, so that no two complaints will have the same number within or between databases; (5) information in each database will be organized by District, and can be sorted by officer; and (6) if an officer transfers from one District to another, his/her information will be transferred to the new District's database.

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

b

=>90% of allegations brought to the attention of the VIPO are assigned a unique identifier.

I Substantial Compliance

I I Substantial

.

..

.•••..............•

•

•

•.

..

..

..

..

.•••...............••••

•

..

..

..

..

..

•

•••••............

..

•

•

•

•.

..

..

..

..

..

..

.••.

..

..

..

..

Compliance Goal Date:
.........•••

..... _
••...

05/23/2014 _ _ _ __._
...............•

c

In =>90% of the complaints that the IAU refers to a Zone, copies of all documents, findings and

recommendations are forwarded to the IAU within 48 hours for tracking and monitoring.

I Substantial Compliance

I Substantial
Compliance

05/23/2014

Goal Date: '-·_ _ _ _ _____.

··················································································································································---·

d

=>95% of complaints alleging excessive use of force or a civil rights violation are reported to the

Police Commissioner within 24 hours of receiving the complaint

I Substantial Compliance

I Substantial
Compliance

05/23/2014

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

......

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

.

.

.....

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

•

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

••

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.•

•

•

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

••

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Goal Date:
......••.

.

.

'-·_
......

_ _ _ _____.
...•...........

e

For =>90% of the investigations, evidence exists that IAU adequately tracked and monitored the

complaint.

I Substantial Compliance

I Substantial
Compliance

~512312014

Goal Date: ._ ._ _ _ _ _ _____.

.............•••.•............•••............•..............•••...........••••..............•.............••..............•••...........••............

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 43 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 44 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

050

Substantial Compliance

12/18/2013

Order Content

The VIPD will adopt a single policy concerning the investigation of misconduct complaints, regardless of whether the investigation is conducted by the IAU or a zone.

Activity History
Competency-based training of all investigators by November 30, 2012 Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training. Incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy by Jan. 31, 2013 Yearly review of policies. By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system). Quarterly review of files in IAU and zone By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample citizen complaint investigation files). Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, audit timeliness of completion of citizen complaint investigations.

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
Obtained DOJ approval of a policy concerning the investigation of misconduct complaints. =>95% of sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have either. (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training for each new or revised policy concerning the investigation of misconduct complaints and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees. =>90% of sworn personnel display knowledge and proficiency of investigating misconduct complaints, as evidenced by compliance with the policy requirements. All training on investigating misconduct complaints comports with the requirements of the Consent Decree, and is taught from curricula/lesson plans that: (a) follow a standard format; (b) identify training objectives; (c) incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises); and (d) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal counsel. =>90% of completed investigations into complaints of misconduct are in compliance with the provisions of the Consent Decree.

Phase 1-Policy Status

Status Date:

Status Date:

Phase 3-Conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Applicable

......................................................................................................................................................

a

Obtained DOJ approval of a policy concerning the investigation of misconduct complaints.

I Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 44 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 45 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

b

=>95% of sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have either: (a) attended and

successfully completed the initial in-service training for each new or revised policy concerning the

investigation of misconduct complaints and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or

(b) if sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have not successfully completed the required

training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees

have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the

proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or

Where sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have not successfully completed training

and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including

training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees.

I Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

c

=>90% of sworn personnel display knowledge and proficiency of investigating misconduct complaints,

as evidenced by compliance with the policy requirements

I Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

I
L...._ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ .

d

All training on investigating misconduct complaints comports with the requirements of the Consent

Decree, and is taught from curricula/lesson plans that: (a) follow a standard format; (b) identify

training objectives; (c) incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques (e.g., class

exercises); and (d) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal counsel.

I Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

Goal Date:
..........

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

e

=>90% of completed investigations into complaints of misconduct are in compliance with the

provisions of the Consent Decree.

I Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 45 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 46 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

Paragraph
051

Paragraph Status
I J Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal
05/23/2014

Order Content

The VIPD will establish policies and procedures and train all of its investigators on the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility; examination and interrogation of accused officers and other witnesses; identifying misconduct even if it is not specifically named in the complaint; and using the preponderance of the evidence standard as the appropriate burden of proof. VIPO investigators will ensure that all officers on the scene of an incident provide a statement regarding the incident. The policy will require that all interviews be mechanically recorded using an audio or video tape.

Activity History
By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system). Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training Yearly review of policies. Quarterly review of IAU and zone files. All statements will be recorded by January 31, 2013. After January 31, 2013, bi-monthly review to ensure statement are being recorded. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample investigatory files. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
Policies are developed, implemented, and distributed to VIPD investigators. =>95% of all investigators and probationary officers have either. (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training concerning the components identified in 51 of the Consent Decree and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if investigators and probationary officers have not successfully completed the required training and passed proficiency test(s), investigators and probationary officers have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where investigators and probationary officers have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the investigators and probationary officers. All training comports with the requirements of the Consent Decree, and is taught from curricula/lessons plan that: (a) follow a standard format; (b) identify training objectives; (c) incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises); and (d) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal counsel. =>90% of completed investigations into complaints of misconduct include a documented and substantive analysis and assessment of the evidence, and a finding that is based upon the preponderance of evidence standard. In =>90% of the incidents giving rise of allegations of misconduct, all officers on the scene provided a statement regarding the incident. =>90% of all interviews related to a complaint of misconduct will be mechanically recorded using an audio or video tape.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status
Satisfied

Status Date:
10/13/2013

Phase 2-Tralnlng/Executlon:
Satisfied

Status Date:
10/13/2013

Phase 3-conslstent Application:
Not Satisfied

Status Date:

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 46 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 47 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

........•.•••...................••.•••.•.........................••••••.............................••••..............................................

a

Policies are developed, implemented, and distributed to VIPD investigators.

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

b

In =>95% of the cases that VIPD investigators will ensure that all officers on the scene of an incident provide a statement regarding the incident.

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

05/23/2014

.

.

.

.........

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

........

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

........

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Goal Date:
..........

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.........

.

.

.

.

.

c

=>90% of all interviews related to a complaint of misconduct will be mechanically recorded using an

audio or video tape.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

05/23/2014

...•••

•

.

....

.

....

....

.

...•••

••.••...

.

....

.

....

....

•••

....

....

.

....

.

....

....

•••

•

•••

•

.

....

.

...

.

....

.

..•.••

••••

•.

....

.

Goal Date:
.............

.

....

.

...

.

.•

.•

••..

.

...

d

=>95% of all investigators and probationary officers have either: (a) attended and successfully

completed the initial in-service training concerning the components identified in 51 of the Consent

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Decree and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if investigators and

probationary officers have not successfully completed the required training and passed proficiency

test(s), investigators and probationary officers have entered and successfully completed a remedial

program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or

Where investigators and probationary officers have not successfully completed training and passed

the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and

disciplinary action against the investigators and probationary officers.

Substantial

Compliance

05/23/2014

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

•

•

•

•

•.

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

.•.

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

••

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

•

•

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

•••

Goal
.....

Date:
.....

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

•

•

•

•

.

.

e

All training comports with the requirements of the Consent Decree, and is taught from

curriculanessons plan that:

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 47 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 48 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status
By Paragraph and Sub-Task

(a) follow a standard format; (b) identify training objectives; (c) incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises); and (d) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal counsel.

Substantial

Compliance

05/23/2014

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Goal Date:
..........

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

f

=>90% of completed investigations into complaints of misconduct include a documented and

substantive analysis and assessment of the evidence, and a finding that is based upon the

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

preponderance of evidence standard.

Substantial

Compliance

05/23/2014

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

Goal Date:
..........

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

g

In =>90% of the incidents giving rise of allegations of misconduct, all officers on the scene provided a statement regarding the incident.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

05/23/2014

•

•

•.

...

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

•

•••

•

•.

.

.•..

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

•

•

•.

.

..

.

..

.

..

...

..

.

.•

.•

•

•.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

...

..••

•

•.

...

...

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

...

•.

•

Goal
•.....

Date:
.....

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

.••

•

.

..

.

..

.

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 48 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 49 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

052

Substantial Compliance

12/18/2013

Order Content

The policy will require that the investigative findings include whether: 1) the police action was in compliance with policy, training and legal standards, regardless of whether the complainant suffered harm; 2) the incident involved misconduct by any officer; 3) the use of different tactics should or could have been employed; 4) the incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and 5) the incident
suggests that the VIPD should revise its policies, training, or tactics.

Activity History
Competency-based training of all investigators by November30, 2012 By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system). Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training Yearly review of policies. Monthly review of zone and IAU files By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample investigatory files. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
The VIPD policy formalizes a process for review of all uses of force that ensures the consideration of and documentation of all of the findings identified in 52. =>90 % of all use of force investigations includes documented findings of all of the considerations required by 52. =>95% of all supervisors have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training related to this policy and demonstrated proficiency through proficiency tests; or (b) if supervisors have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency tests, supervisors have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where supervisors have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the supervisors. All training comports with the requirements of the Consent Decree, and is taught from curricula/lessons plan that: (a) follow a standard format; (b) identify training objectives; (c) incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises); and (d) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal counsel.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Training/Execution:

Status Date:

Phase 3.Conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Ap licable

NotA licable

......................................................................................................................................................

a

The VIPD policy formalizes a process for review of all uses of force that ensures the consideration of

and documentation of all of the findings identified in 52 and that =>90 % of all use of force

investigations includes documented findings of all of the considerations required by 52.

I Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 49 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 50 of 63

Appendix 8 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

b

=>95% of all supervisors have either:

(a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training related to this policy and

demonstrated proficiency through proficiency tests; or

(b) if supervisors have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency

tests, supervisors have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure

passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or

Where supervisors have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the

VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the

supervisors.

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:
I Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

c

All training comports with the requirements of the Consent Decree, and is taught from

curricula/lessons plan that:

(a) follow a standard format;

(b) identify training objectives;

(c) incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises); and

(d) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal counsel.

I Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.•

..

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

..

.

.•

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

..

.

..

••

..

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

•

.

..

.

..

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

•

••

•

•

.

.

..

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

..

•.

•.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

..

.

..

••

•

.

.

.

.

Goal Date:
..........

.

.

•

.

•

•.

.

..

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

..

.

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 50 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 51 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

053

Substantial Compliance

12/18/2013

Order Content

The policy will provide clear guidance to all investigators regarding the procedures for handling criminal misconduct allegations, referring them to the Virgin Islands Attorney General's Office or other appropriate agency for possible criminal prosecution, and the entity or individual who should make the determination of whether the complaint should be investigated criminally. The policy will be revised to require the completion of an administrative investigation, irrespective of the initiation or outcome of criminal proceedings.

Activity History
Competency-based training of all investigators by November 30, 2012By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system). Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training Yearly review of policies. Quarterly review commencing on November 30, 2012, of files in IAU and zones to ensure compliance. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample investigatory files. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
In collaboration with the Virgin Islands Attorney General's Office, the VIPD has issued a policy that provides clear guidance on how to handle allegations of criminal misconduct by sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees and includes the elements of 53. =>95% of all supervisors have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training related to this policy and demonstrated proficiency through proficiency test(s); or (b) if supervisors have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency tests, supervisors have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where supervisors have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the supervisor. All training comports with the requirements of the Consent Decree, and is taught from curricula/lessons plan that: (a) follow a standard format; (b) identify training objectives; (c) incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises); and (d) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal counsel. In =>90% of investigations involving criminal investigations that are referred to the Attorney General's Office or other appropriate agency, the VIPD has documentation that it has completed, to the extent possible, its own administrative investigation.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Status Date:

Phase 3-Conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

NotA licable

......................................................................................................................................................

a

In collaboration with the Virgin Islands Attorney General's Office, the VIPD has issued a policy that

provides clear guidance on how to handle allegations of criminal misconduct by sworn personnel and

applicable civilian employees and includes the elements of 53.

I Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 51 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 52 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status
By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Substantial Compliance Goal Data:

b

In =>90% of investigations involving criminal investigations that are referred to the Attorney General's

Office or other appropriate agency, the VIPD has documentation that it has completed, to the extent

possible, its own administrative investigation.

I Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Data:

c

=>95% of all supervisors have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service

training related to this policy and demonstrated proficiency through proficiency test(s); or (b) if

supervisors have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency tests,

supervisors have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure

passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or

I Substantial Compliance

Where supervisors have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the supervisor.

d

All training comports with the requirements of the Consent Decree, and is taught from

curricula/lessons plan that:

(a) follow a standard format;

(b) identify training objectives;

(c) incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises); and

(d) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal counsel.

Substantial Compliance Goal Data:
I Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance
•••................•••••••.....•.....•••••••...........••••............•••••••••...........•••••.•............••••••••.G..o.a.l.D••at.a.:...••••••.....•...••••

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 52 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 53 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

054 Order Content

Not In Substantial Compliance

05/23/2014

In each investigation, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. There will be no automatic preference for an officer's statement over a non-officer's statement, nor will the VIPD completely disregard a witness' statement merely because the witness has some connection to the complainant. The VIPD will make efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.

Activity History Competency-based training of all investigators by November 30, 2012 By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system). Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training Yearly review of policies. Monthly review files at zone and IAU to ensure compliance By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies O.e., review of sample investigatory files. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement In =>90% of completed investigations, all relevant and appropriate evidence identified in 54 of the Consent Decree has been considered and documented. In =>90% of completed investigations, there is documented evidence that a supervisor did not give an automatic preference for an officer's statement over a non-officer's statement. In =>90% of completed investigations, there is documented evidence that a supervisor has not disregarded a witness' statement because the witness has a connection to the complainant. The VIPD has developed a process for ensuring that supervisors are aware of and have been trained on ways to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. In =>95% of completed investigations, reasonable efforts are made to resolve any inconsistencies.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Tralnlng/Executlon:

Status Date:

Phase 3-conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Satisfied

...............•.............•...........................•................•..............•...............................•............................

a

In =>90% of completed investigations, all relevant and appropriate evidence identified in 54 of the

Consent Decree has been considered and documented.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

The VIPD has developed a process for ensuring that supervisors are aware of and have been trained Ran On: 08/23/2014

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

Page 53 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 54 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task
b
on ways to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Data:

05/23/2014

c

In =>90% of completed investigations, there is documented evidence that a supervisor did not give an automatic preference for an officer-s statement over a non-officer-s statement.

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Data:

05/23/2014

d

In =>90% of the cases, the fact that a complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense will not be considered as evidence of whether a VIPD officer used or did not use a type of force, nor will it

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

justify discontinuing the investigation.

Substantial

.

.•

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

..

.

..

•

•

.

..

..

.

.

.

..

..

.

•

.•.

.

..

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

•

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.•••

•

..

..

.

..

..

.

.

.

..

•

•

.

..

..

.

..

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

•.

•

..

.

..

..

.

..

..

.

.

.

Compliance Goal Data:
.•.••........

..

.

..

..

05/23/2014
..•••....

..

.

..

e

In =>90% of completed investigations, there is documented evidence that a supervisor has not

disregarded a witness' statement because the witness has a connection to the complainant.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

.

••

•..

.

.

.

.......••

••

.

.

.........

••

.

.........

.

.

.

•••

.

.

.

......••••

.

.

.

........••

•....

.

.

.

.......••

••

••

.........

.

.

.

•••

.

.

.

Compliance Goal Data:
...........••........

.

05/23/2014
......•••

•..

.

.

f

In =>95% of completed investigations, reasonable efforts are made to resolve any inconsistencies.

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial
.........•••••...........••...........••••••.......••••..........•••••........•••••••............•••••..........••••••.CG..oo.ma.l.pD.l.iaa.tn•ac:•e•••••...0.5./2.3./.2.0.1.4•••••

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 54 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 55 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

055
Order Content

Not In Substantial Compliance

05/23/2014

During an investigation, all relevant police activity, including each use of force o.e., not just the type of force complained about) will be investigated. The investigation will also evaluate any searches or seizures that occurred during the incident. The VIPD will not close an investigation simply because the complaint is withdrawn or the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of injury or the complainant will not provide additional statements or written statements; rather, the investigating agency will continue its investigation as necessary to determine whether the original allegation(s) can be resolved based on the information, evidence, and investigatory procedures and techniques available. In each investigation, the fact that a complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense will not be considered as evidence of whether a VIPD officer used or did not use a type of force, nor will it justify discontinuing the investigation.

Activity History
Competency-based training of all investigators by November 30, 2012 By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system). Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training Yearly review of policies. Monthly review of files along with IAU agents monthly to ensure compliance by commanders or heads By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample investigatory files. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
In =>90% of investigations, there is documented evidence that all misconduct revealed by the investigation, whether part of the initial allegation or discovered during the investigation, has been reasonably investigated and addressed. In =>90% of completed investigations, the investigative reports include documentation that the supervisor has evaluated any searches or seizures that occurred during the incident. In =>90% of completed investigations, a supervisor has ensured the continuation of every investigation- even when the complaint is withdrawn, or the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of injury, or the complainant will not provide additional statements or written statements- until the VIPD has determined whether the original allegation(s) can be resolved based on the information, evidence, and investigatory procedures and techniques available. In =>90% of completed investigations, a supervisor has not considered the fact that a complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense as evidence of whether a VIPD officer used or did not use a type of force, or as a justification for discontinuing the investigation. In =>90% of completed investigations, the elements identified in paragraph 55 of the Consent Decree have been considered, analyzed and documented.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2·Training/Execution:

Status Date:

Phase 3-Consistent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Satisfied

......................................................................................................................................................

a

In =>90% of investigations, there is documented evidence that all misconduct revealed by the

investigation, whether part of the initial allegation or discovered during the investigation, has been

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 55 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 56 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

reasonably investigated and addressed.

b

In =>90% of completed investigations, the investigative reports include documentation that the

supervisor has evaluated any searches or seizures that occurred during the incident.

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

Compliance Goal Date:
...........

..

.

.

.

.

05/23/2014
..........

.

.

.

..

c

In =>90% of completed investigations, a supervisor has ensured the continuation of every

investigation - even when the complaint is withdrawn, or the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

provide medical records or proof of injury, or the complainant will not provide additional statements or

written statements - until the VIPD has determined whether the original allegation(s) can be resolved

based on the information, evidence, and investigatory procedures and techniques available.

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

d

In =>90% of completed investigations, a supervisor has not considered the fact that a complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense as evidence of whether a VIPO officer used or did not use

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

a type of force, or as a justification for discontinuing the investigation.

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

e

In =>90% of completed investigations, the elements identified in paragraph 55 of the Consent Decree have been considered, analyzed and documented.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 56 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 57 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

Paragraph
056
Order Content

Paragraph Status
I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal
05/23/2014

The complainant will be periodically kept informed regarding the status of the investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, the complainant will be notified of its outcome, including an appropriate statement regarding whether any non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action was taken.

Activity History
Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training By November 30, 2012, monthly review of files to determine whether complainants are been notified and implementation of timelines for notification and sample notification letter. Competency-based training of all investigators by November 30, 2012 By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system). Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training Yearly review of policies. Quarterly inspections of IAU and zone files By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample investigatory files. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
=>90% of investigations have been resolved by making one of the dispositions identified in 57 of the Consent Decree.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Tralnlng/Executlon:

Status Date:

Phase 3-conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Satisfied

......................................................................................................................................................

a

In =>90% the complaintant will be periodically kept informed regarding the status of the investigation.

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

I Substantial
Compliance

05/23/2014

Goal Date: .

I I ···················································································································································-··

b

In =>90% of the cases, upon completion of the investigation, the complainant will be notified of its

outcome, including an appropriate statement regarding whether any non-disciplinary corrective action

Not in Substantial Compliance

or disciplinary action was taken.

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 57 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 58 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

c

=>90% of investigations have been resolved by making one of the dispositions identified in 57 of the Consent Decree.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

057
Order Content

Substantial Compliance

02/10/2013

Each allegation in an investigation will be resolved by making one of the following dispositions: "Unfounded," where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that no facts to support that the incident complained of actually occurred; "Sustained," where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person's allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the incident occurred and the actions of the officer were improper; "Not Sustained,•• where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred; and "Exonerated.'' where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate VIPD policies, procedures, or training.

Activity History
Competency-based training of all investigators by November 30, 2012 By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system). Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training Yearly review of policies. Quarterly inspections of IAU and zone files By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies (i.e., review of sample investigatory files. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
>90% of investigations have been resolved by making one of the dispositions identified in 57 of the Consent Decree.

Phase 1-Policy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Tralnlng/Executlon:

Status Date:

Phase 3.Consistent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

...................•...........................•••••........................•.....•••.............................••............................••....

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 58 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 59 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

a

>90% of investigations have been resolved by making one of the dispositions identified in 57 of the

Consent Decree.

I

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

b

See 57

I Substantial Compliance
Substantial
Compliance
Goal Date:

c

See 57

I Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

.

.

....•

••.........

.

•••••

...........

•••••

.

.

.......•.•

••••........

.

....•

••.........

.

.....•

••••......

.

.......••••

•••..

.

Goal Date:
...........•••••

.

•....

.

..........•

d

See 57

I Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 59 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 60 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph
058
Order Content

Paragraph Status
Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal
05/23/2014

Unit commanders will evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command to identify underlying problems and training needs. Any such problems or need will be relayed in the form of a recommendation to the appropriate VIPD entity.

Activity History
Competency-based training of all investigators by November 30, 2012 By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system). Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call/commanders call training Yearly review of policies. Monthly review of files in IAU and zone files. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
The VIPD has developed a policy that provides a process for the review of all completed allegations of misconduct and ensures the consideration of all of the elements identified in 52 and 58 of the Consent Decree. In =>90% of the completed investigations into allegations of misconduct, there is documentation indicating that a supervisor has evaluated underlying problems and training needs, if any. =>90% of any identified problems and/or training needs have been relayed to the appropriate VIPD entity. =>90% of the cases where there is a determination that modification to or additional training is required, there is documented evidence that VIPD implemented additional training. =>90% of the cases where the VIPD identified policy or equipment deficiencies, there is documented evidence that corrective measures were implemented.

Phase 1.Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2·Training/Execution:

Status Date:

Phase 3-Conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Satisfied

......................................................................................................................................................

a

The VIPD has developed a policy that provides a process for the review of all completed allegations

of misconduct and ensures the consideration of all of the elements identified in 52 and 58 of the

Consent Decree

I j Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

b

In =>90% of the completed investigations into allegations of misconduct, there is documentation

indicating that a supervisor has evaluated underlying problems and training needs, if any.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 60 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 61 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

c

=>90% of any identified problems and/or training needs have been relayed to the appropriate VIPD

entity.

d

=>90% of the cases where there is a determination that modification to or additional training is

required, there is documented evidence that VIPO implemented additional training.

e

=>90% of the cases where the VIPD identified policy or equipment deficiencies, there is documented

evidence that corrective measures were implemented.

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

Page 61 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 62 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph
059

Paragraph Status
Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

Order Content

The VIPD will develop and implement a risk management system to include a new computerized relational database or paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for supervision and management of the VIPD. Priority will be given to the VIPD obtaining any established program and system. The VIPD will regularly use this data to promote civil rights and best police practices: to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts.

Activity History
Internal Affairs and MIS have chosen a computerized database, IAPRO, to assist in the supervision and management. Currently Supervisors and Commanders, etc. are in the process of completing all the Use of Force reports required for bringing the Department up to date for 2012. At least once per month, the Deputy Chief during Commander Call, will address Decree compliance issues, including timely completion of use of force reports commencing November 30, 2012 and on an ongoing basis. Working group members will conduct regular reviews, but no less frequently than weekly, commencing November 30, 2012 to ensure that all Blue Team programs are installed on all Zone Command computers and are also fully functioning. To ensure compliance with the Blue Team protocols, and the PDN process and to increase usage, working group members will be scheduling times to observe roll calls and to ensure that these matters are discussed via roll calls. Blue Team technical issues will be resolved, training will be ongoing, and all districts will receive a round of training by January 31, 2013. By November 30, 2012, VIPD will Provide DOJ with an action plan for achieving sufficient numbers of staff to input current and historic data or outlining how it intends to use existing staff to accomplish this task. The plan will include an implementation date subject to the agreement of the parties. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. This ensures periodic quality checks on data entered. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
See below

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Training/Execution:

Status Date:

Phase 3-Consistent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Satisfied

......................................................................................................................................................

a

The VIPD has developed, codified in policy, and implemented a risk management system to include a

new computerized relational database or paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving

information necessary for supervision and management of the VIPD. Priority will be given to the

VIPD obtaining any established program and system.

Not in Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 62 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-2 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 63 of 63

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

b

The VIPD will, in =>95% of the cases, use this data to promote civil rights and best police practices:

to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units

and shifts.

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:
I I Not In Substantial Compliance
I Substantial
Compliance Goal Date: '-·_ _ _ _ ___,
Page 63 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 1 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph
060
Order Content

Paragraph Status
Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal
08/15/2014

The new risk management system will collect and record the following information: a. all uses of force; b. canine bite ratios; c. the number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers; d. all injuries to prisoners; e. all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with "resisting arrest," "assault on a police officer," "disorderly conduct," or "obstruction of official business;" f. all critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty; g. all complaints (and their dispositions); h. all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the Territory and its officers, or agents, resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel; i. all vehicle pursuits; j. all incidents involving the pointing of a firearm (if any such reporting is required); and k. all disciplinary action taken against officers.

Activity History
Internal Affairs and MIS have chosen a computerized database, IAPRO, to assist in the supervision and management. Currently Supervisors and Commanders, etc. are in the process of completing all the Use of Force reports required for bringing the Department up to date for 2012. Officers will continue to enter use of force reports via Blue Team. Working group members will conduct bi-monthly review commencing November 30, 2012 to ensure compliance with A through K. Blue Team technical issues will be resolved, training will be ongoing, and all districts will receive a round of training by January 31, 2013. By November 30, 2012, VIPD will Provide DOJ with an action plan for achieving sufficient numbers of staff to input current and historic data or outlining how it intends to use existing staff to accomplish this task. The plan will include an implementation date subject to the agreement of the parties. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. This ensures periodic quality checks on data entered. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
NA; see individual items below

Phase 1-Policy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2·Training/Execution:

Status Date:

Phase 3-Conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Satisfied

......................................................................................................................................................

a

>95% of uses of force that require the completion of a RRR are entered into RMS with a reasonable

level of accuracy and completeness.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

b
Ran On:

>95% of canine deployments are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
08/23/2014

I I Not in Substantial Compliance
Page 64 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 2 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

2.

>95% of canine deployments resulting in a bite are entered into RMS with a reasonable level

of accuracy and completeness.

3.

RMS provides statistical analyses of canine bite ratio or the data necessary to compute such

ratio.

Substantial

Compliance

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.............

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Goal Data:
..........

.

.

..............

.

.

.

.

.

.

c

=>95% of the canisters of chemical spray issued to officers will be entered into RMS, including the

date of issuance and date of expirations of the chemical spray, with a reasonable level of accuracy

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

and completeness and the VIPD has developed a process to track the amount of OC Spray used by

Officers.

Substantial

Compliance

..

..

.

•

•

•

•

..

.

..

..

...

..

..

••.

..

.

..

..

..

.

..

..

.

..

..

.

..

..

.•

..

..

...

..

•

•

•

•

.

..

..

.

..

.••..

..

..

.

..

•

•

...

..

..

.

..

•

..

.

..

..

.

..

•

•

•

...

..

..

Goal Data:
..•••....

..

...

.••.

.

..

..

.

..

.•.

.

..

d

=>95% of all injuries to prisoners will be entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and

completeness.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

..

..

..

..

.

.

.

•

.

•

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

..

..

•

..

..

..

..

..

.••.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

•

.

.

.

..

..

..

•

•

•

..

..

..

..

.••.

..

..

..

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

•

•

•

•

.

.

..

..

.•.

•

..

..

..

..

..

Goal Data:
..........•

•

•

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

•

e

=>95% of all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with "resisting arrest," "assault on a police officer," "disorderly conduct," or "obstruction of official business," are entered into RMS

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

Substantial

Compliance

.

..

..••••.

.

..

..

.

..

..

.

..

•

..

.

..

..

.

..

..

.

•

..

...

..

...

•

•

•

...

..

...

.••.

.

..

..

.

..

•

•

.

..

..

.

..

.••..

..

...

..

•

•

.

..

..

.

..

•

•

.

..

..

.

..

..

•

•.

Goal Date:
........•

..

..

.

..

..

•

•.

..

...

..

.•

..

f

=>99% of all firearm discharges, whether on or off-duty, are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 65 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 3 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

g

>95% of complaints are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

2.

>95% of the dispositions of such complaints are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

accuracy and completeness.

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

h

=>95% of criminal proceedings initiated, civil or administrative claims filed, and civil lawsuits served against the Territory, the VIPD, and its Officers resulting from VIPD operations will be entered in RMS

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

=>95% of vehicle pursuits are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

..

.•.

•

..

..

..

..

..

..

•

•

•

•

..

..

..

..

.•••.

..

..

..

.

.

.

•

•

•.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

..

..

..

•

•

..

..

..

..

..

.•.

..

..

.

.

.

.

.

•

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

•

•

Goal Date:
.........•.

•

•

..

..

..

..

.•.

..

..

..

..

.

=>99% of all incidents involving the pointing of a firearm at a human being are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

.

......

.

..••

.

......

......

.

••••

•..

.

.....

•••

.....

.

....••

••...

.

....••

•

.

......

.

•

•••

.

.....

.

••••

.

.....

.

..•

••...

.

.....

•..

.

Goal Date:
......••••......

.

..•

.....

.

....•....

k

In =>95% of instances in which the VIPO has taken disciplinary action against officers, this

information is entered in RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

I

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 66 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 4 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Substantial

Compliance

...

.

..

.

.

..

.

...

••

•

.

..

.

.

..

.

...

.

..

.

.

•

••

•

•.

.

...

.

..

.

.

..

.

..•

..

.

...

.

..

.

...

.

•

•.

.

.

..

.

...

.

..

.

.

•

.

..

.

...

.

..

.

.

•

••

..

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.•

•

••

Goal
.......

Date:
.....•

•

•..

.

..

.

.

..

.

...

.

.•

•

.

.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

Goal Date:
..........

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 67 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 5 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

061

Not In Substantial Compliance

08/15/2014

Order Content

The new risk management system will include, for the incidents included in the database, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (e.g., name, badge number, shift and supervisor) and civilian (e.g., race, ethnicity or national origin, if available).

Activity History
All officers have been assigned a PDN. Working group members will conduct bi-monthly review commencing November 30, 2012 to ensure compliance with A through K. Working group members will be scheduling times to observe roll calls and to ensure that these matters are discussed via roll calls and commanders calls. Blue Team technical issues will be resolved, training will be ongoing, and all districts will receive a round of training by January 31, 2013. By November 30, 2012, VIPD will Provide DOJ with an action plan for achieving sufficient numbers of staff to input current and historic data or outlining how it intends to use existing staff to accomplish this task. The plan will include an implementation date subject to the agreement of the parties. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. This ensures periodic quality checks on data entered. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
VIPD has established a uniform method of identifying sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees to ensure accurate identification and tracking of all employee conduct. =>95% of the incidents included in the database, the name and unique identifier for each involved officer has been entered with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness. =>95% of the incidents included in the database, the appropriate identifying information (e.g., name, ethnicity or national original), if available, for each involved civilian has been entered with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness. =>95% of the incidents included in the database, the shift and assignment for each on-duty supervisor has been entered with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Tralning/Executlon:

Status Date:

Phase 3..Conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Satisfied

......................................................................................................................................................

a

VIPD has established a uniform method of identifying sworn personnel to ensure accurate

identification and tracking of all employee conduct.

=>95% of the incidents included in the database, the name and unique identifier for each involved

officer has been entered with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

08/15/2014
Page 68 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 6 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

b

VIPD has established a uniform method of identifying applicable civilian employees to ensure

accurate identification and tracking of all employee conduct and in =>95% of the incidents included in

the database, the appropriate identifying information (e.g., name, ethnicity or national original), if

available, for each involved civilian has been entered with a reasonable level of accuracy and

completeness

c

=>95% of the incidents included in the database, the shift and assignment for each on-duty

supervisor has been entered with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:
I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

08/15/2014

I j Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

08/15/2014

Page 69 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 7 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

062

Substantial Compliance

12/18/2013

Order Content

Within 120 days of the implementation of the new risk management system, or later with the agreement of DOJ, the VIPD will prepare, for the review and approval of DOJ, a plan for including appropriate fields and values of new and historical data into the risk management system (the "Data Input Plan"). The Data Input Plan will identify the data to be included and the means for inputting such data (direct entry or otherwise), the specific fields of information to be included, the past time periods for which information is to be included, the deadlines for inputting the data, and the responsibility for the input of the data. The Data Input Plan will include historical data that is up-to-date and complete in the risk management system. The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final review and approval within 30 days after it is presented for approval.

Activity History
Data Input Plan and RMS protocol/policy has been resubmitted and is awaiting approval from Department of Justice

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
The VIPD has received DOJ approval for its Data Input Plan. =>90% of the historical data required by the Data Input Plan is up-to-date with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Status Date:

Phase 3..Conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

NotA licable

......................................................................................................................................................

a

The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final review and approval

within 30 days after it is presented for approval and that VIPD has received DOJ approval for its Data

Input Plan.

I Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

b

The Data Input Plan identifies the data to be included and the means for inputting such data (direct

entry or otherwise), the specific fields of information to be included, the past time periods for which

information is to be included, the deadlines for inputting the data, and the responsibility for the input of

the data.

I Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 70 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 8 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

c

=>90% of the historical data required by the Data Input Plan is up-to-date with a reasonable level of

accuracy and completeness

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:
I Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

Paragraph
063

Paragraph Status
I Not In Substantial Compliance j

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

Order Content

The VIPD will, within 120 days, prepare for the review and approval of DOJ, and thereafter implement, a protocol for using the risk management system. The VIPD will submit for the review and approval of DOJ all proposed modifications to the protocol prior to implementing such modifications.

Activity History
Blue Team technical issues will be resolved, training will be ongoing, and all districts will receive a round of training by January 31, 2013. By November 30, 2012, VIPD will Provide DOJ with an action plan for achieving sufficient numbers of staff to input current and historic data or outlining how it intends to use existing staff to accomplish this task. The plan will include an implementation date subject to the agreement of the parties. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. This ensures periodic quality checks on data entered. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training. Data Input Plan and RMS protocol/policy has been resubmitted and is awaiting approval from Department of Justice

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
The VIPD has received approval from DOJ, and implemented a protocol for using the RMS. The VI PO has audited the RMS and confirmed that it reflects the protocol.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Tralnlng/Exocutlon:

Status Date:

Phase 3-conslstont Application:

Status Data:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Satisfied

......................................................................................................................................................

a

The VIPD has received approval from DOJ, and implemented a protocol for using the RMS.

l I Not in Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 71 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 9 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

b

The VIPD has audited the RMS and confirmed that it reflects the protocol.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

Goal Date:
...........

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

..

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 72 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 10 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph
064

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Date 12/18/2013

Goal

Order Content

The protocol for using the risk management system will include the following provisions and elements: a. The protocol is comprised of the following components: data storage, data retrieval, reporting, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation
and audit. b. The protocol will require the automated system to analyze the data according to the following criteria: 0 number of incidents for each data
category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; ii) average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and iii) identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit. c. The protocol will require the system to generate reports on a monthly basis describing the data and data analysis and identifying individual and unit patterns. d. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors will review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, system reports, and will evaluate individual officer, supervisor, and unit activity. e. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors initiate intervention for individual officers, supervisors and for units based on appropriate activity and pattern assessment of the information contained in the risk management system. f. The protocol will require that intervention options include discussion by deputy chiefs, managers, supervisors, and officers; counseling; training; and supervised, monitored, and documented action plans and strategies designed to modify activity. All interventions will be documented in writing and entered into the automated system (appropriate intervention options will be employed based on the evaluation described in subsection (e) above). g. The protocol will specify that actions taken as a result of information from the risk management system be based on all relevant and appropriate information, including the nature of the officer's assignment, crime trends and crime problems, and not solely on the number or percentages of incidents in any category of information recorded in the risk management system. h. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors. will promptly review the risk management
system records of all officers recently transferred to their sections and units. i. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors
be evaluated on their ability to use the risk management system to enhance effectiveness and reduce risk. j. The protocol will require that the system be managed and administered by the Internal Affairs Unit of the VIPD. The IAU of the VIPO will conduct quarterly audits of the system to ensure action is taken according to the process described above. k. The protocol will require regular reviews, at no less than quarterly intervals, by appropriate managers of all relevant risk management system information to evaluate officer performance territory-wide, and to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all VIPD units in order to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents.

Activity History Data Input Plan and RMS protocoVpolicy has been resubmitted and is awaiting approval from Department of Justice Working group members will conduct bimonthly review commencing November 30, 2012 to ensure compliance with A through K. Blue Team technical issues will be resolved, training will be ongoing, and all districts will receive a round of training by January 31, 2013. By November 30, 2012, VIPD will Provide DOJ with an action plan for achieving sufficient numbers of staff to input current and historic data or outlining how it intends to use existing staff to accomplish this task. The plan will include an implementation date subject to the agreement of the parties. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement See below

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 73 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 11 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Status Date:

Phase 3-conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Applicable

......................................................................................................................................................

a

The VIPD has received DOJ approval of a protocol with the components identified in 64(a) of the

Consent Decree.

2.

The VIPD has implemented a protocol for using the RMS that includes the components

identified in 64(a) of the Consent Decree.

I Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

..

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

Goal Date:
..........

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

b

The VIPD has received DOJ approval of a protocol that includes an automated system to analyze the

data according to the criteria identified in 64(b) of the Consent Decree.

2.

The VIPD implemented a protocol that includes an automated system to analyze the data

according to the criteria identified in 64(b) of the Consent Decree.

I Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

c

Reports are generated and distributed to appropriate sworn personnel (e.g., Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs,

and supervisors) on a monthly basis

I Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

Goal Date:
..........

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

d

=>90% of the reviews conducted by the Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors comport with the

RMS protocol.

I Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

Goal Date:
..........

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

e

Deputy Chiefs, managers and supervisors have initiated intervention in =>90% of instances based on

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 74 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 12 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

activity and pattern assessment contained in the RMS.

I Substantial Compliance

I Substantial
Compliance

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

..

..

..

•

•

..

..

..

..

..

..

.••.

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

•

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

•

•

•

•

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

•

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

..

..

..

Goal
......

Date:
.....•.

....._ _ _ _ ___.
••.................•

f

Interventions, as exemplified in paragraph 64 of the Consent Decree, comport with the RMS protocol

=>90% of the time.

I Substantial Compliance

I Substantial
Compliance Goal Date: ......_ _ _ _ ____,

g

=>90% of interventions are based on all relevant and appropriate information, including the nature of

the officer's assignment, crime trends and crime problems, and not solely on the number or

percentages of incidents in any category of information recorded in the risk management system.

I Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

h

In =>90% of instances when officers are transferred to a new section or unit, Deputy Chiefs,

managers and supervisors for the relevant section or unit have promptly reviewed the RMS records of

such officers.

I Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

The VIPO has established a protocol for evaluating whether deputy chiefs, managers and supervisors

are able to use the RMS system to enhance effectiveness and risk.

2.

This evaluation protocol is followed with a >90% level of accuracy and completeness.

I Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance
Goal Date:
······················································································································································ The RMS is managed and administered by IAU.

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 75 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 13 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task
IAU conducts audits on a quarterly basis with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

k

The Police Commissioner's Office, with IAU assistance, has convened, at least quarterly, a meeting

of senior managers to review all RMS data to evaluate officer performance territory-wide and make

appropriate comparisons of officers, supervisors, units, and mangers to identify any significant

patterns or series of incidents.

Ran On: 08/23/2014

I Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance Goal Date:
I Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

Page 76 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 14 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

065
Order Content

Not In Substantial Compliance

08/15/2014

The VIPD will maintain all personally identifiable information about an officer included in the risk management system during the officer's employment with the VIPD for at least five years. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis will be maintained indefinitely in the risk management system. On an ongoing basis, the VIPD will enter information into the risk management system in a timely, accurate, and complete manner, and maintain the data in a secure and confidential manner.

Activity History
Data Input Plan and RMS protocoVpolicy has been resubmitted and is awaiting approval from Department of Justice. Quarterly review commencing November 30, 2012 will be conducted to ensure compliance. Blue Team technical issues will be resolved, training will be ongoing, and all districts will receive a round of training byJanuary 31, 2013. By November 30, 2012, VIPD will Provide DOJ with an action plan for achieving sufficient numbers of staff to input current and historic data or outlining how it intends to use existing staff to accomplish this task. The plan will include an implementation date subject to the agreement of the parties. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training. By November 30, 2012, VIPD will Provide DOJ with an action plan for achieving sufficient numbers of staff to input current and historic data or outlining how it intends to use existing staff to accomplish this task. The plan will include an implementation date subject to the agreement of the parties. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or retraining.

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
The information required by 65 is entered and appropriately maintained with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2·Training/Execution:

Status Date:

Phase 3-Consistent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Satisfied

......................................................................................................................................................

a

The VIPD has received approval from DOJ, and implemented a protocol for using the RMS.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

.

..

..

.

.

•

•

•

•

•

.

.

.

..

..

..

..

..

..

•

•

•

•

..

.

.

.

..

..

..

..

..

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.••.

..

..

..

.•.

..

.

.

.

..

..

..

.••.

..

..

..

.

.

.

•

..

..

..

..

..

.•.

..

.

.

.

..

..

.•.

Compliance Goal Date:
..........•

•

.

.

.

..

08/15/2014
....••....

..

.

.

•

b

The VIPD has audited the RMS and confirmed that it reflects the protocol.

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 77 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 15 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Substantial

.

...

.

...

•••..•.

.

...

.

...

.

...

.

.••

....

...

.

...

.

...

••••

•

.

...

.

...

.

..•••

•

.

...

.

...

.

...

•••..

.

...

.

...

.

.••

...

.

...

.

...

.

..•••

•

•.

.

Compliance Goal Data:
............•

•

.

...

.

08/15/2014
..........•••

•

•

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Data

Goal

066

Substantial Compliance

02/10/2014

Order Content

The new risk management system will be purchased off the shelf and customized by VIPD. Alternatively·, the new risk management system may be developed and implemented according to the following schedule: a. Within 150 days of the effective date of this Agreement, subject to the review and approval of DOJ, the VI PO will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP). b. Within 270 days of the issuance of the RFP, or later with the agreement of DOJ, the VIPO will select the contractor to create the risk management system. c. Within 150 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the VIPO will submit the protocol for using the risk management system to DOJ for review and approval. The VIPO will share drafts of this document with DOJ and the Monitor (a position described in Section VII) to allow DOJ and the Monitor to become familiar with the document as it develops and to provide informal comments on it. The VIPO and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final approval within 30 days after it is presented for review and approval. d. Within 14 months of selecting the contractor, the VI PO will have ready for testing a beta version of the risk management system consisting of: i) server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the VIPD's existing automated systems; ii) necessary data base software installed and configured; iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data;. and iv) the use of force information system completed, including historic data. DOJ and the Monitor will have the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version using use of force data and test data created specifically for purposes of checking the risk management system. e. The risk management system computer program and computer hardware will be operational and fully implemented within 20 months of the selection of the risk management system contractor.

Activity History
IAPRO database is being utilized and the Blue Team system is continuously progressing toward completion. The installation of the program was completed on 3/23/10 at the Internal Affairs Bureau on St. Thomas. Working group members will conduct bi-monthly review commencing November 30, 2012 to ensure compliance with a through g. Blue Team technical issues will be resolved, training will be ongoing, and all districts will receive a round of training by January 31, 2013. By November 30, 2012, VI PO will Provide DOJ with an action plan for achieving sufficient numbers of staff to input current and historic data or outlining how it intends to use existing staff to accomplish this task. The plan will include an implementation date subject to the agreement of the parties. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
See below

Phase 1-Pollcy Status
Satisfied
Ran On: 08/23/2014

Status Data:
10/13/2013

Phase 2-Trainlng/Exacutlon:
Satisfied

Status Data:
10/13/2013

Phase 3-Conslstant Application:
Satisfied

Status Data:
Page 78 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 16 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

......................................................................................................................................................

a

Completed

I Substantial Compliance

I Substantial
Compliance

I

Goal Date: .

.

b

Completed

I Substantial Compliance

I Substantial
Compliance

I

Goal Date: .

_

c

Within 150 days of the effective date of this Agreement, subject to the review and approval of DOJ,

the VIPD will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP).

I Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

d

Within 270 days of the issuance of the RFP, or later with the agreement of DOJ, the VIPD will select

the contractor to create the risk management system.

I Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Goal Date:
..........

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

e

Within 150 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the VIPO will submit the protocol for using

the risk management system to DOJ for review and approval. The VIPO will share drafts of this

document with DOJ and the Monitor (a position described in Section VII) to allow DOJ and the

Monitor to become familiar with the document as it develops and to provide informal comments on it.

The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final approval within 30

days after it is presented for review and approval.

I Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

...........................

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Goal Date:
..........

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

f

Within 14 months of selecting the contractor, the VIPO will have ready for testing a beta version of the

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 79 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 17 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task
risk management system consisting of: i) server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the VIPD's existing automated systems; ii) necessary data base software installed and configured; iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and iv) the use of force information system completed, including historic data. DOJ and the Monitor will have the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version using use of force data and test data created specifically for purposes of checking the risk management system.

g

The risk management system computer program and computer hardware will be operational and fully

implemented within 20 months of the selection of the risk management system contractor.

Ran On: 08/23/2014

I Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance Goal Date:
I Substantial Compliance
I Substantial
Compliance Goal Data: _ ~..... _ _ _ ____,
Page 80 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 18 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

067

NA

08/07/2013

Order Content

Prior to implementation of the new risk management system, the VIPD will continue to use existing databases and resources to the fullest extent possible, to identify patterns of conduct by VIPD officers or groups of officers.

Activity History Before implementation of the new risk management system existing data bases and resources were used. VIPD will maintain documentation of how it identified and addressed patterns of officer conduct based on existing databases and resources and provide this documentation on a quarterly basis to the Monitor, starting in the 3rd quarter of 2012.

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement NA

Status Date:

Status Date:

Phase 3.Consistent Application:

Status Date:

Not Applicable
......................................................................................................................................................

a

The VIPD has, within 120 days, prepare for the review and approval of DOJ, and thereafter

implement, a protocol for using the risk management system.

NA

I

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

b

The VIPD will submit for the review and approval of DOJ all proposed modifications to the protocol

prior to implementing such modifications.

NA

I

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 81 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 19 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

068

NA

05/07/2010

Order Content

Following the initial implementation of the risk management system, and as experience and the availability of new technology may warrant, the VI PO may propose to add, subtract, or modify data tables and fields, modify the list of documents scanned or electronically attached, and add, subtract, or modify standardized reports and queries. The VIPD will submit all such proposals for review and approval by DOJ before implementation.

Activity History
To be determined as the need arises.

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
VIPD receives approval from DOJ for all modifications to RMS prior to implementation

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Data:

Phase 2-Tralnlng/Executlon:

Status Date:

Phase 3-Conslstant Application:

Status Date:

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

NotA licable

......................................................................................................................................................

a

Following the initial implementation of the risk management system, and as experience and the

availability of new technology may warrant, the VIPD may propose to add, subtract, or modify data

tables and fields, modify the list of documents scanned or electronically attached, and add, subtract,

or modify standardized reports and queries.

NA

I

Substantial Compliance
•..............•.....................•••.................•........•••••••...••..•••••••••..••.•...•••••••••••....••.••••G••oa•l•D•a.t.a.:..•.....••••••••.••...

b

The VIPD will submit all such proposals for review and approval by DOJ before implementation.

NA

I

Substantial

Compliance

..

..

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

..

..

..

..

•

•

•

..

..

.

.

.

..

..

..

..

..

•

•

•

•

.•.

..

..

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

•

•

•

..

..

..

..

..

..

.

••.

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

..

..

•

•

•

•

•

..

..

..

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

•

Goal Date:
............

.

.

.

•

•

.

.

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

•

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 82 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 20 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

069
Order Content

Not in Substantial Compliance

08/15/2014

The VIPD will develop a protocol for conducting audits. The protocol will be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol will establish a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all VIPD zones.

Activity History
Finalize Audit Protocol and submit to DOJ by November 30, 2013. Auditors to attend training re: conducting audits by April30, 2013. Train staff regarding Audit Protocol by June 30, 2013. Audit will commence June 30, 2013 By June 30, 2013, VIPO will implement systems to ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
The VIPD has developed an audit protocol that includes a regular and fixed schedule for conducting audits to ensure that they occur sufficiently, frequently and cover all VIPO zones. The VIPD creates an audit capacity and identifies staff to carry out the protocol. =>95% of the officers or supervisors charged with conducting audits have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training on the audit protocol and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if the officers or supervisors charged with conducting audits have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the officers or supervisors have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where officers or supervisors have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the officers or supervisors. All training comports with the requirements of the Consent Decree, and is taught from curricula/lessons plan that: (a) follow a standard format; (b) identify training objectives; (c) incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises); and (d) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal counsel. In =>90% of the instances when an audit is conducted, each officer or supervisor charged with conducting the audit uses the protocol with a reasonable level of accuracy, completeness and timeliness.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Trainlng/Executlon:

Status Date:

Phase 3..Consistent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Satisfied

10/13/2013

......................................................................................................................................................

a

The VI PO has developed a protocol for conducting audits. The protocol will be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

.

.

..

..

.

.

.

..

..

.

.

.

..

.•

.

.

.•.

•

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

..

.

.

.

•

•

..

.

.

.

..

..

.

.

.

..

•

•

•.

..

.

.

.

..

..

.

.

•

•.

..

.

.

.

..

..

.

.

.

•

•

•

.

..

..

.

.

.

..

..

•

•

.

..

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

Compliance Goal Date:
•..........

.

.

.

.•.

08/15/2014
..........

..

•

.

.

The protocol establishes a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient
Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 83 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 21 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status
By Paragraph and Sub-Task

b frequency, and cover all VlPD zones

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

08/15/2014

.

.••

•

•

•

•

..

.

..

..

.

..

...

..

...

..

...

..

.

..

.•••

.••.

...

..

...

..

.

..

..

.

..

..

.

..

•

•

...

..

.

..

..

.

..

..

.

..

..

.

..

.••

•

•

•

•

..

.

..

..

.

..

..

.

..

...

..

Goal Date:
.....••••••.

•

.

..

..

.

..

..

.

..

..

.

..

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

070

Substantial Compliance

12/18/2013

Order Content

The VlPD will develop a disciplinary matrix to take into account an officer's violations of different rules, rather than just repeated violations of the same rule. The VIPD will further revise this matrix to increase the penalties for uses of excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, or dishonesty, to reflect the seriousness of those infractions. The revised disciplinary matrix will provide the VIPD with the discretion to impose any appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes the officer's misconduct exhibits a lack of fitness for duty. This revised matrix will be subject to the review and approval of DOJ.

Activity History
Revisions to Disciplinary will be forwarded to USDOJ by November 1, 2012. Competency-based training of all staff by Feb. 15, 2013 and ongoing documented refresher training through in-services and roll call/commanders call By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
Obtained DOJ approval of a disciplinary matrix that: (a) accounts for an officer's violations of different rules, rather than just repeated violations of the same rule; (b) is revised to increase the penalties for uses of excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, or dishonesty, to reflect the seriousness of those infractions; and, (c) provides the VIPD with the discretion to impose any appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes the officer's misconduct exhibits a lack of fitness for duty. Adopted a disciplinary policy that guides the use of the disciplinary matrix. =>900/o of disciplinary penalty decisions are consistent with the penalties set forth in the matrix.

Phase1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Training/Execution:

Status Date:

Phase 3-conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Applicable

Not Ap licable

......................................................................................................................................................

a

The VIPO has developed a disciplinary matrix to take into account an officer's violations of different

rules, rather than just repeated violations of the same rule.

I

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 84 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 22 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Substantial Compliance Goal Data:

b

The VIPD has further revised this matrix to increase the penalties for uses of excessive force,

improper searches and seizures, discrimination, or dishonesty, to reflect the seriousness of those

infractions.

I Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance Goal Data:

c

The revised disciplinary matrix provides the VIPD with the discretion to impose any appropriate

punishment when the VIPD believes the officer's misconduct exhibits a lack of fitness for duty.

I Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

..

.

..

..

..

.

..

..

..

.

•

•

•

•

•

•

..

.

..

..

..

.

..

..

..

.

•

..

..

.

..

..

..

.

•

•

•

..

..

.

..

..

..

.

..

•

•

..

.

..

..

..

.

..

..

.••

..

..

..

.

..

..

..

.

•

•

•

•

•

..

..

.

..

..

.

Goal Data:
.....•••..

..

..

.

..

..

..

.

..

•

.••.

.

..

d

This revised matrix has been reviewed and approved by the DOJ.

I Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

.

.

.

..

.

.

•

•

.

.

..

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

•

•

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

..

.

•

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

..

.

.

..

.

•

•.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

•

.

..

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

•

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

Goal
......

Data:
.....

..

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

•

••

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 85 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 23 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

071

Not In Substantial Compliance

Order Content

VIPD policy will identify clear time periods by which the various steps of a complaint adjudication process should be completed, from complaint receipt to the imposition of discipline, if any. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions will not be granted without the Police Commissioner's written approval and notice to the complainant. In the limited circumstances when an extension is necessary, appropriate tolling provisions will be outlined in the policy.

Activity History
Disciplinary Matrix previously approved. However, further revision needed. Revisions will be forwarded to USDOJ by November 1, 2012. Competency-based training of all staff by February 15, 2013 and ongoing documented refresher training through in-services and roll call/commanders call. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies, including (but not limited to) review for inclusion of written Police Commissioner extension approval in investigatory files. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
The VIPD has developed a policy that establishes clear time periods by which the various steps of a complaint adjudication process should be completed, from complaint receipt to the imposition of discipline, if any. =>90% of the time, these established time periods are not violated except for in exigent circumstances and with the Police Commissioner's written approval for tolling and notice to the complainant.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Tralnlng/Executlon:

Status Date:

Phase 3-Conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Satisfied

...................•.............................••.............••...............•............•.................•................•.............•......

a

The VIPD has developed a policy that establishes clear time periods by which the various steps of a

complaint adjudication process should be completed, from complaint receipt to the imposition of

discipline, if any.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

b

=>90% of the time, these established time periods are not violated except for in exigent

circumstances and with the Police Commissioner's written approval for tolling and notice to the

complainant.

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:
I I Not in Substantial Compliance
Page 86 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 24 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

c

In the limited circumstances when an extension is necessary, appropriate tolling provisions will be

outlined in the policy.

Substantial Compliance Goal Data:
I I Not in Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance Goal Data:

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Data

Goal

072

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Order Content

Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD will not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix indicates the imposition of discipline. The VIPD will not fail to consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action is required in a case because discipline has been imposed on the officer.

Activity History
Disciplinary Matrix previously approved. However, further revision needed. Revisions will be forwarded to USDOJ by November 1, 2012 Competency-based training of all staff by February 15, 2013 and ongoing documented refresher training through in-services and roll call/commanders call. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement In =>90% of the cases where the matrix calls for discipline, discipline is imposed. In =>90% of the cases where discipline is imposed, there is evidence that the VIPD has also considered non-disciplinary corrective action.

Phase 1-Policy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Training/Execution:

Status Date:

Phase 3-conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Satisfied

......................................................................................................................................................

a

In =>90% of the cases where the matrix calls for discipline, discipline is imposed.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 87 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 25 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Substantial

Compliance

.

..

..

.

..

..

•

.

.•.

..

.

..

..

...

..

•

.•..

..

..

.

..

..

..•••.

..

.

..

..

..

.

..

..

.

•

•

..

..

.

..

..

..

.

.••••••.

.

..

..

.

..

..

..

•.

..

..

.

..

..

.

..

..

..

•

••.

Goal
.....

Data:
.......

.•••••

•

..

..

...

..

..

.

.

b

In =>90% of the cases where discipline is imposed, there is evidence that the VIPD has also

considered non-disciplinary corrective action.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.............

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.............

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Goal Data:
..........

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Paragraph
073

Paragraph Status
I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Data

Goal
05/23/2014

Order Content

The VIPD will continue to coordinate and review all use of force policy and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy. The VIPD will conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually.

Activity History
VIPD has hired a training consultant to coordinate and review all use of force policies and lesson plans. All Lesson Plans for the In-Service Training has been completed. On an ongoing basis, continue to consult with counsel to ensure compliance with Territorial law. Finalize Audit Protocol and submit to DOJ and the Monitors' subject matter experts by November 30, 2012. Auditors to attend outside training re: conducting audits by April30, 2013. Train staff regarding Audit Protocol by June 30, 2013. By June 30, 2013, VIPD will implement systems to ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
The Training Division has coordinated and reviewed all use of force policies and training. This review occurs: (a) prior to the issuance of any new policy and scheduling of any new training, and, thereafter, (b) at least semi-annually. The Training Division issues reports to DOJ and OIM regarding its review of use of force policies and training programs within a reasonable time after each review, or at a minimum every six (6) months. The Director of Training provides written approval for all changes to previously approved use of force training.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Data:

Phase 2-Training/Execution:

Status Date:

Phase 3-Conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Not Applicable

Not Satisfied

Not Satisfied

......................................................................................................................................................

The Training Division has coordinated and reviewed all use of force policies and training. This review Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 88 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 26 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status
By Paragraph and Sub-Task

a

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

occurs: (a) prior to the issuance of any new policy and scheduling of any new training, and, thereafter,

(b) at least semi-annually.

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

b

The Training Division issues reports to DOJ and OIM regarding its review of use of force policies and

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

training programs within a reasonable time after each review, or at a minimum every six (6) months.

Substantial

Compliance

05/23/2014

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.................

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Goal Date:
..........

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

c

The Director of Training provides written approval for all changes to previously approved use of force training.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

..

..

.

.

.

..

..

..

.••••••.

..

..

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

..

.•.

..

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

..

..

..

.••.

..

.

.

.

..

..

..

..

..

•

..

•

•

•

•

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

..

..

..

..

.

•

•

••.

.

.

.

..

..

Compliance Goal Date:
............

•

•

.

•

•

05/23/2014
•..........

..

..

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 89 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 27 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

074

Not In Substantial Compliance

05/23/2014

Order Content

The Director of Training, either directly or through his/her designee(s), consistent with applicable law and VlPD policy will: a. ensure the quality of all use of force training; b. develop and implement use of force training curricula; c. select and train VlPD officer trainers; d. develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service training; e. in conjunction with the Chiefs, develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures; f. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and g. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.

Activity History
Instructor Development Course/Train the Trainer is scheduled for October 15-19, 2012 (STX), October 8-12, 2012 (STT) and will be completed by October 19, 2012. 40hrs In-Service Training was completed in 2011. The Training Bureau will continue its 40hrs In-Service Training in both districts for supervisor and officers which will start on June 25, 2012 and end September 21, 2012. The Director of Training will develop and implement a tracking system to track training attendance, by November 30, 2012 and shall periodically test for proficiency on the policies. By June 30, 2013, VIPD will implement systems to ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training. Competency-based training of officers and supervisors on remaining policies by Jan 31, 2013 By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system). Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call training. Incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy by Jan. 31, 2013. Yearly review of policies. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
See below

Phase 1-Policy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Trainlng/Executlon:

Status Date:

Phase 3.Consistent Application:

Status Date:

Not Applicable

Not Satisfied

Not Satisfied

............................•............................•..••.............................•.....................................•..•.•••.............

a

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff reviews all use of force policies.

2.

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff obtains legal review of all use of force training

curricula.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

05/23/2014

Goal Date:

..............................................................•••.........................•..............................••...........................

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 90 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 28 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

b

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed and implemented use of force training

curricula (including lesson plans).

2.

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed a process for the review of

documentation of all uses of force by sworn personnel to identify patterns and trends that will

influence training needs.

3.

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have conducted monthly reviews of use of force

incident reports to evaluate training needs.

c

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed a process to continually select and

evaluate VIPD officer trainers.

2.

>95% of the training staff has received appropriate training and certification in the subject

matter(s) that they are assigned to teach.

d

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have reviewed and provided written approval of all

curricula, course schedules and lesson plans.

2.

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have created and maintained a training record

system that captures attendance records, instructor and student evaluations, and test results.

e Ran On:

The Training Director and/or his/her staff, in conjunction with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs, have

created a process for the development, implementation and approval of all Roll Call training curricula.

2.

The Training Director and/or his/her staff, in conjunction with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs,

have developed, implemented and approved all Roll Call training curricula.

3.

The Training Director and/or his/her staff have maintained written documentation of this

process.

08/23/2014

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05123/2014

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05123/2014

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Page 91 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 29 of 46
Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

f

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have created and maintained a training record system

that captures attendance records, instructor and student evaluations, and test results.

2.

For ?90% of the conducted Consent Decree related training sessions, evaluation review

forms were collected from class participants.

g

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed a process to review use of force

incidents to identify patterns and trends that will influence training needs.

2.

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have conducted semi-annual reviews of use of

force incidents to evaluate training needs.

3.

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed, reviewed and implemented all

use of force training curricula (including lesson plans).

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

Page 92 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 30 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

075

Not In Substantial Compliance

05/23/2014

Order Content

The VIPD will continue to provide training consistent with VIPD policy, law, and proper police practices, and will ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by instructors. The VIPD will make best efforts to train each work shift as a team in their use of force training.

Activity History
On an ongoing basis, continue to consult with counsel to ensure compliance with Territorial law. Finalize Audit Protocol and submit to DOJ and the Monitors' subject mater experts by November 30, 2012. By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system). Auditors to attend training re: conducting audits by April 30, 2013. Train staff regarding Audit Protocol by June 30, 2013. Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call training. Incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy by Jan. 31, 2013. Yearly review of policies. By June 30, 2013, VIPD will implement systems to ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training.

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
The VIPD has delivered training that is consistent with the content of approved lesson plans. The Director of Training and/or his/her staff has developed a plan to provide training for each work shift as a team on use of force and implements that plan. To the extent possible, the Director of Training and/or his/ her staff have provided training for each work team on use of force

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Trainlng/Execution:

Status Date:

Phase 3-Conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Not Applicable

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Satisfied

......................................................................................................................................................

a

The VIPO has delivered training that is consistent with the content of approved lesson plans.

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

I Substantial
Compliance Goal Date: _

05/23/2014

b

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff has developed a plan to provide training for each work

shift as a team on use of force and implements that plan. To the extent possible, the Director of

Training and/or his/her staff have provided training for each work team on use of force

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 93 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 31 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

Paragraph
076

Paragraph Status
I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal
05/23/2014

Order Content

The VIPD shall continue to keep adequate records of lesson plans and other training materials, such that the most current training documents are maintained in a central, commonly accessible file, and are clearly dated.

Activity History
By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system). By November 30, 2012 and on ongoing basis, provide Monitors' subject matter experts with training curricula and schedules at least 15 days in advance of training, but preferably 30 days in advance.

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
The VIPO has established a central, commonly accessible repository for lesson plans and training materials. =95% of training materials are clearly dated. Training records are maintained in a central, commonly accessible repository. =95% of lesson plans contain all of the required signatures of review and approval.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Training/Execution:

Status Date:

Phase 3-Conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Not Applicable

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Satisfied

......................................................................................................................................................

a

The VIPD has established a central, commonly accessible repository for lesson plans and training

materials.

=95% of training materials are clearly dated.

Training records are maintained in a central, commonly accessible repository.

=95% of lesson plans contain all of the required signatures of review and approval.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

05/23/2014

...

.

.••

...

.

...

...

.

...

.

...

...

.

...

..••

•

••••

•

...

.

...

....

...

.

...

.•

..•••

•

.

.•..

.

...

.

...

...

.

...

.

...

.•

.•

•

•

••..

...

.

...

.

...

...

.

Goal
.......

Date:
......•••

•

•

••••

...

.

...

...

.

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 94 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 32 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Data

Goal

077

Not In Substantial Compliance

05/23/2014

Order Content

The VIPD shall continue to maintain training records regarding every VIPD officer that reliabily indicate the training each officer has received. The training records shall, at a minimum, include the course description and duration, curriculum, and instructor for each officer.

Activity History
By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system).

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
The Director of Training and/or his/her staff has maintained current and substantially complete training records for =95% of VIPD Officers.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Data:

Phase 2-Tralnlng/Execution:

Status Data:

Phase 3..Conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Not Applicable

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Satisfied

........•....................•...................•...................•••••••....................•..........................•.....•.••.................

a

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff has maintained current and substantially complete

training records for =95% of VIPD Officers.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Data:

05/23/2014

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 95 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 33 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

078

Not In Substantial Compliance

05/23/2014

Order Content

The Training Director, in consultation with the Attorney General's Office, will review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure compliance with applicable laws and VIPD policy.

Activity History
By November 30, 2012, and on an ongoing basis, VIPD shall consult with VI AG to ensure that all use of force training and use of force policies are in compliance with applicable laws and VIPD policy.

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
The Training Director and/or his/her staff has reviewed 100% of all force-related policies and training curricula/lessons plans regularly [at least annually] to ensure compliance with applicable laws and VIPD policy and there is documentation of this review. 100% of force-related training curricula/lesson plans adequately incorporate critical thinking, decision-making instruction, applicable law(s) and VIPD policy. The VIPD has developed a process by which the Attorney General's Office reviews any additions, changes and/or modifications regarding use of force training or policies to ensure compliance with applicable laws. 100% of force-related policies and training curricula/lessons plans have received at least annual review by the Attorney General's Office and those reviews are documented in writing.

Phase 1-Policy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Trainlng/Exocution:

Status Date:

Phase 3..Conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Not Applicable

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Satisfied

......................................................................................................................................................

a

The Training Director and/or his/her staff has reviewed 100% of all force-related policies and training

curricula/lessons plans regularly [at least annually] to ensure compliance with applicable laws and

I

VIPD policy and there is documentation of this review.

100% of force-related training curricula/lesson plans adequately incorporate critical thinking,

decision-making instruction, applicable law(s) and VIPD policy.

The VIPD has developed a process by which the Attorney General's Office reviews any additions,

changes and/or modifications regarding use of force training or policies to ensure compliance with

applicable laws.

100% of force-related policies and training curricula/lessons plans have received at least annual

review by the Attorney General's Office and those reviews are documented in writing.

Ran On: 08/23/2014

05/23/2014
Page 96 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 34 of 46

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Substantial Compliance Goal Data:
I I Not In Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance Goal Data:
Page 97 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 35 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

079

Not In Substantial Compliance

05/23/2014

Order Content

The VI PO will continue to provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on use of force. Such training will include and address the following topics: a. the VIPD's use of force model, as described in this Agreement; b. proper use of force decision-making; c. the VI PO's use of force reporting requirements; d. the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements; e. examples of scenarios faced by VIPD officers that illustrate proper use of force decision-making; f. interactive exercises that emphasize proper use of force decision-making; g. de-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without using force, and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation even when the use of force would be legally justified; h. threat assessment; i. appropriate training on conflict management.

Activity History

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
At least annually, the Training Director and/or his/her staff develop a training schedule and curricula for 100% of all use of force related policies that incorporates and addresses all of the components identified in 79(a)-(i). At least annually, the Training Director and/or his/her staff implement that training schedule and curricula for 100% of all use of force related policies based on 79(a)-(i). =>95% of sworn personnel have (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training for each new or revised use of force policy that includes and addresses the issues in paragraph 79(a)-(i) and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel in each of the categories of recruits, officers, supervisors and managers have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel. All training comports with the requirements of the Consent Decree, and is taught from curricula/lessons plan that: (a) follow a standard format; (b) identify training objectives; (c) incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises); and (d) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal counsel. Where train-the-trainer or specific force tool certifications are required, =>95% of recruits, officers, supervisors and managers have those certifications.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Training/Execution:

Status Date:

Phase 3-conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Not Applicable

Not Satisfied

Not Satisfied

......................................................................................................................................................

a

=>95% of sworn personnel have (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training for each new or revised use of force policy that includes and addresses the issues in paragraph

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

79(a)-(i) and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel in each

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 98 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 36 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

of the categories of recruits, officers, supervisors and managers have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or
Where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel.

b

At least annually, the Training Director and/or his/her staff develop a training schedule and curricula

for 100% of all use of force related policies that incorporates and addresses all of the components

identified in 79(a)-(i).

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

c

At least annually, the Training Director and/or his/her staff implement that training schedule and

curricula for 100% of all use of force related policies based on 79(a)-(i).

d

All training comports with the requirements of the Consent Decree, and is taught from

curricula/lessons plan that: (a) follow a standard format; (b) identify training objectives; (c)

incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises); and (d) indicate

that it has been reviewed by legal counsel.

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

...........

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

...........

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Compliance Goal Date:
...........

.

.

.

.

.

.

05/23/2014
...............

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 99 of 109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 37 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

e

Where train-the-trainer or specific force tool certifications are required, =>95% of recruits, officers,

supervisors and managers have those certifications.

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

05/23/2014

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

080

Substantial Compliance

08/01/2014

05/23/2014

Order Content

The VIPD will continue to provide training to all its officers on the VIPD citizen complaint process. The VIPD will develop a protocol for all its officers on appropriate conduct and responses in handling citizens' complaints and will train officers in the protocol.

Activity History
Competency-based training of officers and supervisors on remaining policies by Jan 31, 2013 By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system). Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call training. Incorporate competency-based training on policies into Police Academy by Jan. 31, 2013. Yearly review of policies. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training. 08/01/14- During the 2d Quarter 2014, efforts by team members as demonstrated by audit reports, indicated Phase 3 level Implementation has been satisfied and thus this paragraph is now in Substantial Compliance.

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
The VIPD has developed policies or protocols related to the citizen complaint process, which address appropriate conduct and response in handling citizen complaints. =95% of sworn personnel have (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training for each new or revised complaint process related policy and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Training/Execution:

Status Date:

Phase 3-Conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

08/15/2014

......................................................................................................................................................

a
Ran On:

=95% of sworn personnel have (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training for each new or revised complaint process related policy and demonstrated proficiency through a
08/23/2014

I Substantial Compliance
Page 100 of 10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 38 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or
Where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel

Substantial

Compliance

05/23/2014

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

Goal Data:
..........

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

b

The VIPD has developed policies or protocols related to the citizen complaint process, which address

appropriate conduct and response in handling citizen complaints.

I Substantial Compliance

Substantial

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

..

.

.••

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

..

•

•

•

..

.

..

.

.

..

.

..

.

•

•

•.

.

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

•

•

..

.

..

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

..

.

•

•••

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

•

•

•

..

.

..

.

..

.

.

..

.

..

.

.

Compliance Goal Data:
.••••......

.

..

.

.

..

05/23/2014
.....••••

.

..

.

.

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 101 of 10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 39 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

081
Order Content

Not In Substantial Compliance

05/23/2014

The VIPD will provide training on appropriate burdens of proof to all supervisors, as well as the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility (to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform, and legally appropriate). The VIPD will also continue to provide training to supervisors on leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training will be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities, and will be made part of annual inservice training.

Activity History
Competency-based training of supervisors on remaining policies (i.e., Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints Policy) by Jan 31, 2013 By November 30, 2012, implement system to ensure all staff are trained on policies (i.e., a tracking system). Refresher training on policies ongoing, through documented, periodic in-service and roll call training. Yearly review of policies. By June 30, 2013, in consultation with DOJ, implement audit tools to ensure staff are complying with the policies. Also ensure that lapses in policy implementation are addressed by system of documented discipline and/or re-training

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement
=>95% of supervisors have (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service annual training incorporating the requirements of 78-81 and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if VIPD supervisors have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn supervisor has entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where supervisors have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the supervisors. =>95% of newly promoted supervisors have attended and successfully completed the initial training within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibility incorporating the requirements of 78-81 and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if newly promoted supervisors have not successfully completed the required training within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibility and passed the proficiency test(s), the newly promoted supervisor has entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where newly promoted supervisors have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the newly promoted supervisor.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Training/Execution:

Status Date:

Phase 3-Conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Satisfied

10/13/2013

Not Satisfied

......................................................................................................................................................

a

=>95% of supervisors have (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service annual

training incorporating the requirements of 78-81 and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency

test(s); or (b) if VIPD supervisors have not successfully completed the required training and passed

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 102 of 10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 40 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

the proficiency test(s). the sworn supervisor has entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where supervisors have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests. the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the supervisors.

Substantial

.

.

..

.

.

..

•

.

.

..

.

.

..

.

.

..

.

•

•

..

.

.

..

.

.

..

.

.

•

•

•

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

.

.

..

.

.

..

.

.

..

.

.

..

•

•

•

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

..

.

.

..

.

.

.••.

.

.

..

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

.

•

•

•

.

..

.

.

Compliance Goal Date:
...........

.

.

.

.

•

•

05/23/2014
•.•.......

..

.

.

.

b

=>95% of newly promoted supervisors have attended and successfully completed the initial training

within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibility incorporating the requirements of 78-81 and

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if newly promoted supervisors have not

successfully completed the required training within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibility

and passed the proficiency test(s), the newly promoted supervisor has entered and successfully

completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the

proficiency test(s); or

Substantial

Compliance

05/23/2014

••

..

.

..

.

..

.

...

•

•

.

..

.

...

...

•

•

.

...

...

...

..••..

...

...

...

•

••.

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

••••..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

•••..

...

...

...

...

•

•••..

...

...

Goal Date:
........•••..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..••••

..

.

..

c

Where newly promoted supervisors have not successfully completed training and passed the

proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

disciplinary action against the newly promoted supervisor.

Substantial

...

.....

••

••.

.

....

.

...•

••

•...

.

....

.

.••

••

•...

.....

.••

••

.

....

.

....

.

..•

•...

.

....

.

....

•••

••

•...

.

....

.

....

.

••

••.

.....

.....

Compliance Goal Date:
...••••........

.

05/23/2014
....•••••.....

.

..

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 103 of 10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 41 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Data

Goal

100

Not in Substantial Compliance

Order Content

The Territory of the Virgin Islands and the VIPD shall implement each and every provision of this Agreement as that term is defined in Paragraph 30 of this Agreement.

Activity History

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Roqulromont
In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, all involved officers are identified in the investigating supervisor's reports. In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, all witnesses, to the extent practicable, are identified in the investigating supervisor's reports. In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor ensured that efforts were made to identify and interview witnesses, and documented these efforts in writing. In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents that resulted in injuries, the investigating supervisor documented the extent of the injuries and any medical treatment rendered in a manner that comports with 36 of the Consent Decree. In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents that resulted in injuries, photographic evidence was collected and maintained in a manner that comports with 36 of the Consent Decree. In =>90% of all reportable use of force reviews, the investigating supervisor provided a finding on whether the use of force was justified under VIPD's use of force policies.

Phase 1-Pollcy Status

Status Data:

Phase 2-Tralnlng/Executlon:

Status Data:

Phase 3-Conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Not Satisfied

Not Satisfied

Not Satisfied

......................................................................................................................................................

a

All uses of force comply with VIPD policies and applicable law.

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Data:

I
L . ._ _ _ _ __ _ _ .

b

As appropriate, Officers disengaged, contained the area, conducted surveillance, waited out the

subject, and/or called in specialized units.

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Data:

When feasible, an individual is allowed to submit to arrest before force is used. Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 104 of 10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 42 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

c

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

Goal Date:
..........

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

d

In use of force incidents, the use of force review concludes that sufficient less lethal alternatives were used where appropriate based on the totality of circumstances.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

Goal Date:
..........

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

e

Patrol and other applicable officers carry less lethal alternatives at all times.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

f

In use of force incidents, choke holds and similar carotid holds were not used, except where deadly

force was authorized.

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

g

In use of force incidents where the use of force review concluded that use of choke holds or similar

carotid holds were not authorized, the VI PO took corrective and/or disciplinary action against the

officer who used a choke hole or other carotid hold.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

..

.

.••

..

.

..

.

..

...

..

.

..

•.

•

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

.••

..

.

..

.

..

...

..

••.

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

•

•

•

•.

.

..

.

..

.

..

...

..

.

•

•

•••

..

.

..

...

..

.

..

.

.•

..

.

..

...

..

Goal Date:
........••

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.•

•

•

.

h

Sworn personnel do not possess or use unauthorized firearms or ammunition.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

..

.

..

..

.

..

..

.

..

..

.

..

..

.

..

..

.

..

..

.

..

..

.

•

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

•.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

•

•

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

•

•

..

.

..

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

•

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

Goal Date:
....••....

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

.

•

•

•

.

.

.

..

.

.

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 105 of 10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 43 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

In cases where an officer is found to be in possession of unauthorized firearms or ammunition, there is evidence that an investigation was conducted and appropriate corrective action was taken.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

..

.

..

.

.•

...

...

.

...

.

..

.

•

.

...

...

.

...

.

•

•

•.

.

...

.

..

.

...

.

•

•

.

...

.

..

.

...

.

..

.

.•

.•

•

•.

.

..

.

...

.

..

.

...

.

.•

..

.

...

.

..

.

...

.

..

.

.•

•

•••

•

•

.

Goal Date:
..........

.

...

.

..

•••

•

••.

.

...

.

...

Critical Firearm Discharges are documented in an RRR.

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

.

.

.

.

..

..

•

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

..

•

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

..

.

.

.

.

•

•.

..

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

•

•

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

..

.

.

•

•

.

..

..

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

..

•

•

•

•

•

.

..

..

.

.

.

.

.

Goal Date:
.........•

.

.

.

.

..

..

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

..

.

.

k

In reported incidents involving off-duty officers taking police action, the off-duty officer-s conduct

comports with policies regarding off-duty officers taking police action and 31 (a)- (g) of the Consent

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Decree.

Substantial

Compliance

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

Goal Date:
............

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

Off-duty officers notified on-duty sworn personnel or local law enforcement officers before taking police actions, except in exigent circumstances.

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

..

.

..••

..

.

...

.

..

•••

•

.

..

.

..

.

...

.

•

•

.

...

.

..

.

...

•

••..

.

..

.

...

.

.••

...

...

.

..

.

...

.

•

•

.

...

.

..

.

...

...

.

•

•

•.

.

...

.

..

.

..

.

...

.

•

•

.

•

•.

.

Goal Date:
..........

...

...

•.

.

..

.

...

...

.

.•

.•

m

In incidents where an off-duty officer taking police action appeared to have consumed alcohol, the

off-duty officer submitted to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

.

..

..

..

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

.

..

..

..

..

..

•

•

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

..

..

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.••.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

•••.

..

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

.••.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.••.

..

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Goal Date:
.....••..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

..

..

..

.

.

.

.

n

In reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor had no involvement in the incident

(i.e., he/she was not involved in the use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury,

I I Not In Substantial Compliance

and he/she did not authorize conduct leading to the use of force incident.

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 106 of 10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 44 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

0

Use of force investigations include documented findings of all of the considerations required by 52.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

I Substantial
Compliance Goal Date: ......_ _ _ _ _____.
........................................................................................................................................•.............

p

When administrative investigations are referred to the VIAG or other appropriate agency, the VIPD

has documentation that it has completed, to the extent possible, its own administrative investigation.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

•.

.

.

.

..

..

.

.

.

•

•

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

•

.

.

.

..

..

.

.

.

..

•

•

•

.

.

.

..

..

.

.

.

.

.

•

.•

.

.

.

.

..

..

.

.

.

..

.••

•

.

.

..

..

.

.

.

..

..

..

.

.

.

..

..

..

.

.

.

..

..

.

.

.

.

.

•

•

•

•

.

..

..

Goal Date:
..........

.

.

.

.

•

•

•

.

.

.

..

..

..

.

.

.

..

.

q

RMS reports are generated and distributed to appropriate sworn personnel (e.g., Chiefs, Deputy

Chiefs, and supervisors) on a monthly basis.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

..

...

..••.

.

..

...

...

•

.•

•

..

.

..

.

..

..••.

•.

..

.

..

.

..

•

••.

...

..

.

..

.

.••..

•

...

...

..

.

..

.

•

•

•

•

•.

..

.

..

.

..

...

...

..

•.

...

..

.

..

.

..

...

Goal
..•••••

Date:
.....

...

..

.

..

.

..

.•

•

•

...

...

..

r

The VIPD is utilizing the EIP. Underlying documentation should include documentation of EIP meetings, the Early Intervention Unit Action Plan and Early Intervention Unit Assessment, attendance

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

records of VIPD personnel and all follow-up documentation for completed intervention.

Substantial

Compliance

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

...........

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

...........

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Goal Date:
..........

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

...........

.

.

.

s

Deputy Chiefs, managers and supervisors have initiated EIP interventions based on activity and

pattern assessment contained in the RMS.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

.....

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.........

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

........

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Goal Date:
..........

.

.

.........

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

EIP interventions are based on all relevant and appropriate information, including the nature of the Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 107 of 10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 45 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status
By Paragraph and Sub-Task

officer's assignment, crime trends and crime problems, and not solely the number or percentages of incidents in any category of information recorded in the risk management system.

I I Not In Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance Goal Date:

u

In instances when officers are transferred to a new section or unit, Deputy Chiefs, managers and

supervisors for the relevant section or unit promptly review the RMS records of such officers.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

Goal Date:
...........

.

..

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

v

The VIPD has established a protocol for evaluating whether Deputy Chiefs, managers and

supervisors are able to use the RMS effectively.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

Substantial

Compliance

...

..

.•••...

.....

.••••

.....

..

....•••

•

..

.....

..

....•••

.....

..

.....

..•

•

••..

..

.....

..

.....

•••••.

..

.....

.......

...••••••

•

Goal
.....

Date:
.......

..

.....

•••••.

..

.....

.

w

Disciplinary penalty decisions are consistent with the penalties set forth in the Disciplinary Matrix.

I I Not in Substantial Compliance

I Substantial
Compliance

.

.

•

•

...

.

.

.

...

.

.

•.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.•

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

...

.

•.•

.

...

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

...

.

•..

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

...

.

Goal
.....

Date:
.•...

.

.

...... _
.....

_ _ _ _____.
........•......

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 108 of 10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-3 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 46 of 46

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

Paragraph

Paragraph Status

Substantial Compliance Date

Goal

101

Not In Substantial Compliance

Order Content

The VIPD shall implement immediately all provisions of this Agreement that involve the continuation of current VIPD policies, procedures, and practices. The remaining provisions shall be implemented either by the specified implementation date or, for those provisions that have no specified implementation date, as soon as is reasonably practicable and no later than 150 days after this Agreement's effective date.

Activity History

Paragraph Substantial Compliance Requirement

Phase 1-Policy Status

Status Date:

Phase 2-Training/Execution:

Status Data:

Phase 3.Conslstent Application:

Status Date:

Not Satisfied

Not Satisfied

Not Satisfied

......................................................................................................................................................

I
Substantial
Compliance
Goal Date:

Ran On: 08/23/2014

Page 109 of 10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-4 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 1 of 11
Second Quarterly Report of2014 for the
Independent Monitor for the Virgin Islands Police Department
Appendix C Technology Transition
CHARLES A. GRUBER CONSULTING INC. INDEPENDENT MON ITOR JULY 2014 www.imt-policemonitor.org

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-4 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 2 of 11

Appendix C Technology Transition
Once the IMT took over responsibility for monitoring the VIPD Consent Order, it became evident to us that increased application of technology could improve our monitoring capabilities as well as further improvements in compliance by the VI PD. This would require implementation of several separate components that would complement each other. These components included development of a data management system (OMS) that included both data input and records management (RMS) functions. While this system remains under development, several component functions are currently running at our data center location and should be online for remote team member access by the end of August 2014. The configuration of this system would allow access to the RMS by the VIPD, DOJ, and the US District Court, nature of access to be determined.
Data Management: This system will eventually have many components, including " live" status monitoring of the compliance by the VIPD to all elements of the Consent Decree. By that we mean that as any paragraph changes its compliance or phase compliance level, the system updates not only the data but also the charting and reports available within the system. This component will not only track compliance by paragraph, but also both audit group reporting and quarterly VIPD assessment reports, integrating data loads of the content of both documentation for purposes of analysis. The main screen for this component, referred to as the "Dashboard", which monitors paragraphs 31-81 as well as 100 and 103, is pictured below in Figure 1.

--------....11 1'>\ro Sub·THk CompltanooiPD"'9f"ph Dct>II!VIPD Quorter1y Reports!
[Consent Decree Data Management System) ~ ---•5_8 ________;...._..;;_..,.....,......;...,.....,.....,...---........
Do<... ,., 2ii008.158- = : J

Cowt. ()I~ Ccut of the Virgin 51ends

I-

---}

~ft

~

Consenl Decree Comr1liance Sta tus

J .

_016~_

I
_1

0076~/U~/2E0s14taFbo<irosphort2ng02o0aito<svbitPcaOu~se'olf ro.poe3a1old s

_

_j1O04S//3I0ol//2200_1!~~

­•

, . · ~ r N~_r,.....,i't>

I

LI -OOAlbM ,nDq.Cwes-~ .tdM OFIi 03t1<h -:-:-l.I

•

p.nlh& •

:

I

-.~ ·,.,... · - -

_ _!!!AO'CD<D_:N

.

~tlT'Al'lOr4

I ~~~~ -~ICH!t:R ·-IQlC'fC:OtJiCf__;,3l.e<Dt'~~DI'Tl-.~"C!OtJ!j I.I'Ooi.JtOo\ll
' ; _.,!lA~~ Tt-~ iHuw

±_m j' ttott~'s~A«an&l~ ~ien. l------~~ TEPMNA.llON - -

s

J T•arnAdlon

I

i .__..cmooo- , """"'- t I !

1f uSe-a:--FORC:EPOti::Es
)2 "EV"'-UATlONS.DOCI.t.IENTA~FEVIEWOfUSE<i'FOACE

· 1 . SYtl.wuf~ I ,1.....

... ~~-~om~ t~-,onv201rr~,nrujOIV-----....-----01/1~!·

1

~ 1'"' "' _'.,._. 1 l'l EV"'-llATlON.OO<:Ut.<ENTATION.N<OAEVIEWOFUSEOFFOACE
I ! J~ EVAL.Ui:'T'ION.DOCl.ltwENTAllON.NlOPEVtEWOFUSEOFFORCE

O'ud:Civbl>tr iCMD 1emnhn
1iiott~s~~· ct.cterwbbfi iotD"lDfnftl"llnl

! 01,11S(l014 j oa/15not4

07/03/2014

I 15 EV~ll:lN.~AllON.N¥JPi:VeHOfUsfOfFORCE

j NI:Jit~~~~ ~ ONCic.n.t.tr.r ~CH.Ef.-...hnl rll/1),7014 .

.

j· l5 _EV~~~~~~~OFUS£0FF0Pa .~L~~~~_[ O«t~~EJ.mn~~OI('~l4 l -r.r_-_-_----•,"m'•=!>O,..

Pa.?gr.tfiheo...r. IRODONLY)

OlcetS lhli"''fi{IIMit supt~ON~tt"'fUSt dbct llt UCIOI'I ~ ol ll'l ~olt.JI:US~f;(tpt n -nuclbuf'lroOI'NIQtbfbllotst~dt4rnt-d;;--

VP0 pok-/ n ~Md byOOJ, ·~ .ftl r~tpc:ndtolhe attn. t xtnine 1M W~bftct b..,..,, n..,..- ~ ~bc0fl1:(.-.t ol~. • ...,.,., tha tM IUbfe<t •K.-d

t_

nttdtdt'l'ltdocal .n.n!IOn

~s:;.~,
l .,.,..,._ -)

Figure 1

On this screen, in the upper left, is a live-data chart depicting the current status of compliance w ith the action paragraphs of the Consent Decree (paragraphs 31-81, 100, and 103.) This chart is connected to data w ithin the system and compliance status changes in one of the reporting paragraphs will be updated to the chart without user interaction. The Consent Decree data, along with Court ordered amendments to it, are displayed along with the Court of Record information. In the main part of the screen, each paragraph, along with its content from t he actual order, is displayed, accompanied by selected information such a compliance status, IMT member assignments, etc.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-4 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 3 of 11

As noted across the top of the screen are additional screens indicated by tabs, which delve further into the specifics of each paragraph, VIPD report, or other documentation . Once of these additional screens is shown at Figure 2, below.

Corette.~m. ex deSigMtedlrwesbQ8ting (~(fleers Otll'lts, v.11 r~. evU.Jate:Snd doa6neft each use arOice. and v.i1 compleie the nenaM deSCnpeoo secnon

1d the usc ol fOfce report. Tho norralhoe dcSaJpOon v.i llnclJde a ptedsc desoipdon of the lads and orclfTISfances that etlhet p.JS~~fy 01 tail to ,.,st~fythe otriCCf's

•

...,_ , ___ .. ~~-

· - · · - - - - - · - - · - - ...- ~

. .... :...

• .: ......,; ...........-... ••.:.-- ~--·.... .......1... , .,........_ ..... . .........................

w .._ 'EVALUAllON.DOCUMEilTATIOit AIIOREVIEWOfUSE OFFORCE

) "'-""'

Rl'.lDOt U

b P.n~ :>95% olin& reportable use c1 rorte lndoents, me lf'Pie.StiOanng SlC)e:Msor had no i~ in the lnodetC •,"'!
== ~e. helsnewas not1rNONed intle usc offot'ceinddcft.ris.rherconduddld not ~adtoanlrpy, andhetshe did ..

.

. . ..._... - -· - - - " -

~ noc. ai.Jhorile or partidpa!o in CUlducl teading lo!heuse cl t01ce trddeft).

h =>00% d !he repc:wtable use ct IOfce 1ncidefts.. ht ~sor c~ tis'hef revteW arw::l evabllion

eccordlna toVIPO'suse cttorce tddes and aJ OCher rea.iremercs of 31 ofthe Consett [)e(ree.

Phu.2 •Tt

Para Sub-l.ms
flD4 aa .

ruat.PnCH

SU3T.IHI'l.N. COI4\.!N'a

u<tM\ 100.11. 1CA:r) 11

onrsw<O+" O&.J£ usremrr

Ptfj ~Jn-=>95% of the rcponabteUSeof Ioree i~.lhelnvestigating ~soc hadn0·i~inthe-inodctt ~..,.. (i e ,he!she:wasncxiii\ICWed mtheuse of force tnddett,tiSibefc::oocl.dQd notle.tdto anit'f.'Y, andhc'shedd C
:not ~ atJhorize 01' parttdpate in conWtt leading 10 the use ot forc:e indderi). Ml revteW, ewk.ele, ard doo.rnetc
t ach use~ kwce..

Le:,:::-CIMH*

aous~j

Figure 2
This is one of the working screens, where w e are in the process of splitting compliance at the paragraph level down to sub-tasks within the paragraph too clarify some of the issues related to substantial compliance trigger performance levels. This sub-task procedures is shown in the bottom t able where the substantial compliance is now being broken down to sub-task compliance. Check blocks to the right, in grey shading, control both the paragraph and sub-task level compliance and as the paragraph changes in compliance here, the live chart on the Dashboard will automatically adjust if the changes move the paragraph from "Not in Substantial Compliance" to "Substantial Compliance".
In addition to the above, this screen also tracks the Compliance Phase levels in the three grayed Phase Levels Compliance boxes in the middle of the screen. The resultsof changes here also drive the overall paragraph compliance, with substantial compliance resulting from all three phases being shown as "Satisfied". There are several other tabs associated with the Consent Decree Data Management System (CDDMS) as show n on the remaining tabs, each one drilling down further into the compliance and reporting process. Data from this system forms the basis for the Appendix A in the Quarterly Reports and planned further monthly updates to the VIPD as part of our increased status communication process. An exa mple of the data integration to the Quarterly Reporting system is the front page to this report's Appendix A, wh ich provides the reader with a comprehensive snapshot of the current state of compliance. That front page is shown in Figure 3, below.

-2-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-4 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 4 of 11

Appendix B 2Q2014 Compliance Status By Paragraph and Sub-Task

VIPD Compliance Snapshot 2nd Quarter 2014

Consent Decree Compliance Status
(32}
. A
E
z (2}

Use of Force Group
.m,.
I '•
.I • ·
,I • ~

Ciizen Complaints Gro141
n ~.-i-1· =-.:. , :~t-... ~ ~ .....(.........."..'.' ..

l.lgl & SupervisionGroup
a....J1 (QmpliltiU fot Gtcup l M,..l<ftltnl &Supen;sion
IJ I:a-; (-.,...1_1 ,,_.W ,_.;.,, ....

Trainilg Gro~
O•t rd C...pllsna lotGtoop 4
Tr.~ irq

_ _U.!_':_of Forc_':_~r~14_J _

Gtoop!U..olf« <t

CDC...piWialnds b y - . ,

jih 1 I .. ' .......-.,,

...., --~

/'

;; :

"'i:;;;;-·-!~~ h~-"~

,._.....,..:i·

Clizen Colf1llaints Gro141
~l01ilfftc..n,~Hb CDCacnpiaau lnds by-.

1'[£t1_=l =1

,.d(o I ....I ~: ''*'I

' "'""

, ..ff

·~·

lit!:....... 1'

L!

l II

~-·

-

I ,..., -

--~-

Ran Ore 0810812014

Mgt & Supervision Group
Gtaupl~ · ~ COC""fflioouli"HHs by l\o,.
.......'......I.

Trainilg Gro141
Gr. . . Hr.JIU>c
CO'""""'""li"HHs bylhou
Page 1 of 136

Figure 3
This is an example of the data being drilled down from the paragraph level to t he individual group's compliance status, to the breakdow n of that data into the three component phases, all on one page for the reader to see.
The Monthly Update report to the VIPD might look like the sample that follows in Figure 4. The same styled cover page, w ith the three tiered charting display of status, would appear, followed by paragraph focused st atus review and documentation of activity.

- 3-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-4 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 5 of 11

Independent Monltor1ng Thorn Consent D ecree Complia nce St.,tus
Monthly Upda te R eport

Sub. .ntlAI ConlpllAnc. 0 • •

31

10115120 13

10/31f:Z013

The VlPO will re'Yiew and reo\14•• ~· use ol fOlce policies •• naceaaary to; a . define Ierma claatly, b . define rorce aa that t e rm ia dafin-.d In this Ag~aanwnt, c. •ncorporat a • usa af fou::a modal that teaches d•••noa~mant. are• conta.1nmeM. aurvoelllanca. wa1ting out a au~ct. aum~mng ra•nf orcaft"Mnta 01 Clllllllng i n apeciH:zad ut11ta a .a appropriate res pons e s to a sl1:va-tton , d acMaa th.-:, whan.wr poaalbfa. lnd,..,iduala should be allo-d to aubmjt t·o arr.at befof a fore• is ua~ . a . ,..mforca that the usa of elllc:asar... ton=: a W111 Uibtact offtce rs to dlsc•pttna, poaatbta c:rii'T"inal prosecution end/« cMI tiabllrty: I ensure that autseiant leaa l ethal ahemat,_.a are ~dabta to 11111 pettol officers end g ax:pficiUy prohtblt the u sa of choke hc»da and Stmtlat catoltd holds except wher• deadty IDfce Is aut.honzed Once the DOJ haa te\ltewed •nd apgrov.d l heae pohciea. the VIPO ahall lmmadiat.Jy implement any t~alona.
~fYHiwtOf'V
Com~te ncy·bAsed traming ol otfic.er$ and s u pe,.,..sou on rema1n1ng policies by Jan 3 1, 20 13 ] ,8 Oft'·Duty Polley 3 .9 Vehicle Pursuit Polk:y 3 10 Spike Stnp 3 12 T.c:tical Openrtiona 3 . 13 Sniper Operat i ons '"'""'ill be eom~etftd by January 31. 2013 By November 30. 20 12. lmploment s y s t em to e nsure all ataft' are tntlned on polici~• (i.e. . :a 1r11ckJng aystem) and ~rtodically , . ., ptoficlency with the policies . Reffnhor t rainin g on pollciea ongoi ng, thr ough documented .
eJ• p.trlodic in·ael"'oice and roll calllcommun ders call t r ain ing Incorporat e com.petency·bDsed training on policies into Potlce Aca d emy by Jan. 3 1 . 20 1 3 . Yearly
rroll...., of polic i es. By June 30. 2013 , In con sult ation wit h DOJ. l mpfement audit tools 10 o ns ure a t aft' complying ~th t he polici es (i.• .. r....t.w o r aompfe of 1A.. and arrest reports) Ensure aJiocallon of sufficient at 11tt' t o Input h i s torical and c urrent d111a Into IAPro. Dew l op and lmple rnent a proc • ss ror identifying per sonnel 'Who con1inually fatlto tepot1 u s ee o r fotc:e or othei'W1se fait to follow th e pchcy and pro.;de and d ocu ment discipline and/Ot N n'WH!•DI train ing.
P•,.cr~ S.U.,_.,....,, C00'11)1anc.• AMIV_,.., _ ,
Otcain.ct OOJ a~.al fof all usa oil fOfce potteiea lh.t rw-qutr• OOJ apPJVYaJ. A pprow.d poheles •r• dlstnbuted 10 SWOJn personnel and appf.cable eMIIan employee•. - >95% of awom ~aonnel h.w ei'ther:: (a) au ended ..,d successfully completed the initial ln·sar.oica tr•n'"o fot eac;:h new Of rr.oised use of force poky •nd demonstr.-ted proficiency through a wntten examinllt•on Of st.:•M proficiency •••rciae (the '"'l=ll'oficiency te 5t (sr). or (b) if s""'fn ~tsonnel h~ n ot succeaafully complet ed tha required initial lf..tning .nd p•saed the proficiency tes t (a). the S'ft'Om ~rsonnet hr... ente.-.d a nd succe ssfulfy co~et ed a retrM'di•l program destgned to e n s ure passage of the proficiency test ( a ) and passed the prolictency t•st(s). or Whete awom p41rsonnel h...,.. n ot successfulty completed l r a inKlg and pas sed the Pf"Qfici ency tests. tha VIPO has intl i ated apt)fopriate conecti\'8 act ton, Including Ira ining. and disciplinary act ion avainst the awom personnel . All u se of forc e traimng comports wrth the requirements of 31(a)-(g) of the C o n sent Decrae, •nd i s t•ught from c urricuhtl'lesaon pans Ihilt: (a} f~low • standard form at, (b) Identify train i ng o bjectrw•a; ( c ) incorpo,.-at e . to t he extent possible. adult te aming lechnlquea ( e .g •• c i.A._. exercises); and (d ) indiu1e that Jt h ila been review.d by l eg&~ counaet

Ren On;

0713012014 1 5:.24:52

Figure 4

R ~ I'1N •ma ~n11"1yJPI_V~d
'UIW"-'on Mtr. 1..on514

Pft0o 2of 4

The second page of inform ation wou ld something like that shown in Figure 5.

1011312013

Independent Monltor1ng Team Consent Decree Compliance Status
Monthly Update Report
10113/2013

Oe-tnJ cr'ls of 51 tlree te-nnt are c.cn:ntent wth h e Conxnt Draot,

m a::plc:a~ ilw

001tra!yi~JX)Ict $)t"lda:S.

·~~~--~~~~MM~------------~~~5~~~----------------------~

Oe~ii!;W!Of'"t)ru"" GDn1XJrts~ 21 ;:dtleCGnMMOecraa.

ncofliOQte a uu ofilreemodllltrut leacnH dlsengagemen.t art's contanment, JUrveilenoo. wablg outa ·tu~er:'., .turnroon.i'lg reint>t"ctrneflts a- ce ling in ~Ded~tzed unc:sts ayp-op1e:e rtspctlstt lo
ltluiiJOn;

In o95 ofuu pf fat:e nclckr1ts, tlere l'documenlsd evtr;knoo tNt, •• a~rc:onue. Otlcenl daengeged. contti"led the trn , et:~nckided surveiiDnc:e, v-.ate4 wt :.tle -.,biect. • nO'orcaled k1 .speda l ze.dunl11.

~~~~.~--------------------------~~~-5-~~~.-----.

In n95% Oftl'lb UM at force i'l~ ttlll'el• dOCH'IUI'I,., ~MOl th&, vtle."l tes~it, tln JMSMclJtiY.8Sactvbtd the he/she I& • !o\•.edto suomto
arrest beble tlrce o ustd.

Su~anhal Cotrc::IM~ea

relnbrcetfl•t fta useo re.x.:esaiv•fcr-ce \\11
.s.~~molftoers t~
4d0plne. ~·~e etlmtt• _pr01eartion,
•nd.bfCJ'II•rany,
eruure~twtlcientlen11:-:hsl attmstM:t
am r."'lltlle loal pCrol cUccrs; • nd

Stb-Tulc.St.bWlte&~nce

Sf.lb.luk S'-"a

In -->9S%ofuse or btt'e tncdert~ ttlt' rae ofbttt revlcwoc:n~dtt"I"I-I.,-------"'!S~ Utl,lttUill Co~lenee

a.tf'kler.tlouletf\11 dema:Ne&v4mt used Wlbtaa~letuedon the
~ltyo tcirCJmst.,ce.s..

2.

?95% cfPttrolaMc.llera~j:liable otlc:..-s c.-ryltss leti!S

etemati\le.s • al tr.les vtllle en-duty.

Ran On: 07/3012014 15:25:44
Figure 5

Rep>rt Ha""" rronltly_rpt_~d I.Wolcn Nbr: 1.jj72514

Da• Sow-cc #:'database devebpment\consentorders\mainsetSET

PageJ of4

Case Review & Analysis Templates. Th e system goes beyond th is series of screens just show n and includes components for Use of For ce, Citizen Complaint, and Administrative Investigation review and analysis. These components are still under development, but as part of our revised approach t o case review, we are developing new interim case review
- 4-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-4 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 6 of 11

checklists, using Excel macro based worksheets. These worksheets will be loaded into t he system while we develop t he on-line data entry formats. Once on-line, the Police Practi ce Experts (PPE) will sign into the system and enter t heir case reviews directly into the system, by-passing the paper based review and shortening the time that it takes for data entry. Both the interim and final on-line systems will result in on-line live data and reporting that wi ll speed analysis and feedback to the VIPD to assist in their compliance efforts. The newly released paper based Use of Force checklist (OPNS Form 14-1) is shown at Figures 6, 7 and 8, below.

i

o

E

~

G

j

Use of Force/ Investigation

IMT Review Checksheet

4 lAB tl umber
-~Form 1A Humber.
6 Aneat Numbe r:
7 Date of Occurr•nc.e:
-; "'Loc.o'iton of Incident:
Y"'loo• ofOceurrenc.:
.~ . 11 htOfflnr U&I ng FCH"u -u nInitial Fot"co type: J:F~ Secondary Fof"c• Type:
·~1S 2d Officer Ualng Fmce
...16 lnlttal Fore. Type:
17 S.Condary Fot-ce Type:

:::: :::.-: 1----;~~.R:.v~:::,:

f - - - - - - - - - ----_...JL______FI_•I_In_c_lu_d_•_d__':-__-_-_-_-_-.-,'-::R:I:::::~::;d:

_______ f--------------,r--------------~r~~~·~~=~~~;~~,~.=~~·=~"~M~~'~_·•_'

L________,

·uomo

Wat

PON

Asalunmunt

Race

Ethnlclry

Wat

POH

f--------------i'---":S.;-:x::---';;-Ro::e::o:----;E;:Ih:::n:;-k=lfy-'~;';:, C~;::=Use Of Force PoUcy?

wot

POll

AN.Ignmen·t

19 f3rd Offlr;er U•lll9 Fon:e 20 , Initial FtWce Typo:
-~-~ ~:::e~7a~:~Typo:

Sox

Rac e

Elhnlcily

LN_o_m.- -------------'---.L,,m--•"11'--'----LP,_h-one--'~: ~h~:;:~.g=m~o;n=

]}'j

2-4..~ Contact ln tonn adon:

W£1

SeK

Race

Elhnlclry

25 , 26 Dote Repon Completed

C.la nder Caae File lnclud. .:

2 7~ lnveaOgotoriAM ignmonl

Dora Incident Report;

Should lnveatlgatlon S. Reop.ned

2& Zone R.vlew er.

EloPMd Officer Statement

IMT Flogged toe Revl...,-:

~ Date of R-lew:
301eomma nd Revtew.r.

Q

I - - - -" Supervi.scrSlatement
AIRequire Recordings

AddltJotul Rr.-1.-w.r: OUtet Revfewe.t. Who?

3 1 OoM ol Review:

M Rti:uil'edPhotos

Additional Rcviewef Condu.t.kMu.:

r o - 32 '
Jl
34

ChlefJDepmy Revlewet Date of Revlow:
Waa Thelnve attgatlon

Completed

Whhln

The

TlmellneToRt.ealqcuailreendctU.rnode~r~ 0 rIlVAt:tBaobtRlbe<f!Utpf ~ o•r•ll ~Is

1----.,.=Add=IU~"e'!'"='""":!v,;elw=••,_,<:•::m:~m:!!en=""'--

--

-

-

-

-

j

C3l::'7;'"!,;(,1) T.ho,Ro=po=.la=~l•=Us=e o=f P=oll=ey=roq=uh=as=tha=i t= ho =nvu=t.ll=ga=tlf=l9 =a:u=pe=n=ia=ori~rot'•n:d<dftaFli:o':..e..,n_:=-f/P:n~Yo;i:tll:';.<ttlg::;a:Yt?i1~olnI~t:e:p:;o;t;t::a;-n:d::;;;11MTR~Iewet Commenh 3i fot'WOtded me completed use tile to the Commonderwkhln 10 eo,.ndot day. from the dote Of the lndM-n~ lhe 3'9"" Commander muA aubmll llndlno- end c;onc;hnk)Ot to lhe O.puty Chlef!Chlof within S WOrking dap alter recefvlng

- ~ che ea.a. ftle: and the Deputy Ch.Jef!Chlat haa 5 wonting doyt co .ubmh • copy of hla or her ftnd lnva ~d • copy of

40 tbe caso fll• to tAB. Tho ln'lfltlgadon should bo comp.le~todwithfn JO days..

41
Figure 6

- 5-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-4 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 7 of 11

Auth 32 NJA N/ A 32 32 31
31
32

Content of OHicer's Report and Supervisor's lnves tlc atlon

Requ ir ement

Compllanc.IMT Comments

W a s a Response to Resistance Repon {RRR) P r.pared

0

Was an lneldent report (1-A.) In cluded In the File

0

Was an Arrest R eport Included In the File

0

Otncer's narrative describes the type or fore• u s ed?

Was each and every type of use of fore.• used descrfbed?

Were choke holds uaed? tf us ed waa deadty f orc e authorlz.e d ?

O ld tha omcers enga ge I n a force model that ua•d dl••ngagement. ar••

containme nt, aurvelllanc., waiting out th• s ubJect, s ummon ing reinforcements, or

calling o u t specialized unh.a? K~Sf? SWAT?

Otflcer"a n .,.r attve Includes a description of the events leading up to t.he use of

force?

34 The n a rTatlve Includes a dea.erlpdon of the aubjeet'a acdona that provid e the tnsls for th• fOf"'Ced used?

31 Wher. possible dfd the otflcen: give the s ubje1:t a ehance to submtt to arrest beforw fore.• W"a.a u sed?
33 Was a statement ta:ken from the subject?

33 Was the at.atem •nt audio and/Of' video uped?

33 The subJect re.c:elved tJm•ty m•dlal attendon?

33 Supervisor was notified In a tlmety mann er?

33 Supervisor reaponded.!o scene and conducted an ~nvestJgatlon?

33 Supervisor arrlved on ac:ene In a timely manner?

47 lnveatl"atlng supervisorwas not d ir ectly Involved In the lncldent?

34

Supervisor doeumentttd the Investigation In the rta.r"Rtfve or the RRR (and/or o n a

sup plemenQI form) and the n arntfve Incl udes?

A description of the events ~ced ing the u s e of force?

An eW!IIuado n of th• a p proprbte n ess of e ach type o f (Of"'e usltd? A. precise desulption of the facts that either justify o r tall to justify the fon;e?

An assessment of whethe r reasonable suspicion/probable c auae was present for:

For Ute Stop? .. For the Seat"Ch?
• An assessment of whether the eonduct of the olftcer was J

"' An lndlcatJon of whether the supervisor observed the

.s ubj ect(•) and the oNieer( s) _for Injuries?

.. A description of Injuries to the officer( a) and/or subject(s)?

'"'An a ssessment of 'Wheth e r th• foree w as within policy?

All Involved omeen are ldentJfled I n th e RRR. Including all otfleara who u•ed force

36 a nd all ome•rs who wttnessed the Incident or were o n the scene at the time of the

Incident?

38 Were all shots .,red aec:ounted for?

VIPD 3.2 All offtc• r wttnesses prep.ared a n RRR?

..

... .. . Old a.ll RRRs renect origln~l wrhlng as opposed to ..cut & paste.. ?

Figure 7

36~ Were all witness statement:l uken? 3S.. Were all wltnes s statemems audio or video taped? 32 Audio taped statements t1ken from all officers? 35 If fo rmal stotements were uken. were leodlng questions ovolded? 39 We re oil p~rtles statement given eq.ul review for cntdlblllty? 54 Wos oil relevont evlden. . lncludlng clrcumstondol, direct ond physical evlden..,
etnlu.ated? 54 Did the Investigation ottempt to ntsolve oll lneonslstrtneles: 36 We re .all officers on the sceneldentffled? 36 Hosplul reports wer. obalned? 36 Photos of Injuries were uken? 36 We re medicoI reports obalned? Did they s upport Injuries described In the report? 37 The completed supervisor's investigative report was .-.viewed by • Zone or Line
CO? 37 The Zone Commander or unlt CO reviewer concurred wh:h the Investigating officer!
The CO's review Identified some or all of the deficiencies with the supe rvisor's 37 Investigation? 37 The completed superviJior'slnvestfgatlv e report 3nd supporting documents were
reviewed by • Chief/Deputy Chien 37 The review Identified deficiencies with the supervisor's investigation, and required
the deflclencles be corrected? There is evidence that corrective action was taken for fa:llure to conduct a timely 37 and through re:vlew, recommended appropriate corrective action, or property Impl emented opproprtote correctiv e oetlon? 68 Did the complet.d lnvesdgodon Identify underlying problems ond trolnlng needs? 68 If so, we re they communlcoted to the appropriate VIPD entity (.e.g., Trolnlng 68 There ls evldenc.e thn COf'Tective action wu Q.ken as Indicated below:
Counseling? Remedlol tnlnlng? Equipment modlfleodon?
Polley revision ? Other? ·
::Submk61on lnstrudfon&: 1. save your1Wf1tusln& SA~AScommand and glvolt • menome osfol~
UOf..,.....(wrlttenas14).__.,.dote(wnttenii010Wifor07/01/J4)-Revlew«(lnltalo]
HER£ ISA SAMPU .a:c "UOF--14-00000t-CAG• ~the pock•&• you reeefved from the VIPO a> •OO.e, but add
•PICG at the end of the file ume HER£ IS A SAMPI.f-o> "UOf'J4.000001-cAG·PKG" .Se(lil boCh file> to Palme<forflUrndend OIUG!IINALO!EO(IJS)"· P(G<On be PDF
-6-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-4 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 8 of 11
Figure 8 The Citizen Complaints and Administrative Investigations will have similar formats. One advantage of standardizing the forms is the ability to control the data entered into each field by use of drop down selection boxes. These boxes are somewhat limited on the Excel sheets, but will be more robust in the on-line version, thus further improving data integrity and facilitating analysis and sorting based on accurate field wording. This is a major benefit to data management systems over paper documents. The on-line system will also shorten the time frame between data entry and data availability for analysis. The RMS. Another feature of the new technology is access for all team members to files located at our data center under a Records Management System (RMS). A separate drive has been setup and access granted to all team members so they can browse aiiiMT files within the system, which currently occupy about 11GB of data grouped into several main categories, CAG Administrative, IMT Monitoring, and VIPD Submitted Files and some other, mainly reference or historical documents focused . Included within the system are all previous Fried frank documents that were available within their SharePoint© system. Team members conducting case review can submit their final check sheets, along with the original case file documents submitted by the VIPD for logging and filing to that system. Access is user name and password protected and is accessed from anywhere, including a SmartPhone, via the Web through a screen looking like that in Figure 9, below.
Figure 9 File system access is displayed in Figure 10, below.
- 7-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-4 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 9 of 11

CAG
Create folder
-

File St ation

Action •

Tools -

settings

Nan1e ~ -osdata_ ";:" tJ recycle
!:J Allrnlnistration e=:J Fried Frank Files
e:::J Reference Materials
~ VlPD Consent Decree ,..1onitorino

Size

File Type Folder Folder Foldc;r Folder Folder Folder

• .1.. p
?
P- Filler
Nodlfl ed Date 7/20/2014 7:47:56 PM 6/30/ 2014 12: 59:59 Pl'-1 7/25/201•1 7:37:00 PM 6/ 19/2 01<1 10: 59:'19 At~ 7/22/2014 1:28:59 AM 7/27/201"1 11:13:37 A~1

Figure 10
Files coming into the data center are logged and then filed in the above system, using another component of the Consent Decree Data M anagement System (CDDMS), the Administrative screen. This screen provides date st amping of receipt as well as file location documentation and suspense actions associated with the file. The example of this screen shown at Figure 11, below, displays a recent Use of Force Case r eview that was received from one of the PPEs and was logged and filed within the syst em. Th e RED boxes show the file name and where it was filed. Since bringing the system up, over 200 documents have been logged and filed as indicated in the counter on the bottom right of the screen.

e'l>oalmeftt Ales \ IO'Co<respoodeooe\ !.Suspense system \r.ltlc~-a'.;l~en,.dc;a:.r'::;\::::::,:-::-;-=-<=,.,-~'=''"'"=...-:;:.==:=-===::----­ JU S v TM Terrttory of tn. Vlrgtn lal4nda & VIrgin Ialande Polle e Department

Filing System - Logged Flies

DISS AC'TJ)H FU

efue T•otn lnt l).aion R..por'IAmolio MGrshcll Commend 0721<4 1

.,_SoMoo TrolN"' Schoduloo &Thorn~- 201 <

·--~- 7

k.m. Diucuu~on Con-.:>lied case rev.&w; ,~ PPE revsew and ooglnal case nM

Fot6w' cag\VJPO Coosenc Oecteft M onltoringiJJOF M onltoring\20 1-'\202014

I I RQ<..u.o.« ~~Jl7=-1
l,:i;;iD.l

S...eflitcon,lt )
J CIOM ScrMn
(,I.QC:...l*t )

Figure 11
In the case of the Use of Force case reviews, the PPE's completed checklist (currently in Excel forma t) and the VIPD case file (in PDF format ), are combined into one fi le, annotated with a "Complet ed and Logged" overprint and then filed. An
-8-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-4 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 10 of 11
example of the case package (first sheet only) shown in the screenshot above, is shown in Figure 12, below (in redacted format for this report).
U$<: of Forcc/lr •vcstlgatlon IMT Re-view Chc.c:ka,eet

Complete and Logged

>o"

Figure 12

The Web-Based Calendar. As shown in the screenshot, there are several other tabs associated with the Administrative component, all directed at management of data and actions of the IMT team. The last tab of this component accesses the web-based team calendar that currently limits access to team member, but in the future will have a public component that will be part of our Website for public view. This private calendar covers team operations and staff availability, while the future public one will include notices of when the monitors will be on site, court dates, quarterly reporting periods and report release dates, etc. The current private version is shown at Figure 13, below.

13Document f lies \ &!'Correspondence \ t.. Suspense System \ ts!9'J!!~~~

-~~-:-~~

.. ~- ----- ·-- ----~~~-

,..!fr - c · :.) • · ,..,.__ .....,.. l.--v- ~t:. t;;l'...--~~

r' - ' -'C-"-"' "'--_,,~ Open CAG Web Calendar '

'

------'

!~-_-.., __ , _ _ " !~
t::c::.::: "' r- ,..:;_~-

.!,=.,.~...~":"";"'":_:"":: [,

Jrs. ,a_ _._., ..,·!

• <~!!

)

~r.~son-r.,J)Qff~I.LLCV..t.lt7V«

Figure 13

- 9-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-4 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 11 of 11

The Website. One area where we intend to be more active is public engagement. To further this effort we have obtained a new website domain and are in the process of developing the website to be informative to the public as to t he mission of both the Consent Decree and the work of the monitors. We will be providing copies of all our public documents including quarterly reports, and important links to the VIPD and other sites of interest. Included within the site is a contact form for inquiries, but we intend to insure that the public understand that we do not invest igate complaints and that they need to contact the VIPD for such assistance. We w ill, however, insure, if they desire contact, that we follo w-up and insure they understand how to file a complaint and/or, hopefully, compliments as to VIPD performance. While the site is currently under construction, we hope to have it fully functional by mid-September. A screenshot of the current home page is shown in Figure 14, below.

0 -.:tt.~· ...~------

1' ~

~. c• -. ::·:

~ - -. .....

u ..,.. ,_ . •·

., c

1!!1

- ·l_t__

IMT-VIPD Police Monitor Web Site

-~

Welcome To IMT-VIPD Police Monitor Web Site

............- Reod lhe Cons"'l DotreeHere MEUO§M " - - .. "'*. ....._

.. 91ft.r ·Jf'D r.-.~.w.su. ,.sJ~tt~~~f:IIA#;.....-.
'*:--.a.~tac!lllhlc::I'IUI!tu..t~tloltl~b«'ttt-tr...a.O!' ~w..·~'bl)..hn.-s''ll"1ll.T!ot"*'~""-H•o.lAJ..;urJM._ tn.da~~-~~C't ......"'C'dt""""t•r~~. .
ro.t .~....,..~,,_~\"'-ll

Cl

Figure 14
As the reader can see, we have been very busy and focused on bringing our technology on line to support increased monitoring activity and hopefully support improved progress by the VIPD towa rd full compliance w ith the Consent Decree. In doing so we believe we have made some great strides forward toward improved monitoring and reporting capabilities that will pay dividends beginning in the next quarter.

-10 -

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-5 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 1 of 8
Second Quarterly Report of2014 for the
Independent Monitor for the Virgin Islands Police Department
Appendix D Constitutional Policing Index
CHARLES A. GRUBER CONSULTING INC. INDEPENDENT MONITOR JULY 2014 w w w .im t - p o l i c e m o n i t o r.o r g

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-5 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 2 of 8
THE CONSTITUTIONAL POUCING INDEX
MEASURING AND ASSESSING IMPACT AND OUTCOMES OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT CONSENT DECREE
Recently crafted consent decrees and settlement agreements feature a requirement for Outcome Assessment, a process and recommended measure to determine whether implementation of prescribed/mandated remedies and actions (the paragraphs) result I are likely to result in constitutional policing and/or remediate the patterns, practices, and conditions that caused government intervention in the first place. The New Orleans, Puerto Rico, Seattle consent decrees and settlement agreements are examples. The Virgin Islands Police Department consent decree, negotiated and fmalized earlier (March 2009) did not I does not explicitly demand outcome assessment. The need for impact measurement and interpretation is now commonly recognized by the parties. Inactivity with regard to measurement is unfortunate. Opportunity to collect and manufacture at least quantitative baseline information appears to have been unexploited for most of the now five-year life of the Virgin Islands Police Department Consent Decree compliance program. {The IMT does has not examined the comprehensive reliability of the Virgin Islands Police Department's IT and analytics capacity, which bears directly potentialpast and current.) Building/guiding development of a Virgin Islands Police Department CDmetrics capacity is an immediate priority to the IMf.
CONSTITUTIONAL POLICING: OUR GOVERNING DESIGN PRINCIPLE
The IMT metrics program is being designed to reveal, first and foremost, whether and to what degree the Virgin Islands Police Department is achieving the commitment to constitutional policy that is the basis of the CD:
This consent decree (Agreement) is the result ofa cooperative effort that evinces a commitment to constitutional policing on the part ofthe Department ofJustice; the Territory ofthe Virgin Islands, and the Virgin Islands Police Department .... ,
{p. 1, Consent Decree, March 2009).
The Consent Decree sets forth a provision that serves to define constitutional policing:
The parties share a mutual interesting in promoting effective and respectful policing. They join together in entering this Agreement to promote police integrity andprevent conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution ofthe laws ofthe United States.
(p. 1)
- 1-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-5 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 3 of 8
Finally, and of great utility for modeling a metric program, is:
In its complaint, the United States alleges that the Territory ofthe Virgin Islands and the Virgin Islands Police Department (collectively, "the Defendants") are violating 42 U.S. C. §1414, by engaging in a pattern or practice ofexcessive force (emphasis added) by others ofthe Virgin Islands Police Department and by the failure to adequately train, supervise, investigate and discipline officers, and the failure to establish consistent policies, procedures, and practices that appropriately guide and monitor the action of VIPD officers and the VIPD's response to those actions."
(p. 2)
For modeling and actual measurement, excessive use of force primarily, and force generally, should be ''the" governing metrics.
Definition and construction ofthe concept of constitutional policing does not seem to be entirely
clear. It does, however, seem to be framed by legal protections- and more so, violation of- the
rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the Constitution ofthe United States and important law derived therefrom. Accordingly, it makes sense to us to model a metric system that provides measurements ofpolice behaviors that go beyond excessive use of force, measures ofbias, for example.
GETTING STARTED
Designing and building the Virgin Islands Police Department Consent Decree metrics package will be a long-term, interactive, evolutionary endeavor. Our plan is to build/help build it incrementally. Rather than attempt to conceive and fmalize the "grand design," our recommendation is to (1) take on "manageable chunks," concentrating ftrst on limited sets of core measures; and (2) accord weight to current and reasonably achievable (upgraded) Virgin Islands Police Department information production capacity- a blend ofdata base content and condition, technology, and IT research/analytic skill sets. (The state of these conditions and skill sets is not known to us at this juncture.)
Table 1 displays a range of options for the metrics package start-up. Labeled for now the Constitutional policing Index. The metrics program can be built from several clusters, distinguished by object/type of measurement/measure and date source.
Outcomes. This cluster would reveal the "constitutionality" ofVirgin Islands Police Department activity and behavior with regard to core rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to citizens. It includes the primary CD impact outcome measurement- excessive use of force.
-2-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-5 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 4 of 8
EIP Measures. This cluster would include several components of the outcome cluster, but would supplement and broaden the picture of constitutional policing. It would present a total picture of citizen allegation and Virgin Islands Police Department disposition.
Trends or Patterns. Each and all ofthe foregoing metrics must be applied and tracked (repeat measurement) continually to achieve critical mass-meaning. For a variety of reasons, to identify need for intervention that should produce ever-increasing constitutional behavior by Virgin Islands Police Department personne~ the metrics must be analyzed for significance. Almost all metrics reveal consequential and explanations, implications, insights and potentials when diagnosed by subject matter experts.
Process Measurement. Evaluation standards require that outcome measurement be paralleled by process measurement. The valid conclusion with regard to impact ofintervention on outcomes, position and negative, demand understanding ofthe implementation of intervention. The "interventions" in the present situation are the actions and remedies stipulated/prescribed in the Consent Decree, augmented by DOJ and IMT recommendations and expectations. Most of the required process measures are already available. There are the compliance thresholds currently in play.
THE IAPro DATABASE
What follows is a very simple representation ofthe configuration ofthe VIPD IAPro database, plus information content categories.
Citizen Complaints
• Citizen Complaints Incidents Received: Class & Sub-class • Citizen Complaints Incidents: by unit, officer ratio • Citizen Complaint Dispositions: with Actions Taken • Citizen Complaints Demographic: by gender, involved officer (race/ethnicity), involved
office (age), involved officer (assignment/operations, territorial comparisons Administrative Unvestigationsl
• Allegations • Investigations: by allegation, by class (ofDepartment Violations) • Investigation: by unit and officer ratio • Disposition and Action Taken • Involved Officer Demographics: by race/ethnicity, gender, age Use of Force
• Incidents/Number: by Status and Funding • Incidents/Number: by Month Received
-3-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-5 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 5 of 8
• Incidents/Number: by Type Used • Incidents/Number: By Unit, Office Ratio • Type ofForce Tall- Type • Citizen Resistance Tally: Reason • Citizen Condition Tally: Injuries • Charges Against Involved Citizens • Citizen Arrest: Yes, No, Counts • Citizen Injuries: Number, percent, taken to hospital • Officer Injuries Tally: Number, percent, taken to hospital • Reason for Use of Force • Type of Setvice Being Rendered • Force by Unit and Officer Ratio • K-9 Bite Ratios: by officer name • Incidents: By Disposition • Two Year Trend: by Reason (effecting arrest, battery on officer, etc.); by Service Being
Rendered; by Citizen Injury • Taken to Hospital; Officer Injury; by Operations (Unit); • Firearms Discharge: by Number, by Office
Vehicle Accidents
• Incidents I Number • Findings: Officer at Fault • Cause of Accident • Time ofAccident • Officer Injuries: Yes/No • Non-employee Injuries • Amount ofDamages • Three-Year Trend: Employee Responsibility (Fault); Time ofAccident; Weather
Conditions; Injuries • Dispositions
Vehicles & Pursuits
• Incidents/Number • Reason Initiated • Time • Initial Violation • Weather • Pursuit Distance • Type ofVehicle Pursued • Beginning/Ending Location
-4-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-5 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 6 of 8
• Event that Concluded Pursuit • Citizen Complaints & Quarterly Activity by Unit (Patrol Zone, CID, Special Detai~ etc.) • Quarterly Pattern & Trending Data • Citizen Complaint • DUI Factors • In-car Camera Availability & Use • Pursuit Aborted • Arrest of Driver Pursued for DUI • Helicopter Assistance • Stop Device Used • DUI Arrest • Liability Claim Filed • Pursuit Justified I Within Policy • Citizen Condition I Injury Tally • Disposition • Three Year Trend
-5-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-5 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 7 of 8
TABLE I
CONSTITUTIONAL POLICING INDEX
A. OUTCOME MEASURES - SUPER (MACRO) D Use ofForce 1. Overall: a. Nwnber and Rate of Complaints (citizen, command generated) b. Nwnber and Rate of Excessive Force complaints c. Arrest Related - Number and Rate (citizen command generated)
[By force type. Can/should detail by geographic areas, race, gender, ethnicity) 2. Rates of Sustained Complaints: Overall and arrest-related. 3. All of the above.
D Sto_p. Search, Seizure 1. Overal~ Number and Rate of Citizen and Command Complaints (by type ofcomplaint, geographic area, demographic breakdown, department dimensions- shifts, units, officers, supervisors) 2. Number and Rates Sustained Preponderance of evidence/lack thereof subset)
D Eqyal Protection (Bias Free) 1. Number and Rate of Stops -traffic and other (by purpose, demographics, department dimensions 2. Outcome by Number and Rate (arrests, citations, confiscations) 3. Response- Time and Quality of Service Measures (emphasis on sexual assault, domestic violence, hate crimes, rate, gender and LGTB populations)
B. EIP MEASURES D Number and Rate ofComplaints/Charges (citizen. command) 1. Abuse ofPower
- 1-

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 112-5 Filed: 08/26/14 Page 8 of 8
2. Abuse of Process 3. Harassment/Information 4. Citizen Contest 5. Civil Rights 6. Failure to Perform - Constitutional Issue
7. Failure to Take Citizen Complaint 8. Firearms Discharge 9. False Arrest
10. Pointing Firearm 11. Prejudicial Conduct 12. Threats 13. Unlawful Search 14. Unnecessary/Excessive Use ofForce 15. Wrongful Detection 16. Other Violation of Citizen Rights D Number and Rate of Sustained Complaints/Charges (Complaints/Charges from 2013 EIP Annual Rq:mrt) C. Trends and Patterns Longitudinal comparison and analysis of all of the foregoing data sets. D. Process Measurer E. The compliance thresholds already established for CD paragraphs and sub-paragraphs.
-2-

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 1 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
FOURTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF 2014 FROM THE
INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT
CHARLES A. GRUBER CONSULTING INC. INDEPENDENT MONITOR www.imt-policemonitor.org (March 27, 2015)

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 2 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
INDEPENDENT MONITORING TEAM
Independent Monitor Chief Charles A. Gruber
Elgin, Illinois Police Department (retired)
Police Practices Experts Superintendent Ann Marie Doherty
Boston, Massachusetts Police Department (retired) Chief Robert L. Stewart
Ormond Beach, Florida Police Department (retired)
CAG Staff & Consultants Jerome A. Needle, Project Manager
Director of Programs & Research, International Association of Chiefs of Police (retired) Palmer D. Wilson, Technical Manager Lieutenant, Commander, Office of Audits & Inspections, Montgomery County, Maryland Department of Police (retired) Leon A. Casey, Sr., Field Coordinator Resident Agent in Charge, U.S. Customs Service (retired)
CHARLES A. GRUBER CONSULTING INC. INDEPENDENT MONITOR www.imt-policemonitor.org

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 3 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 4

I.

COMPLIANCE PROGRESS: TRANSITION COSTS AND OPPORTUNITIES ...... 8

II.

SUMMIT 2 ................................................................................................................... 13

III. COMPLIANCE STATUS: OVERVIEW ................................................................... 16

IV. COMPLIANCE STATUS: DETAIL .......................................................................... 25

V.

VIPD USE OF FORCE REVIEW: MONITORS’ PERSPECTIVE MARCH 2015 . 86

VI. VIPD AUDITING PERFORMANCE ........................................................................ 89

VII. MEASUREMENTS & ASSESSMENTS .................................................................... 91

VIII. OUTCOME ASSESSMENTS: TWO NEW INITIATIVES .................................... 101

IX. VIPD COMPLIANCE ACTIVITY ........................................................................... 105

X.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS ................................................................................... 107

See separately attached Appendices

APPENDIX A – PARAGRAPHS CURRENTLY IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE OF NA STATUS AS OF END OF FOURTH QUARTER, 2014

APPENDIX B – COURT ORDERED GOALS NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE STATUS REPORT AS OF END OF FOURTH QUARTER 2014

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 4 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 5 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is the report of the Independent Monitoring Team (IMT) for the Fourth Quarter of 2014, October through December and extended to also include January and February of 2015.1 It is the first to be received by the new leadership of the Territory and the Virgin Islands Police Department. It can serve, along with other documents referenced, as a useful baseline to capture Consent Decree compliance conditions as the new leaders assume command. The IMT has engaged incoming Territorial and VIPD executives and appointees continuously during the postelection period on matters of pivotal significance for advancing Consent Decree compliance. The DOJ has been particularly active in this regard, as well. More engagement is planned and collaboration is expected to continue.
Compliance Status
The signature feature of the extended Fourth Quarter is the complete failure to bring even one paragraph into Substantial Compliance. As of August 28, 2014, the VIPD has been in Substantial Compliance with 31 paragraphs, and Not in Substantial Compliance with 20 paragraphs. At the close of the Fourth Quarter of 2014, continuing to the end of February 2015, the VIPD has still only achieved Substantial Compliance for 31 Consent Decree paragraphs. Twenty (20) are not in Substantial Compliance, about 40% of applicable paragraphs. A fall-off in progress was not unanticipated in view of the governmental/agency transition. We cannot affirmatively trace the result entirely to the transition.
Important compliance work did continue during this reporting period. As pledged by the Parties at the end of Quarter Three, a second summit-style meeting was held, in November, 2014. The event is notable for the consensus forged on "Impediments" to unmet Court-Ordered Goals and action remedies. The IMT conducted a Consent Decree-focused survey of compliance
1 Going forward, future reports will align with the quarters outlined in the Court’s February 25, 2015 Order (Dkt. No. 143).
5

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 6 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
knowledge requirements and perspectives of critical supervisor cadre of the VIPD. This diagnostic yielded important insights and action implications, albeit early ones, for VIPD "readiness" to complete and sustain Consent Decree compliance. The IMT initiated the design and definitions phase of an outcome measurements and assessment program. The VIPD audit work continued to improve. One work Group, Use of Force, advanced its design of a measurement innovation that should serve as a model for all other Work Groups. The VIPD’s Status report for the period ending on February 20, 2015, Report #22, documents the VIPD’s work toward compliance, across the agency. Of consequence are: training for recently promoted supervisors, leadership training for veteran supervisors, supervisory in-service training; revision and submission of three (3) force policies to DOJ for review and approval; revision of the Citizen Complaint Form to capture the important demographics of race, ethnicity and national origin. An IAPro-based, comprehensive force analysis (the RRR Audit) is in final stages of review. For understanding and managing force conditions constitutionally in the Virgin Islands, this is a major contribution, and long overdue. A later section of this report outlines VIPD accomplishments as reported in the Executive Summary of Status Report #22.
Continuity Actions
The IMT is pleased to report that the VIPD is focusing intelligently on compliance organization, staffing, and "recommitment." Newly appointed Commissioner Delroy Richards, Sr., has pledged to meet the mandates of Governor Mapp and Lt. Governor Potter to restructure the VIPD to achieve and maintain consistency in constitutional policing practices and policies. The IMT joins the DOJ in welcoming Commissioner Richards.
As a package, early structural and resource allocation moves are promising. A principal lead for Consent Decree compliance has been designated. The IMT takes comfort from the fact that this individual has been serving in a compliance leadership position for an extended period of time. Continuity is being preserved. Reestablishing the Audit Inspection Unit as a Bureau is under consideration, as is augmenting staff with two persons currently serving in other capacities in the VIPD, one a sworn officer, the second non-sworn. A Vacancy Announcement has been posted
6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 7 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
for the position of Early Intervention Program Research Analyst. Plans are to hire two (2) analysts. The skills, education, and experience levels set for the job are very well-suited to current Consent Decree compliance needs. Hires that can bring these assets to the compliance effort will be positioned to make very major contributions. The leadership of and responsibility for the four working groups has been vested in the two police chiefs as part of a refocus by the VIPD management. IMT interactions with these individuals are and have always been positive. We are encouraged.
A number of very recent events, including a VIPD-DOJ-IMT goals review conference, a series of IMT-VIPD technical assistance collaborations, and early restructuring of the VIPD compliance team have engendered optimism that a refreshed compliance environment is emerging.
Advancing Compliance Recommendations
All of the parties concur that attention to the 20 paragraphs that have not satisfied Substantial Compliance criteria must be intensified and that no slippage should occur with regard to the 31 paragraphs that have. Actions required to bring the 20 into compliance are already well defined for the VIPD. Indeed, they have fashioned many of the remedies themselves and collaborated with the IMT on others.
The Compliance Detail section documents the consensus positions and agreements forged at Summit 2 regarding Impediments – barriers to forward movement toward Substantial Compliance. They were recorded on November 20, 2014 and filed with the Court on December 12, 2014 in the Interim Update on the Status of Compliance by the Virgin Islands Police Department, November 20, 2014 (Amended, December 9, 2014). They are reproduced in this Report as Recommendations. It is not inaccurate to regard them as Obligations. At a meeting with representatives of the new administration on February 3, 2015, the DOJ attorneys suggested schedule of priorities, as well.
7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 8 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Considering and understanding fully the challenge of transformation in any police culture, and particularly the challenges in the VIPD culture, the IMT must emphasize the urgency of accelerating compliance in the next quarter and immediate quarters thereafter. The Monitors remain available to assist with these challenges. We sincerely hope the new administration is receptive to our offer, suggestions and recommendations, understanding that we share common goals and objectives.
8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 9 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
I. COMPLIANCE PROGRESS: TRANSITION COSTS AND OPPORTUNITIES
During the later part of the 2014 calendar year, the IMT repeatedly cautioned the Territory and the VIPD to plan for and take actions to minimize the inevitable disruptions associated with governmental leadership transitions. Our Second Quarterly Report for 2014 declared:
"Leadership transition is likely to disrupt the compliance process (as has been seen in the Consent Decree around the country). The Independent Monitor has begun discussion with the current Commissioner and his leadership team to plan for transition, to minimize disruption and ensure ongoing commitment to compliance efforts."
Our concern and urgings were expressed during summits and monthly meetings with the VIPD. To the best of the IMT’s knowledge, no preemptive actions occurred. The sum of the attention to "future considerations" which naturally accompany transition periods and apparent absence of bridge measures, very likely contributed to an extended period marked by absolutely no progress on paragraph compliance. Not one Court-ordered, VIPD-pledged goal has come into compliance since the 2Q2014 Report.
Continuity Actions
To smooth transition, with the new Territorial Government, the IMT arranged a series of meetings with key members of Governor Mapp’s incoming team. The first, December 16, 2014, was attended by all of the IMT’s Police Practices Experts, Lieutenant Governor Potter, Mr. Emile Henderson III, Esq., Chief Counsel to Gov. Mapp, and Laverne Mills-Williams, the attorney assigned to Mr. Henderson’s office with responsibility for the Consent Decree. Agreement resulted to meet again in coming weeks to further discuss opportunities to move the Consent Decree forward to embed more professional and constitutional policing practices in the VIPD The second meeting, again with the three PPEs was with Ms. Soraya Diase Coffelt, J.D., Acting Attorney General, Deputy Commissioner Curtis Griffin, and Detective Eugene Alcendor, the Consent Decree Coordinator for the VIPD. Open and wide ranging discussions focused on
9

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 10 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
the status of the Consent Decree and many of the obstacles documented in previous Quarterly Reports. The IMT was impressed with the interest, preparation and informed inquiry of the new government. .
On January 15 and 16, 2015, Police Practices Expert Bob Stewart met on St. Croix with Mr. Emile Henderson III and Commissioner Richards. The purpose was to follow up on the December session and move forward more concrete ideas to maximize compliance efforts within the VIPD. Much of this meeting was spent recapping the history of the Consent Decree from the Monitors’ perspective. We made a point of suggesting that the departmental alignment that the Commissioner was implementing caused us concern. We suggested the establishment of a Professional Standards Bureau that would house Internal Affairs, the Audit Unit, Training and the Policy Development Functions. This bureau would potentially be commanded by the same person who was designated to oversee the Consent Decree process for the VIPD. It had been established prior to the administration change that a senior command staff member would be assigned to oversee all Consent Decree activities for the agency.
We additionally voiced our concern that the newly appointed Deputy Commissioner was being charged with responsibilities that are typically assigned to at least two persons. In most departments the size of the VIPD, there is likely to be an Operations Commander and an Administrative or Professional Standards Commander who would share overall oversight of the functional arms of the agency. We continue to have concerns about the span of control in this design.
On February 3, 2015, the IMT participated in a meeting at the Government House on St. Thomas to again discuss work toward achieving greater compliance with the Consent Decree mandates. This meeting was attended by the DOJ, Ms. Laura Coon, CRT supervising attorney for this case, AUSA-VI Jocelyn Hewlett and IMT Monitor Mr. Charles Gruber. Attending for the USVI were Mr. Emile Henderson III, Chief Legal Counsel, Mr. Randolph H. Knight, Chief of Staff, and Ms.
10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 11 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Griffiths, Acting Attorney General, staff from the Government House at the request of Gov. Mapp, and (now) Commissioner Delroy Richards, Sr., Deputy Commissioner Curtis Griffin.
With the benefit of the Consent Decree status reports provided during previous meetings, the parties introduced their considered current thinking regarding the most pressing needs to address to advance compliance. It was universally accepted that the new Territorial Government is absolutely committed to the Consent Decree and the provisions for achieving constitutional policing. The challenge lies in how to achieve these goals expeditiously and effectively considering other priority issues facing the Territory at the same time, including crime incidence. The Territory indicated the need to take stock of current efforts as well as to identify leaders in the Virgin Islands Police Department who can move the process forward. In conjunction with that thinking, the Territory announced to the members present that the Governor has selected Mr. Curtis Griffin to be the new Deputy Commissioner of the VIPD, with a main duty to lead the territorial objective of coming into compliance with the Consent Decree. Both the IMT and the DOJ met this announcement with anticipation as we have worked with the new Deputy Commissioner and have found him to be a dedicated and ardent supporter for implementing the Consent Decree. We look forward to working with him and to his leadership within the VIPD. The parties agreed to keep meeting and identifying opportunities to advance the Consent Decree and to work collaboratively toward the obtainment of the goals outlined with the Consent Decree.
Opportunities This transition period presents an ideal opportunity – a clear field – to reposition VIPD compliance strategy and assets for greater success. The IMT suggests a few measures to reignite compliance momentum. Suggestions here are restricted to matters of organization and staffing.
□ Restructure the Compliance Organization. The IMTs Response to the VIPD’s Second Quarter Audit Compliance Report argued for a restructuring of the VIPD compliance organization model. We recommended "…centralizing audit responsibility 11

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 12 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
and concentrating assets directly in the Commissioner’s Office, in a newly structured Professional Responsibility cluster, under full-time, day-to-day leadership of a Chief (Consent Decree) Compliance Officer…." We repeat our call for this or a similar action. (Outlines of the recommended configuration can be found in the IMT’s previous report.)
□ Restructure the Compliance Staff. The VIPD organizational transition (the department-wide effort) will bring a range of personnel changes, promotions, transfers, and, perhaps, resignations and retirements. Some will be immediate. Some will follow. Some VIPD staff members who have central and peripheral roles in compliance work will be affected by transition. These could include members of Work Groups and individuals in other Consent Decree related capacities.
For reasons ranging from fresh perspectives, to motivation and interest, to "fit" for particular compliance assignments, the VIPD compliance line-up should be critically reexamined. Keeping need for continuity and experience in mind, the goal should be to field the most talented and motivated compliance team possible.
□ Compliance Staff Enhancements. The IMT’s Third Quarterly Report of 2014 commented on the mounting level of unstarted and unfinished work confronting the VIPD compliance staff. This includes over 40 self-selected (Work Group–selected) recommendations, 30 impediments defined and documented at the August Summit, and 8 system/process workflow mapping and evaluation exercises. While there are redundancies in these groupings and a number have been addressed, a mountain of work remains. During the months since the foregoing census was taken, there has been progress and emergence of new challenges and requirements, outcome measurement and assessment being one. "We urge the VIPD to supplement the current teams - not just in number but in skill sets." (Third Quarterly Report, p. 26.) Our previous
12

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 13 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
recommendations to invest more generously in compliance programming remain relevant for consideration and action by the new VIPD leadership.
Early Movement The IMT is pleased to report that the VIPD is focusing aggressively and intelligently on compliance organization, staffing, and recommitment. Starting with the last consideration, newly appointed Commissioner Delroy Richards, Sr., has pledged to meet the mandates of Governor Mapp and Lt. Governor Potter to restructure the VIPD to achieve and maintain consistency in constitutional policing practices and policies. The IMT joins the DOJ in welcoming Commissioner Richards.
As a package, early structural moves are promising. A principal lead for Consent Decree compliance has been designated in Deputy Commissioner Griffin. The IMT takes comfort from the fact that this individual has been serving in a compliance leadership position for an extended period of time. Continuity is being preserved. A Vacancy Announcement has been posted for the position of Early Intervention Program Research Analyst (January 39, 2015). Plans have been to hire two (2) analysts. The IMT hopes the job skills, education, and experience levels set for the job are very well-suited to current Consent Decree compliance needs. Hires that can bring these assets to the compliance effort will be positioned to make major contributions. Reestablishing the Audit Inspection Unit as a Bureau is under consideration, as is augmenting staff with three persons currently serving in other capacities in the VIPD, one a sworn officer, the other two non-sworn. The Training & Management and Supervision Work Groups have new leaders. IMT interactions with these individuals are and have always been positive. We are encouraged.
13

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 14 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department

II. SUMMIT 2

In August, 2014, the IMT, the VIPD Consent Decree leaders, and compliance staff professionals collaborated in a two-day summit style meeting. Approached as a Consent Decree "re-set" engagement, the principal accomplishments of Summit 1 were clarification and concurrence on compliance status, paragraph by paragraph, on threshold (substantial compliance) criteria and agreement to add a more discrete threshold measurement, "Partial Compliance," to be applied to sub-paragraphs. Of the many outcomes of the engagement, none transcended in utility and value setting a compliance/non-compliance baseline from which all parties have been able to work with evident clarity and comfort during the months that have passed since the Summit. The compliance/non-compliance baseline:

At the outset of the Summit there were 19 paragraphs in Substantial Compliance. As a result of the exhaustive paragraph by paragraph review, utilizing a comprehensive set of worksheets that detail key status and documentation of all 53 operational Consent Decree paragraphs, the IMT was able to place an additional 12 paragraphs into Substantial Compliance, bring the status level to 31 in Substantial compliance, 20 Not In Substantial Compliance, and 2 in NA status.

Mutual agreement was also reached between the IMT and the VIPD to introduce a new classification at the sub-paragraph level only, of "Partial Compliance." The Partial Compliance plateau was set at 51% of those sub-paragraphs that had a numeric threshold. This action acknowledges significant progress in subparagraph components, while the VIPD continued to work toward Substantial Compliance for the paragraph as a whole. Including the most recent designations of Substantial Compliance, the current status of the VIPD for the 53 operational paragraphs is as follows:

Compliance - As of 08/28/14

Substantial Compliance

31

Not In Substantial Compliance

20

N/A

2

This constitutes the first time since the beginning of the Consent Decree that the VIPD was deemed by the monitors to have more paragraphs in Substantial Compliance than those Not In Substantial Compliance. The IMT Monitoring

14

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 15 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Team feels strongly, after the intense two days of the recent Summit, that the VIPD has begun to turn the corner and gain momentum while progressing toward overall compliance with the Consent Decree.
While feeling comfortable with the above judgment call, we remain cognizant of the pending transition in Territorial leadership and its subsequent impact on the VIPD. Based on our information, it is entirely possible that much of the upper echelon of the department will retire or otherwise leave the police service. That said, we are heartened by the efforts of members of the various working groups who will in all likelihood remain in the department, as they have recently demonstrated a new found determination and expertise with seeking compliance. Their efforts during the Summit, specifically in coming prepared for the detail work and genuine dedication to the process should bode well for the future, provided some care is taken with the transition of senior leaders. We urge the Court to exercise its powers to support as seamless a transition as possible to protect the progress that has been made and the spirit recently.
(Third Quarter Report of 2014, pp. 8 and 9.)
On November 12, 2014, about ten (10) weeks after the August Summit, a second Summit, was conducted. Work focused on Court-Ordered Goals and Consent Decree paragraphs that remained Not in Substantial Compliance. Also addressed were: (1) Use of Force concerns and issues, including firearms discharge frequency and cases; (2) Use of Force Audit Questions; (3) Use of Force training issues; (4) Review of quarterly reporting and court dates; and (5) IMT concerns over a proposed VIPD instructor waiver intents. Summit 2 achievements are documented in Interim Update On The Status of Compliance By The Virgin Islands Police Department, November 20, 2014 (Amended, December 9, 2014), filed with the U.S. District Court For The District Of The Virgin Islands on December 12, 2014.
Having "set the table" at Summit 1 by clarifying, documenting and gaining consensus on compliance statuses and thresholds, the IMT and VIPD were positioned to diagnose and actionplan to accelerate compliance at Summit 2. Functioning in break-out group mode, discussions and deliberations focused on three (3) considerations of significance for compliance, for each of 14 paragraphs and 47 sub-paragraphs. The considerations:
15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 16 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
□ Activity. General and/or specific actions – completed and/or in process, to achieve compliance.
□ Impediments. Obstacles and challenges that need to be addressed to advance to substantial or partial compliance.
□ Recommendations. Specific actions/sets of actions to overcome impediments.
The results of the discussions and deliberations are painstakingly documented in the aforementioned Interim Update (59 pages) and repeated, with updates, in Section IV of this report. The IMT expressed expectations and provided technical guidance on the Force Review Board initiative, Force Investigation Team Development & Implementation, Audit & Inspection Unit build-up, composition of the Training Review Committee, and Use of Force Training evaluation protocols. The VIPD responded, reporting on progress with regard to Force Reporting Templates; Directive for Template Implementation & Training; Force Review Board Policy Approval; Force Review Board Staffing & Training; and Force Investigation Team Policy. Target completion dates were set for several of these initiatives.
16

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 17 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
III. COMPLIANCE STATUS: OVERVIEW The following 13 charts document Paragraph Status at the end of Quarter Four, 2014. Compared to Quarter Three, 2014, there has been no change at all with regard to Overall Status (Chart 1), and therefore with regard to Overall Compliance by Paragraph Groups (Charts 4-8), or Compliance Levels by Phase (Charts 9-13). Overall Status The VIPD has achieved Substantial Compliance for 31 paragraphs. These 31 paragraphs are detailed in Appendix A to this report. Twenty (20) are not yet in Substantial Compliance. Section C, Compliance Status, provides more detail on compliance by these paragraphs. Compliance/Non-Compliance patterns vary among Consent Decree paragraph groupings. Charts 4-8 show that three groupings have a majority of paragraphs in Substantial Compliance: Citizen Complaints, 15 of 17; Management & Supervision, 7 of 12; Training, 5 of 9; and Use of Force, 4 of 11.
17

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 18 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
CHART 1
18

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 19 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
CHART 2
CHART 3
19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 20 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
CHART 4
CHART 5
20

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 21 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
CHART 6
CHART 7
21

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 22 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
CHART 8
CHART 9
22

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 23 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
CHART 10
CHART 11
23

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 24 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
CHART 12
CHART 13
24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 25 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
The Compliance Continuum Charts 10-13, Compliance Levels by Phase, add considerable dimension to the compliance status profile. For the Use of Force group, policy requirements have been met for every paragraph. Training has been successfully achieved for all nine (9) paragraphs that are applicable. The challenge now is to meet Practice Compliance requirements and thereafter to sustain those achievements. Only two (2) of the nine (9) have been satisfied. The Citizens Complaint compliance continuum surpasses the Use of Force pattern. All 17 policy requirements have been satisfied, as have all applicable training requirements. Practice compliance is advancing well, with only three (3) unsatisfied requirements. The Management & Supervision Group record mirrors Citizen Complaints in Policy and Training. Practice is more of a challenge. The continuum pattern for the Training paragraphs is characterized by some deviation. Phase 2, Training, shows three (3) paragraphs that are not yet in compliance and five (5) of nine (9) Practice paragraphs still to be satisfied.
25

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 26 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department

IV. COMPLIANCE STATUS: DETAIL

A. Compliance Status as of February 20, 2015 The table below depicts those paragraphs that were in Substantial Compliance (SC) on February 20, 2015:

Paragraphs in Compliance as of February 20, 2015

31

39

40

41

42

43

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

61

62

63

64

65

66

70

75

76

78

79

80

No additional paragraphs came into compliance during the 4th Quarter reporting period.

B. Court Ordered Compliance Goals During the 1st, 2d, 3rd and 4th Quarters, the VIPD proposed compliance with numerous paragraphs. The Court, in its subsequent summary orders (with the exception of the 3rd Quarter where the proposed goals appear to be orally accepted), ordered that the paragraphs listed in the table below come into compliance by the Quarter reporting dates of 5/23/14, 8/15/14, 11/21/14, and 2/20/2015. Compliance requirement details for those goal focused sub-paragraphs are shown in Appendix B to this report. The following summary table displays all goals, regardless of status, across the four court orders. The column to the far right shows the status of each of these paragraph grouped goal sets.

26

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 27 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
27

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 28 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
NOTE: The November 21, 2014 goals were submitted but no court order was rendered. Indications are that they were acceptable to the Court.
In addition to the above paragraphs, in its filing on September 12, 2014, the VIPD asserted they would come into compliance with the following seven initiatives.
1. Edit and improve new force reporting templates. 2. Issue directive for template implementation. 3. Training and implement templates. 4. Approval of Force Review Board Policy. 5. Identify personnel for Force Review Board. 6. Identify training for Force Review Board personnel. 7. Develop Force Investigations Team (FIT) policy. In its February 20, 2015 filing the VIPD added the following goals that were not associated with a specific paragraph.
February 20, 2015 Goals identified separate from paragraphs included: UOF Special 1: Approval of Force Investigation Team Policy. UOF Special 2: Identify personnel for Force Investigation Team (FIT). UOF Special 3: Identify training & funding for Force Investigation Team. UOF Special 4: Issue Directive for template implementation. UOF Special 5: Train and implement templates. UOF Special 6: Approval of Force Review Board Policy. UOF Special 7: Identify personnel for Force Review Board. UOF Special 8: Identify training for Force Review Board Personnel. UOF Special 9: Develop force investigation team policy. These initiatives are discussed in subsequent sections of this report.
28

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 29 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
C. Compliance Detail As previously noted, the VIPD has achieved Substantial Compliance for 31 paragraphs. Twenty (20) remain in Not in Substantial Compliance status, with little or no activity during the current quarter. This is the third time in the history of the VIPD Consent Decree that more paragraphs have been in full compliance than have not. The work done at August Summit explains some of the surge in compliance.
● Paragraphs in Substantial Compliance at the end of the Quarter Four, 2014 are: 31, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 , 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 70, 75, 76, 78, 79 and 80. (NOTE: Bolded/underlined paragraphs have training evaluated under paragraph 75 and implementation under paragraph 100)
 Paragraphs that attained Substantial Compliance at the end of Quarter Four, 2014: None.
● Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance: 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 44, 58, 59, 60, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 81, 100, 101. The IMT issued a memorandum on November 13, 2014, in response to requests generated at the Summit, of the linkage between paragraph 100 subparagraph compliance requirements or items (a-w) and their original location in another paragraph of the Consent Decree. This was included as Appendix A to that report.
D. Other Activities The Force Review Board The IMT previously provided technical assistance to Captain Duggan, the Force Work Group chairperson. The IMT forwarded carefully selected examples of Policies and Procedures to develop a Force Review Board capable of completing detailed analysis of force incidents that would fall under its purview. Captain Duggan has taken this item under her personal review,
29

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 30 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
with several individuals she has selected from the VIPD supervisory staff, and reported on the committee’s progress during the October 29, 2014 monthly meeting, the November Summit and December meetings and court hearing, as well as numerous phone conversations. (See Section III, A., which provides updated details) As of March 6th 2015 the VIPD has provided to the DOJ and the IMT several versions of the policy pertaining to the Review Board. Those versions have been exchanged between the parties and are in the final stages of completion. Captain Duggan did not want to proceed forward with completing the policy with the anticipation of a complete change in VIPD leadership. That new leadership could or would change the direction of the policy and VIPD would have wasted its resources on designing policy, training, and protocols for such a project which would only have to be changed again under new leadership. That waiting until the new leadership gave its formal approval for completion made more sense. The program was developed as far as it could be and now with the approval of the DOJ should be ready for the new commissioner’s signature to implement.
The Force Investigation Team
The IMT previously provided technical assistance to Captain Duggan by providing examples of an Organizational Plan and Operations Manual to implement a Force Investigation Team. Captain Duggan has selected her team members to undertake a review and evaluation of those documents and will oversee the development of recommendations related to the implementation to the VIPD executive leadership of the FIT Team. (See Section III, A., which provides updated details) As of March 6th 2015 the VIPD has provided to the DOJ and the IMT several versions of the policy pertaining to the Review Board. Those versions have been exchanged between the parties and are in the final stages of completion. Captain Duggan did not want to proceed forward with completing the policy with the anticipation of a complete change in VIPD leadership. That new leadership could or would change the direction of the policy and VIPD would have wasted its resources on designing policy, training, and protocols for such a project which would only have to be changed again under new leadership. That waiting until the new leadership gave its formal approval for completion made more sense. The program was
30

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 31 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
developed as far as it could be and now with the approval of the DOJ should be ready for the new commissioner’s signature to implement.
Audit & Inspection Unit The Commissioner of the VIPD recently decided to implement the Audit & Inspection Unit (AIU), VIPD Policy 2.07. He initially established it with one full-time member, the unit commander. While it was our understanding that the intent of the VIPD is to supplement the AIU staffing with temporary assigned staff of up to six months duration, such temporary assignments do not enhance the development of AIU experience and capacity as would some level of additional full time staff. This plan was certainly not what the IMT expected when the Commission announced in the last court session that the unit would be implemented.
In the view of the IMT, single person staffing with temporary duty personnel is clearly deficient and does not recognize the importance and relationship between a robust and comprehensive audit and inspection program and the department’s continued progress toward full compliance with the Consent Decree. Assignment of one full-time member, the commander, who is responsible for overall supervision and management of the function as well as of actual conduct of audits, does not ensure that the unit will be able to fulfill its assigned mission. Based on the extensive experience that the IMT members have with audit units and a review of other law enforcement agencies, we were expecting an initial staffing of at least a commander and a combination of at least two to three full or part-time auditors. While we acknowledge that the unit will require some stand-up organizational time, to do so without full-time staffing levels jeopardize the initiation. In saying this, we have taken into consideration the initiation of systemfocused audits (discussed in our recent letter to the Commissioner), the oversight and direct staffing assistance to the on-going audit working groups as well as beginning the departmentwide, bi-annual unit level inspections function. None of this is possible with only one full-time member, who has other critical duties, and a rotating, part-time staffing of individuals who have their own unit level responsibilities.
31

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 32 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Subsequent to our 3Q2014 report comments on recommended staffing of the Audit and Inspection Unit, the VIPD in 4Q2014 announced the additional staffing of three persons to the AIU. This is indeed a welcome change of course and one which the IMT believes would certainly enhance its ability to perform its mission, however, subsequent to that announcement we learned that the AIU Commander would be selected for a Deputy Chief position, thus leaving the AIU without a commander at the very critical initial standup time period. Inductions are that the VIPD has a replacement in mind, however, the IMT is concerned that such a transition should take place now rather than later to ensure unit effectiveness. The IMT, as before, will provide whatever technical assistance the new commander and AIU team needs to begin its vital mission. We urge the department leadership to finalize this personnel change as soon as possible.
Training Review Committee During the 3rd Quarter the IMT observed that the VIPD has established a Training Review Committee that has 12 members, generally representing management and the Training Academy. It appears there are neither first responders nor the lead from the Use of Force Working Group as full time members. In addition, this committee is tasked with evaluating Use of Force training materials and programs, in some cases making use of IAPro generated data. However they have not created criteria, process, or a protocol for this evaluation. Finally the Committee should consider allowing anonymous routing for training improvement recommendations, which may lead to increased recommendations from field personnel.
The IMT recommended that the VIPD address these issues quickly in order to facilitate effective and comprehensive evaluation of use of force training those results in improvements in content and delivery. They can do this by reviewing and adjusting the membership to increase first responder representation and the lead of the Use of Force Working Group, create a well designed protocol for evaluating the training in the context of IAPro operational data, and allow for direct routing of suggestions to the Committee. During the 4th Quarter, the IMT continued to provide technical assistance in this area and given that the Training Work group has placed this issue on
32

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 33 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
their 1Q2015 goals is a positive sign. The IMT stands ready to continue assist the VIPD with this review in any way we can.
Early Intervention Process The other area of concern has to do with the lack of progress in the EIP area. There was been limited, ineffective supervisory/managerial response to alerts forwarded. This is allowing employees, who may be starting to exhibit signs of problematic behavior, to continue same behavior resulting in additional citizen complaints and/or uses of force. IMT was informed that there had been 97 alerts forwarded during 2014; however, VIPD could not immediately provide a status update other than a statement that very few had been addressed appropriately. This seems to indicate a VIPD supervisory issue.
Court Goals and Paragraph Compliance Detail A. VIPD Initiatives
1. Edit and improve new force reporting templates. a. IMT Comment: Three templates have been developed by the Use of Force Working Group. These include a Witness Statement, an Officer Statement (RRR), and a Supervisory Investigation. They were recently field tested on St. Croix and some updates were made to the final versions. IMT has provided technical assistance to the Working Group throughout the development of these templates.
2. Issue directive for template implementation. a. IMT Comment: The directive has been developed and is pending VIPD Commissioner Signature; it will be issued prior to the December court hearing date.
3. Training and implement templates a. IMT Comment: Supervisors and Officers on St. Croix were trained by Captain Duggan during the period 11/25/14 and 11/26/14, while Supervisors on St, Thomas and St, John were trained on 12/11/14. St. Croix officers were trained by the Academy staff 33

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 34 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
on 12/1/14-12/5/14. The remaining officers on St. Thomas/St. John and anyone who missed the previously scheduled training, are scheduled for that training, to be conducted by Sergeant Marsh, March 16th 2015.
4. Approval of Force Review Board Policy. a. IMT Comment: A draft of the proposed policy was sent to DOJ and the VIPD is reviewing comments made by DOJ and revising as necessary. Once completed it will be reviewed by the IMT staff and returned to the VIPD for approval and publication. This document has been reviewed and exchanged between the parties and the IMT. The new leadership of the VIPD has taken under advisement and will report back to the DOJ and the IMT on what course of action they wish to take.
5. Identify personnel for Force Review Board. a. IMT Comment: This process will be underway once the directive has been approved. IMT will provide assistance as needed with the selection process. IMT has provided technical assistance and materials to aid the VIPD with this process. This document has been reviewed and exchanged between the parties and the IMT. The new leadership of the VIPD has taken under advisement and will report back to the DOJ and the IMT on what course of action they wish to take
6. Identify training for Review Board personnel. a. IMT Comment: Again, once the directive is approved, development of the necessary training will begin. IMT will assist as needed. IMT has provided technical assistance and materials to aid the VIPD with this process.
7. Develop force investigations team policy. a. IMT Comment: This is a work in progress, with an expectation that a draft will be available by December 5, 2014. IMT has provided technical assistance and materials to aid the VIPD with this process, and will assist as needed. This document has been reviewed and exchanged between the parties and the IMT. The
34

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 35 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
new leadership of the VIPD has taken under advisement and will report back to the DOJ and the IMT on what course of action they wish to take
B. Paragraph and Goal Detail Review: The IMT reports on all paragraphs and sub-paragraphs proposed by the VIPD and accepted by the Court as quarterly goals. In addition, the IMT also reports on other paragraphs and sub-paragraphs that are Not in Substantial Compliance or Partial Compliance (sub-paragraphs only) as they feel are important to progress toward Consent Decree compliance.
Paragraph 32, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording
The VIPD will require all uses of force to be documented in writing. The use of force report form will indicate each and every type of force that was used, and require the evaluation of each type of force. Use of force reports will include a narrative description of the events preceding the use of force, written by a supervisor or by the designated investigative unit. Use of force reports also will include the officer(s)’ narrative description of events and the officer(s)’ statement. Except in cases of use of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, the officer’s statement shall be audio- or videotaped.
Activity
During this reporting period the VIPD has undertaken an aggressive approach at revamping its internal review system to respond to known lapses in the force reporting, investigation and review process. They developed a 1) revised Officer Responding to Resistance template, 2) new Witness Officer Force template, 3) revised Supervisor Investigating Force template, and a directive from the commissioner implementing the templates. The force group leader Capt. Duggan executed training and tested the methodology for the implementation of the training and the validity of the templates. Additional tweaks to the products were detected and will be completed. Supervisors and Officers on St. Croix were trained by Captain Duggan during the period 11/25/14 and 11/26/14, while Supervisors on St, Thomas and St, John were trained on 12/11/14. St. Croix officers were trained by the Academy staff on 12/1/14-12/5/14. The
35

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 36 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
remaining officers on St. Thomas/St. John and anyone who missed the previously scheduled training, are scheduled for that training, to be conducted by Sergeant Marsh, March 16th 2015.
IMT staff conducted interview based surveys with VIPD supervisory and command personnel during December 2014 and January 2015. A summary of the results of these surveys is documented elsewhere in this report and has implications for compliance with many of the following paragraphs.
Sub-paragraph 32a is currently in compliance.
Impediments to Compliance
With regard to the template’s training and curriculum development, the close coordination between the Use of Force Working Group and the Training Division will be critical for the development of effective training development and delivery. It appears that this did not occur. Instructor selection for department wide template trainers has not been completed. The development of the training protocols, outcome measures and evaluation for the template training has not been completed. It does not appear that the Training Division was fully involved in the development of this training and thus its future training delivery may be impacted unless these critical training components are institutionalized and monitored by Training. These must be done to ensure that training is repeated evenly throughout the department and into future sessions going forward. New leadership in the training division should undertake a fresh review of this recommendation and work closely with the Force working group to meet this recommendation.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Coordinate with the Training Division all necessary documentation and curriculum components to ensure all members are trained consistently and provided the same outcome measures.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Partial Compliance =>95% of RRRs indicate each and every type of force that was used.
36

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 37 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Activity This has been a particularly troublesome spot for the reporting process. Officers fail to identify all the force used and by each officer each time. The new reporting form is designed to capture this element.
Impediments to Compliance Supervisors have failed to identify all force used each and every time force is executed. Supervisors and management must review force cases more specifically for the failure to identify each and every specific type of force used during an event. The Force Working group has determined that a supervisor Review Checklist may help eliminate this occurrence and is in the process of developing one for the VIPD.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Train supervisors to evaluate each and every force application employed by department personnel.
Prepare “go-bys” to example actual review of different use of force cases. Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>95% of RRRs contain an evaluation of each type of force used by a supervisor. Activity In August 2014, deficiencies are being identified through audits and corrective action is being applied by the agency.
At the 11/12/14 Summit there has been no change in the status of this sub-paragraph. The department produced the templates to engage the department leadership into better monitoring the force review process. The templates were electronically produced and have been tested by a diverse group of VIPD managers. Several adjustments were noted by the managers and those
37

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 38 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
adjustments to the templates were in progress by the working group. Further the training was facilitated by the use of force working group and the results would be incorporated into the final roll-out. The Use of Force Working Group chair advised that the training should be out and running prior to the Dec court date.
The templates include Officer Witness report, RRR, and Supervisor’s Investigation Report of Use of Force. Training will take about 1 hour for the Witness and the officer's RRR; 2.5 hours for the supervisor component, according to the working group leader.
We were informed that by the Dec court date, the VIPD will be able to tell us how many officers will have been trained on the new templates. Supervisors and Officers on St. Croix were trained by Captain Duggan during the period 11/25/14 and 11/26/14, while Supervisors on St. Thomas and St. John were trained on 12/11/14. St. Croix officers were trained by the Academy staff on 12/1/14-12/5/14. The remaining officers on St. Thomas/St. John and anyone who missed the previously scheduled training, are scheduled for that training, to be conducted by Sergeant Marsh, March 16th 2015.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to implement the templates and training personnel on them. Continued failure to meet deadlines and content requirements in UOF reporting.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Follow through with the template implementation and training, with follow-on evaluation, through the on-going audits.
Complete “go-bys” development. Sub-Paragraph d, Status = Partial Compliance =>95% of RRRs contain a narrative description of the events preceding the use of force written by the supervisor or assigned investigator.
38

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 39 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Activity The new forms are designed to capture this information and reinforce the supervisor’s role in learning what the events that preceded the force use were.
Impediments to Compliance Untrained supervisors and department leaders who failed to identify the supervisor’s oversights. Recommendations to Gain Compliance Improved training focused on the organizations weaknesses learned through audits and inspections.
Sub-Paragraph f, Status = Partial Compliance =>95% of the reports will include an audio or videotaped statement, unless the level of force used is at the lowest level as described by DOJ approved VIPD policy. Activity IMT is reviewing case files to determine if audio and video taping is being conducted and if those files are attached to reports. IMT will continue this review through 1Q2015. IMT does note that several of the respondents in the surveys conducted during December 2014 and Jan 2015 indicated, anecdotally, that the department had not previously provided such recording equipment and had purchased their own.
Impediments to Compliance Comments held pending completion of case reviews referenced above. Recommendations to Gain Compliance Install in car video cameras. Review the distribution and availability of department owned audio and/or video equipment need to comply with this requirement, and purchase as needed to
39

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 40 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
overcome shortcomings. This might be an appropriate audit for the Audit and Inspection Unit (AIU) to complete to validate the survey comments.
General Discussion and/Meetings Mini summit produced understanding that VIPD would have templates, and training completed by Dec 2014 court hearing.
Activity Complete training curriculums, instructor class notes, class objectives, outcome measures and class evaluations.
Impediments None known Recommendations Assign personnel to complete tasks and focus leadership on meeting timetables. Paragraph 33, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance Consent Decree Paragraph Wording Officers shall notify their supervisors following any use of force or upon the receipt of an allegation of excessive force. Except in uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, supervisors will respond to the scene, examine the subject for injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain, and ensure that the subject received needed medical attention. Activity
IMT met frequently with the Force Working Group chair and members through conference calls, mini summit and IMT monitoring activities.
40

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 41 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Impediments to Compliance Insufficient supervisors are neither available nor assigned to the areas most needed to ensure proper oversight or inquiries of force are properly reviewed and evaluated. Recommendations to Gain Compliance Promote and assign supervisors where experience has shown that supervisors are needed to review, analyze, and evaluate force incidents occurring on their watch. No action on this recommendation. IMT has been advised there were some promotions made in January 2015; however the IMT does not know where they have been assigned. Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Partial Compliance In =>95% of the identified use of force incidents, the officer using force notified his/her supervisor immediately as required by VIPD policy. Activity VIPD has identified persons to be promoted for supervision which should help ensure that they are available for force review. Impediments to Compliance VIPD has not completed the promotional process and was in the process of making assignments. VIPD must then train the new supervisors on force review, investigation and reporting process. The VIPD scheduled training for newly promoted supervisors during 1Q2015 (late Feb 2015).
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Finish both the promotional and training processes outlined.
41

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 42 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Sub-Paragraph e, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of the incidents where the Supervisors responded to the scene, he/she ensured that subjects received any necessary medical attention. Activity VIPD has worked to complete the templates for both the capture and evaluation of the tenets contained in this item of the consent decree.
Impediments to Compliance Completion of the training and then oversight management to ensure that both officers and supervisors complete and document their activities. A continued lack of coordination between work groups and Training Division to develop on-going and refresher training.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Ensure that the Training Division, in conjunction with the template designers, provides for coordinated training and management of the curriculums necessary to properly retrain and train new employees in the same process.
General Discussion and/Meetings Discussion of system designed to ensure the capture of the necessary elements of the consent decree. That those elements are consistently trained
Activity This was discussed at the mini summit. The VIPD is making good headway on the system designed to capture the elements of force inquiry via the use of templates. Test training has been done and the development of the final protocols, curriculums and teaching outcomes are yet to be completed. VIPD expects to completed all of that work before the Consent Decree hearing in December 17, 2014
42

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 43 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Impediments Development of the student and instructor outcome measures, lesson plans, evaluations before the December hearing could be difficult. The monitor was unable to find any of the above documents in the Power DMS system.
Development of “go-byes” should assist with compliance.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Assign training personnel to assist the Force work group chairman in completing the training documentation. Little or no activity occurred here, although with changes made in the Training Division it is anticipated that some movement will result in 1Q2015.
Paragraph 34, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance Consent Decree Paragraph Wording Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, will review, evaluate, and document each use of force, and will complete the narrative description section of the use of force report. The narrative description will include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer's conduct. As part of this review, the supervisor or designated investigating officer/unit will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officer's actions were within VIPD policy. An officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized conduct leading to the use of force or allegation of excessive force, or who was present during the incident, will not be eligible to review or investigate the incident. Activity IMT met frequently with the Force Working Group chair and members through conference calls, mini summits and IMT monitoring activities.
Sub-paragraphs f and g are in compliance.
43

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 44 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Impediments to Compliance Management review of the completed force cases has been intermittent and incomplete. Both the VIPD audits and IMT reviews have disclosed untimely cases, incomplete analysis that failed to properly identify inadequate officer or supervisor reporting, missing collection of evidence, witness identification missing and case analysis was not supported by evidence.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance VIPD efforts to implement both a Force Review Board, and a Serious Force Investigation team will greatly assist in the ongoing force analysis issues. Properly trained and motivated managers who follow reporting procedure themselves will also result in furthering compliance. IMT completed review of supporting directives and policy for this area in 4Q2014 and forwarded to DOJ for additional review and comments. It is anticipated that finalization and implementation will occur in 1Q2015.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Partial Compliance In =>95% of the reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he/she was not involved in the use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize or participate in conduct leading to the use of force incident), will review, evaluate, and document each use of force. No change in activity, impediments, or recommendations from prior reports. No progress was made.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completes the supervisor's narrative description of the RRR in a manner that comports with the requirements of paragraph 34 of the Consent Decree. No change in activity, impediments, or recommendations from prior reports. No progress was made, with the exception of template completion and associated training conducted during the later part of 4Q2014.
44

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 45 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completed his/her review and evaluation according to VIPD's use of force policies and all other requirements of 31 of the Consent Decree and include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer/s conduct. No change in activity, impediments, or recommendations from prior reports. No progress was made.
Sub-Paragraph d, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completed his/her review and evaluation according to VIPD's use of force policies and all other requirements of 31 of the Consent Decree and will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officers actions were within VIPD policy. No change in activity, impediments, or recommendations from prior reports. No progress was made.
Sub-Paragraph e, Status = Partial Compliance See a, above. No change in activity, impediments, or recommendations from prior reports. No progress was made.
General Discussion and/Meetings Activity Meetings with Force Working Group, mini summits (November 2014), IMT monitoring and evaluations of cases. IMT has continued building a 2014 baseline of cases analyzed upon which to compare 2015 case processing to.
45

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 46 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Impediments
VIPD leadership has not been focused on assuring accountability to CD compliance.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance
The VIPD must hold the highest levels of the department responsible for completing CD requirements as well as subordinate officers.
Paragraph 35, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording
The parties agree that it is improper interview procedure during use of force investigations to ask officers or other witnesses’ leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer's conduct when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. In each review/investigation, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. The VIPD will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. The VIPD will train all of its supervisors and officers assigned to conduct use of force investigations in conducting use of force investigations, including in the factors to consider when evaluating credibility.
Activity
IMT met with the Force working Group, had two mini summits and conducted monitoring and evaluations of force cases.
Impediments to Compliance
Force review does not adequately address cases that suggest supervisors are asking leading questions. Templates are being developed to document and train supervisors to be alert and prohibit leading questions from being used. Templates were completed and associated training conducted during 4Q2014. Persons who missed the initial training will attend a session in early March 2015. A supervisor’s force checklist is also being developed to ensure supervisors don’t miss required elements of the consent decree during their reviews. A similar checklist is being developed for the Citizen Complaint process.
46

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 47 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Implement and train the templates Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of the interviews conducted during use of force reviews, leading questions were avoided. No change in activity, impediments, or recommendations from prior reports. No progress was made.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of the use of force reviews, all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence is documented and appropriately considered, and credibility determinations made, if feasible. No change in activity, impediments, or recommendations from prior reports. No progress was made.
Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of investigations where material inconsistencies are present between witness statements, reasonable efforts are made to resolve the inconsistencies. When evaluating witness credibility, appropriate factors are considered and documented. No change in activity, impediments, or recommendations from prior reports. No progress was made.
Sub-Paragraph d, Status = Substantial Compliance =>95% of supervisors are trained on how to conduct, review, and evaluate use of force incidents, including but not limited to, what factors to consider when evaluating witness credibility.
47

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 48 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Activity
This sub paragraph is considered in compliance. It is however one of those paragraphs that can easily fall out of compliance. The VIPD must be vigilant in their oversight of case analysis for insuring that supervisors are carefully considering all factors when evaluating credibility. Reinforcing on daily case oversight when factors might be considered important for such purpose.
Impediments to Compliance
Proper case review by supervisors
Recommendations to Gain Compliance
Implement templates and training. Engage Use of Force review Board.
Paragraph 36, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording
Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall conduct an investigation of all uses of force or injury resulting from a use of force by any officer under their command. This requirement does not apply to uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ. In an investigation, supervisors or designated investigating officers or units, shall interview all witnesses to a use of force or an injury resulting from a use of force. Consistent with the requirements of the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable law, VIPD supervisors or designated investigating officers or units shall ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all use of force reports for all levels of force identify all officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports for all levels of force indicate whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided, and whether the subject refused medical treatment. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports include contemporaneous photographs or videotapes taken of all injuries at the earliest practicable opportunity, both before and after any treatment, including cleansing of wounds.
Activity
Meetings with VIPD leadership, and Force working Group. IMT monitoring and case review.
48

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 49 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Impediments to Compliance Management review and accountability has been spotty and inconsistent. Recommendations to Gain Compliance Leadership to hold themselves and VIPD managers accountable for incomplete investigations. Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Partial Compliance =>90% of the Use of Force reports, the supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, who supervised the officer using the force, conducted the investigation of all uses of force or injury resulting from the use of force by that officer. This requirement does not apply to the lowest level use of force as defined in DOJ approved VIPD policy. There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this sub-paragraph, although the IMT has noticed some improvements in this area and will continue to monitor against the under-development case review baseline.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, all witnesses, to the extent practicable, are interviewed in the investigating supervisor's reports. There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this sub-paragraph. Sub-Paragraph d, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of Use of Force reports, Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all use of force reports for all levels of force identify all officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred. There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this sub-paragraph. General Discussion and/Meetings Case review and audits of both VIPD and IMT. Activity Meetings with Force working group, mini summit, IMT monitoring and case evaluations.
49

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 50 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Impediments VIPD documentation has been weak in assuring that sub paragraphs of the paragraph have been supported. Templates have been developed and are in the process of implementation. The planned evaluation of the templates impact on this issue.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Implement and train officers and supervisors on the templates and “go by's.” As noted before training was delivered on the templates and now the VIPD must monitor and evaluate their effectiveness.
Paragraph 37, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance Consent Decree Paragraph Wording All investigations into use of force shall be reviewed by the Officer's Commander and/or Director, or by a Commander and/or Director in the designated investigative unit, who shall identify any deficiencies in those reviews, and shall require supervisors, or designated investigative officers or units, to correct any and all deficiencies. Supervisors, and designated investigative officers or units, will be held accountable for the quality of their reviews. Appropriate non-disciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary action will be taken when a supervisor, or designated investigative officer or unit, fails to conduct a timely and thorough review, or neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action, or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action. As provided by VIPD policy and approved by DOJ, designated command staff shall further review the Commander and/or Director's reviews according to the level of force involved. Activity There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this paragraph. VIPD confirmed no change in status during November Summit and December 2014 meetings and court hearing.
50

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 51 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Impediments to Compliance
Recommendations to Gain Compliance
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
=>90% of the completed use of force case files contained signed documentation from the Chief and/or Deputy Chief indicating that he/she reviewed the completed investigation and the date of such review. In these cases, were all appropriate deficiencies noted and was corrective action directed or imposed?
There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this sub-paragraph.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, supervisors are held accountable for the quality of their reviews, and documented non-disciplinary and/or disciplinary action has been taken when a supervisor or manager: fails to conduct a timely and thorough review; neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action; or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action. In those cases where discipline was imposed, did the officials imposing the discipline follow the departmental disciplinary matrix?
There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this sub-paragraph.
Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, the Chief and/or Deputy Chief provided a written, signed and dated finding on whether the use of force was justified under VIPD's DOJ approved use of force policies and all other requirements of 31(a)-(g) of the Consent Decree.
There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this sub-paragraph.
Sub- Paragraph d, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, supervisors are held accountable for the quality of their investigations, reviews, and documented non-disciplinary and/or disciplinary action has been taken when a supervisor or manager: fails to conduct a timely and thorough review; neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action; or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action.-
There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this sub-paragraph.
51

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 52 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Sub-Paragraph e, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>95% of the use of force incidents where the Commander's/Director's review and evaluation concluded that improper tactics were used, there is evidence that the involved sworn personnel received and successfully completed remedial training, and, if appropriate, were disciplined. There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this sub-paragraph Sub-Paragraph f, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>95% of the use of force incidents deemed unjustified by the Commander's/Director's review and evaluation, the involved sworn personnel were disciplined, including separation from service with the VIPD when appropriate, and, if separation from service was not appropriate, received remedial training. There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this sub-paragraph Paragraph 38, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD will investigate all critical firearm discharges. The VIPD will ensure that the investigation accounts for all shots and locations of all officers who discharged their firearms. The VIPD will conduct all ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate. Activity There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this paragraph. VIPD confirmed no change in status during November summit and December 2014 meetings.
Impediments to Compliance See sub-paragraphs. Recommendations to Gain Compliance See sub-paragraphs. Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>99% of all critical firearm discharges are investigated and documented.
52

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 53 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this sub-paragraph.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
=>95% of all investigations or reviews of critical firearm discharges accounted for all shots.
There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this sub-paragraph.
Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
=>95% of all supervisors (or other personnel) have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training on ballistic and crime scene analyses and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or (b) if supervisors (or other personnel) have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the supervisors (or other personnel) have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s); or Where supervisors (or other personnel) have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel.
There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this sub-paragraph.
Paragraph 44, Status = Partial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording
Complaints may be filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile or electronic mail. The duty officer at the front desk of each district station will be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints, which persons may file at any district station. Complaint intake officers may describe facts that bear upon a complainant's demeanor and physical condition but May not express opinions regarding his/her mental competency or veracity. Each complaint will be resolved in writing. Upon receipt, each complaint will be assigned a unique identifier, which will be provided to the complainant. Each complaint will be tracked according to the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, improper search, etc.).
Activity
VIPD is in compliance with all paragraphs of this paragraph with the exception of paragraph “I” where timeliness continues to be the issue.
53

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 54 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Impediments to Compliance See sub-paragraphs. Recommendations to Gain Compliance See sub-paragraphs. Sub-Paragraph i, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>90% of complaints are documented and resolved in writing and completed investigations into complaints comport with the provisions of the Consent Decree.
Activity Timeliness continues to be the issue on this paragraph; as stated in VIPD’s 3rd Quarterly report, “The IMT has determined that the VIPD is in compliance with various components of the paragraph 44, but lacks substantial compliance due to the lack of timeliness of complaint investigations. The VIPD however, is not contesting IMT’s assessment as it relates to timeliness of complaint investigations, as reported previously the VIPD has attempted to resolve the timeliness issue through the issuance of commissioner’s directives in both Districts, which mandated the completion of all outstanding 2013 and 2014 investigations. As a result of these directives the number of outstanding cases for both Districts was reduced significantly. Additionally, through internal processes/mechanisms, which included weekly and monthly dissemination of case listings to the chain of command, and at commanders call sessions, the VIPD will continue to identify outstanding investigations and implement actions, disciplinary as well as commissioner’s directives to ensure that timeliness is no longer an issue as it relates to complaint investigations. “This quote focuses on zone investigations. IMT concurs with this VIPD assessment. IMT will also assess IAB timeliness in future quarters.
54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 55 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Impediments to Compliance Lack of appropriate numbers of supervisors. This has been raised repeatedly as one of the critical impediments towards compliance/reform in the VIPD. During this period, VIPD has promoted supervisors; IMT will continue to monitor impact of promotions on the timeliness of investigations"
Lack of accountability re supervisors – although we have seen that start to improve with disciplinary actions taken. IMT continues to review progress Recommendations to Gain Compliance The IMT takes note that some promotions were made in January 2015, but without accurate staffing information, it is difficult to determine if all needed assignment to patrol were made.
If disciplinary action not effective; demotion from rank next step – this step identified by VIPD.
Paragraph 58, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance Consent Decree Paragraph Wording Unit commanders will evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command to identify underlying problems and training needs. Any such problems or need will be relayed in the form of a recommendation to the appropriate VIPD entity. Activity During this quarter, the VIPD issued a Directive to address the process of forwarding information relative to training needs. This Directive was issued in December, 2015.Along with VIPD, IMT will monitor effectiveness of same.
55

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 56 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Impediments to Compliance
The December Directive addresses how to forward training concerns identified through investigations. As mentioned in earlier IMT Quarterly Reports, limiting 'problems and training' to merely training is not sufficient.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance
The new directive addressing issues re paragraph 58 should be monitored As stated in earlier IMT Quarterly Reports, further direction appears to be needed re the identification of ‘problems’ beyond training. Up until this time, the focus has been on training needs, but the CD paragraph states ‘problems or training’.
The work group should continue to work with Miss Tweed on development of report to better documented remedial training – including the identification of where the request initiated.
Paragraph 60, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording
The new risk management system will collect and record the following information: a. all uses of force; b. canine bite ratios; c. the number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers; d. all injuries to prisoners; e. all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with "resisting arrest," "assault on a police officer," "disorderly conduct," or "obstruction of official business;" f. all critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty; g. all complaints (and their dispositions); h. all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the Territory and its officers, or agents, resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel; i. all vehicle pursuits; j. all incidents involving the pointing of a firearm (if any such reporting is required); and k. all disciplinary action taken against officers.
56

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 57 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Activity See sub-paragraphs. Impediments See sub-paragraphs. Recommendations to Gain Compliance See sub-paragraphs. Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Substantial Compliance 1. >95% of canine deployments are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness. 2. >95% of canine deployments resulting in a bite are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness. 3. RMS provides statistical analyses of canine bite ratio or the data necessary to compute such ratio. Activity See other sub-paragraphs. Impediments to Compliance See other sub-paragraphs. Recommendations to Gain Compliance See other sub-paragraphs. Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>95% of the canisters of chemical spray issued to officers will be entered into RMS, including the date of issuance and date of expirations of the chemical spray, with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness and the VIPD has developed a process to track the amount of OC Spray used by Officers.
57

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 58 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Activity VIPD provided a listing of all personnel who were issued an OC Spray with a weight of the canister. An audit will be conducted and a report will be provided.
Impediments to Compliance See recommendations. Recommendations to Gain Compliance VIPD should audit, identify deficiencies and address same. Sub-Paragraph d, Status = Partial Compliance =>95% of all injuries to prisoners will be entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness. Activity According to VIPD, The Injury to Prisoners posters are completed and are being posted throughout the various zones. IMT acknowledges receipt of the finalized directive for the records bureau (on 11/20/14). According to VIPD goals and the Management and Supervision bi-weekly reporting for period ending 12/1/14, this directive is to be incorporated into the arrest policy.
Impediments to Compliance See recommendations – IAB addressing impediments Recommendations to Gain Compliance VIPD should audit, identify deficiencies and address same. Sub-Paragraph h, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>95% of criminal proceedings initiated, civil or administrative claims filed, and civil lawsuits served against the Territory, the VIPD, and its Officers resulting from VIPD operations will be entered in RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
58

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 59 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Activity According to the VIPD, the group was able to meet with 911 and 1/13/15 to develop a code for vehicle pursuits was created. A screen print out of the close-out code displaying 911 capabilities to track vehicle pursuit was provided.
The group was able on 1/13/15 to have 911 create a code for tracking vehicle accidents involving VIPD personnel. A listing of all VIPD marked vehicles that were involved in an accident was generated.
911 informed the group that the system was not able to provide a listing of the unmarked police vehicle because they were not provided with that listing.
A listing of the unmarked vehicles will be provided to 911 so an identical report can be generated for the audit.
The group was able to meet with 911 and 1/13/15 a code for vehicle pursuits was created. A screen print out of the close-out code displaying 911 capabilities to track vehicle pursuit was provided.
The group was able on 1/13/15 to have 911 create a code for tracking vehicle accidents involving VIPD personnel. A listing of all VIPD marked vehicles that were involved in an accident was generated.
911 informed the group that the system was not able to provide a listing of the unmarked police vehicle because they were not provided with that listing.
A listing of the unmarked vehicles will be provided to 911 so an identical report can be generated for the audit.
59

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 60 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Impediments to Compliance IMT will monitor the submission of materials from VIAG to VIPD to ensure that the time periods represented in the letter are met. IMT does note that the part of the letter addressing criminal matters is not particularly clear. IMT is assuming that the “appropriate time” referenced in the letter is as soon as notification (if only to PC and IAB) would not interfere with the criminal investigation. IMT looks forward, next quarter, to reviewing the VIAG internal protocol/direction which will hopefully clarify this section.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance As stated in earlier reports, VIAG needs to provide some form of documentation confirming that all such required materials are being forwarded to the VIPD; additionally VIAG needs to respond to VIPD requests in a timely fashion.
Paragraph 69, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD will develop a protocol for conducting audits. The protocol will be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol will establish a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all VIPD zones. Activity According to the VIPD on 1/7/2015 a review of the present Audit Policy 2.7 was conducted and corrections are being worked on.
On 1/15/2015 the SOP for the Audit procedure for Staff Inspections was drafted and the Acting Police Commissioner Richards approved a letter submitted identifying members of the Audit Unit.
Sub-paragraph a remains in compliance.
60

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 61 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Impediments to Compliance Failure to provide adequate full time staff to match requirements will inhibit compliance in subparagraph b.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance See paragraph level comments. Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Partial Compliance The protocol establishes a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all VIPD zones. IMT acknowledges that VIPD continues to work on additional aspects of this section. IMT will continue to monitor.
Paragraph 71, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance Consent Decree Paragraph Wording VIPD policy will identify clear time periods by which the various steps of a complaint adjudication process should be completed, from complaint receipt to the imposition of discipline, if any. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions will not be granted without the Police Commissioner's written approval and notice to the complainant. In the limited circumstances when an extension is necessary, appropriate tolling provisions will be outlined in the policy. Activity The management and supervision work group continues to conduct periodic inspections and or audits to ensure the forms or letters are being utilized to comport with the mandates of paragraph 71 sub section (b).
Impediments to Compliance See other sub-paragraphs.
61

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 62 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Recommendations to Gain Compliance All activity, impediments, and recommendations for sub-paragraph b remain the same; no changes, as of 02/20/15.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status =Substantial Compliance; The VIPD has developed a policy that establishes clear time periods by which the various steps of a complaint adjudication process should be completed, from complaint receipt to the imposition of discipline, if any. Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>90% of the time, these established time periods are not violated except for in exigent circumstances and with the Police Commissioner's written approval for tolling and notice to the complainant. Activity Although the VIPD actions postdate the end of the quarter covered by this report, IMT acknowledges that the VIPD reports the following: The Group on 2/23/2015 will notify SAC Reyes to provide the Commissioner with the completed Notification and Waiver Letters for approval and signature along with the attached Departmental Directive from the Commissioner instructing the department’s personnel of its’ utilization through a roll call session. The roll call covering the forms will be conducted 3/2-6/2015 and the audit of the forms will start 3/9/2015.
Impediments to Compliance VIPD to implement above mentioned steps. Recommendations to Gain Compliance All activity, impediments, and recommendations for sub-paragraph b remain the same; no changes, as of 02/20/15.
62

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 63 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Sub-Paragraph c, Status =Substantial Compliance; In the limited circumstances when an extension is necessary, appropriate tolling provisions will be outlined in the policy. Paragraph 72, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance Consent Decree Paragraph Wording Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD will not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix indicates the imposition of discipline. The VIPD will not fail to consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action is required in a case because discipline has been imposed on the officer. Activity According to the VIPD, “As it relates to subsection (a) of paragraph 72, going forward the management and supervision work group will initiate monthly inspections to gauge compliance “with the disciplinary matrix. “The management and supervision work group will also conduct monthly inspections with respect to subsection (b) for adherence specific to ensuring that “nondisciplinary corrective action is recommended consistently when applicable with disciplinary actions.”
As noted elsewhere in this report, the recent (December 2014 and January 2015) IMT survey of supervisors and commanders seems to indicate continued dissatisfaction by VIPD personnel with the matrix.
According to the VIPD, The Discipline Procedure posters were completed on 01/29/15 and the final printed version were posted throughout the various zones in the STT District and provided to the Chief in the St. Croix District to be posted as well.
Impediments to Compliance Lack of understanding/adherence to VIPD policy.
63

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 64 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Recommendations to Gain Compliance As stated earlier by the IMT, VIPD identifies deficiencies, also need to identify whether it is due to lack of understanding or intentional policy violation – once identified, additional training or discipline needs to occur.
The IMT again recommends that based on the survey results of dissatisfaction with both the disciplinary matrix and the implementation of the disciplinary process by management, the VIPD review both the process and the matrix with a goal towards making it more objective and fair in construct and application.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status =Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of the cases where the matrix calls for discipline, discipline is imposed. All activity, impediments, and recommendations shown above for sub-paragraph a. Sub-Paragraph b, Status =Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of the cases where discipline is imposed, there is evidence that the VIPD has also considered non-disciplinary corrective action. All activity, impediments, and recommendations shown above for sub-paragraph b. Paragraph 73, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD will continue to coordinate and review all use of force policy and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy. The VIPD will conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually. Activity Although the Training Committee has now met twice, they still need to develop a protocol or analytic process for the conduct and expected outcomes from the meetings. This task was mentioned in the Oct meeting notes, but there was no indication of how or when this protocol would be developed nor was anybody assigned responsibility for leading the development
64

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 65 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
process. The area addressed in the meeting seemed to range more on equipment issues with no documentation (in or attached to the report) of any review of specific courses or lesson plans. Use of force activity as to type and effectiveness was discussed, apparently based upon reports from IAPro (which were attached), but the notes did not adequately reflect the content, issues raised, lesson plans or courses impacted by the data or decisions that emanated from those discussions. Without a well developed protocol for the evaluation and review, no meaningful evaluation can take place.
Impediments to Compliance Training Committee:
a. Still does not have a protocol for the conduct and expected outcomes from the meetings, which inhibits its focus and effectiveness;
b. Their agenda tends to focus on review of equipment issues; c. Fails to review training and training materials from an analytical basis based upon developed criteria. Areas addressed in the meeting seemed to range more on equipment issues. No Use of Force activity as to type and effectiveness was discussed, apparently based upon reports from IAPro (which were attached), but the notes did not adequately reflect the content or decisions that emanated from those discussions. Without a well-developed protocol, no meaningful evaluation can take place.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Recommendations can be found under each of the sub-paragraphs and include: Training Review Board needs to establish an evaluation and review protocol to more effectively conduct their meetings and reviews of UOF training delivery.
IMT has recently provided technical assistance to the newly appointed Training Director who has put on his 1A2015 goals the review and restructuring of this committee. The IMT will continue to provide assistance as requested in this effort.
65

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 66 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Partial Compliance The Training Division has coordinated and reviewed all use of force training. This review occurs: at least semi-annually and needs to be comprehensive and analytical. Activity During the Summit the Training Director indicated that there was no update or increase in compliance to this sub-paragraph. Further discussions and review of the Training Review Committee meeting minutes submitted prior to the Summit for May and Oct 2014 reveal a review did take place, but that review was neither comprehensive nor analytical. The Committee did review data from IAPro (copies attached to the Committee reports) that listed Use of Force types or categories used by field officers, but the minutes do not reveal any protocol or comprehensive, analytical approach to this review. In addition, this review was not linked to any specific training courses, lesson plans, or testing activities.
Impediments to Compliance The Use of Force training reviews conducted by the VIPD are neither comprehensive nor analytical, in that they:
1. Lack a standardized protocol that spells out how they will evaluate use of force activity and reports against the training materials and courses delivered by the Training Academy.
2. The absence of a protocol indicates that training evaluations are not conducted at all four levels (or at least at the first three levels) as detailed by Kirkpatrick and/or others and referenced within the Instructional Systems Design (ISD) process. The IMT Has provided materials explaining this process and is working with the newly appointed Training Director, to assist with the development of evaluation protocol and plans supportive of this paragraph.
3. Supervisors and officers, who are involved with the use of force and completing RRRs, have no independent input to these semi-annual Use of Force training reviews.
66

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 67 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
4. Complicating and contributing to the absence of effective training evaluations, at all four levels, are training lesson plans and course outlines that do not incorporate effective training components such as well developed and written learning goals and student performance objectives.
5. Testing, at all levels, is not shown to be directly linked to an identified performance objective, making field level training failure linkage impossible.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance The Use of Force training reviews conducted by the VIPD are neither comprehensive nor analytical. In order to improve these reviews, they need to:
1. Develop a standardized protocol that spells out how they will evaluate use of force activity and reports against the training materials and courses delivered by the Training Academy, for example UOF execution failures, as reported in IAPro as a start point to review the training programs and/or courses that support the skill associated with the reported UOF.
2. This protocol should include training evaluations that are conducted at least the first three levels as detailed by Kirkpatrick, and others, and referenced within the Instructional Systems Design (ISD) process. These evaluations should be longitudinal and include response from not only the trainee at the end of the course and some time afterward, but also the trainee’s supervisor in order to determine if the training has been effective. The IMT is and will continue to provide assistance with this effort.
3. Supervisors and officers, who are involved with the use of force and completing RRRs, should have input to these semi-annual Use of Force training reviews.
67

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 68 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
4. In order to lay the ground work for effective training evaluations, at least at the first three levels, all training lesson plans and course outlines should incorporate effective training components such as well developed and written learning goals and student performance objectives. Testing, at all levels, should be directly related to an identified performance objective.
The IMT has provided technical assistance during the reporting quarter to the Training Director and will continue to assist as needed in this and other areas of training related compliance.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Substantial Compliance
The Training Division issues reports to DOJ and OIM regarding its review of use of force policies and training programs within a reasonable time after each review, or at least every six (6) months.
Paragraph 74, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording
The Director of Training, either directly or through his/her designee(s), consistent with applicable law and VIPD policy will:
a. ensure the quality of all use of force training; b. develop and implement use of force training curricula; c. select and train VIPD officer trainers; d. develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service training; e. in conjunction with the Chiefs, develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol
division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures; f. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and g. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
Activity
This paragraph's current status was thoroughly reviewed with the VIPD and IMT staff during the August 2014 Summit.
68

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 69 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
This paragraph was again reviewed with the VIPD staff during the November and December Summits and they informed the IMT that no progress had been made that would change any of the current compliance areas.
The IMT has provided technical assistance during the reporting quarter to the Training Director and will continue to assist as needed in this and other areas of training related compliance.
Impediments to Compliance Comprehensive and analytical review of training outcomes. Addition to directive reference training certification.
Lack of coordinated training priorities and agenda with Chiefs and other command officers. No comprehensive plan for roll call training.
Questions raised by the IMT memorandum of 9/18/14 are serious and any further compliance with this sub-paragraph and paragraph should be held in abeyance
Each of the sub-paragraphs details impediments to compliance. These include:
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Recommendations are noted in each of the paragraph's sub-paragraphs and include: UOF training materials and delivery systems should be reviewed once the VIPD review of concerns raised by the IMT is completed.
Continue to assess the need for an instructor waiver as noted in other paragraphs, using the review agreed to by the VIPD. The IMT notes that the waiver was removed from the proposed directive and has reviewed an unsigned copy. Pending receipt of the signed copy and further evaluation of its impact on current instructional staff, the IMT withholds any further evaluation of the compliance with this paragraph.
69

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 70 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Training staff should obtain additional training in Power DMS in order to actively participate in uploading training records, inputting training materials, and conducting analysis of training through reporting outputs.
The VIPD should conduct a complete review of the Roll Call Training program, focusing on definitions of what is Roll Call Training, who should deliver the training in the field (integration of shift supervisors as trainers), and what and where the training records should be maintained (preferably in Power DMS). The IMT is in receipt of a request for review of the current Roll Call training Directive and will forward recommendation forthwith. Based on initial discussions with the newly appointed Training Director, the IMT believes the program will be re-structured in such a way that is supportive of the Consent Decree needs as well as those of the line personnel of the VIPD. The IMT will continue to provide any requested technical assistance with this effort.
Increase the speed with which all individual training records are uploaded into Power DMS.
Establish a clear and well developed evaluation program for the Training Review Committee, utilizing IAPro data, among other options, as baselines for recommending changes to curriculum and delivery methods.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance The Director of Training and/or his/her staff reviews all use of force training. The Director of Training and/or his/her staff obtains legal review of all use of force training curricula.
70

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 71 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Activity VIPD audits indicated that the lesson plans used for UOF training had been approved by both the VIAG and the Training Director. In 2Q2014 audits, the VIPD indicated that all UOF lesson plans used in recruit training were approved and delivered by certified instructors.
On 9/18/14 the IMT forwarded correspondence to the Police Commissioner citing a concern with the training materials and/or delivery of training for UOF deadly force issues. On 10/25/14 the IMT received a response in the form of a memorandum from the Training Director to the Police Commissioner, but only signed by the Training Director.
During the 11/12/14 Summit, the IMT expressed their concern that the 10/25/14 memorandum merely reiterated case law and did not address the situation presented. The IMT further stated they had expected the VIPD to conduct an impartial inquiry to determine the full extent of the concern expressed by the IMT. The Police Commissioner directed that such an inquiry be conducted and that all efforts be made to complete it prior to the next court hearing.
Impediments to Compliance Questions raised by the IMT memorandum of 9/18/14 are serious and any further compliance with this sub-paragraph and paragraph should be held in abeyance. This issue remains outstanding and the IMT has never received the report promised by the VIPD Commissioner during the November 2014 Summit.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Once the review of UOF training being conducted by the VIPD is complete, UOF training materials and delivery systems should be reviewed for compliance.
Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed a process to continually select and evaluate VIPD officer trainers.
71

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 72 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
>95% of the training staff has received appropriate training and certification in the subject matter(s) that they are assigned to teach. Activity The VIPD proposed policy document on instructor selection (003-2014, Under Review) contained a waiver component. The IMT questioned the need for the waiver and during the Summit, the Police Commissioner agreed to have Training evaluate the actual need and bring back a list for review by the IMT.
Impediments to Compliance VIPD continued inclusion of a waiver to instructor certification. Recommendations to Gain Compliance The IMT recommends that the VIPD conduct the proposed analysis and share the results with the IMT in order to resolve this issue.
In November, 2014, the IMT acknowledged that this issue appears moot as VIPD advised during the November monthly meeting that the VIPD has removed the waiver provision from the final version of the directive. The IMT will await receipt of Commissioner signed copy of the policy and review status of this paragraph.
Although outside of the quarter reporting period (02/24/15), the IMT received the revised document that no longer has the waiver included; however it was not a signed copy. In addition, as promised during the November, 2014 Summit, the IMT has yet to see the impact of a policy review on current instructor staff based on the new criteria.
Sub-Paragraph d, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have reviewed and provided written approval of all curricula, course schedules and lesson plans.
72

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 73 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have created and maintained a training record system that captures attendance records, instructor and student evaluations, and test results. Activity The use of Power DMS will certainly improve the VIPD's capability to collect and store training data. However past observations by IMT staff seem to indicate that the previous Director of Training did not have the capability to sign on to Power DMS and the other staff member interviewed by IMT staff on 11/13/14, while able to sign on, did not demonstrate full mastery of the various components of the Power DMS system. Neither indicated that they had the capability to load training data into the system, stating that only Ms. Tweed, from IT can load data into the system. During an on-line session, none of the staff could find curriculum focused training material on Use of Force training loaded into the system or how to use the system to find it. That does little to ensure us that the essence of this sub-paragraph is being accomplished. Conversations during the reporting quarter with the new Training Director indicates significant progress in getting training personnel fully updated on Power DMS and that administrative staff as well as, o some extent, training personnel appear to be loading data into the system. Concentration appears focused on personnel training records as opposed to training curricula.
Impediments to Compliance Until the Training staff becomes more fluent in the use of Power DMS they cannot comply with the content of this sub-paragraph.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance The new Director of Training should make comprehensive use of Power DMS as the repository for all training records and curriculum. As curriculum is developed and delivered the final approved copies should be loaded into the system. This will enhance the availability of training materials department-wide and thus further facilitate roll call training. The loading and referencing of training materials and records in the system should become second nature. The benefits of output reporting and analysis will be significant.
73

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 74 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Sub-Paragraph e, Status = Partial Compliance The Training Director and/or his/her staff, in conjunction with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs, have created a process for the development, implementation and approval of all Roll Call training curricula. The Training Director and/or his/her staff, in conjunction with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs, have developed, implemented and approved all Roll Call training curricula. The Training Director and/or his/her staff have maintained written documentation of this process. Activity Comments made during the November summit and December, 2014 meetings seem to indicate that the VIPD Roll Call training program has slowed down and become less effective than previously. In addition, the current directive, 10.4, was due for review in 2013 and despite the fact that statements were made that it was reviewed, the IMT has not seen the report of that review. A cursory review of the current (02/13/12) directive revealed numerous errors and a copy was noting these questionable items was provided to the Training Director during a meeting on 11/13/14.
When this directive was discussed with the Training Director, in the context of review of the records that the directive assigned him responsibility for, he stated he had none of these policy required records and felt the directive was not workable from the start. He could not, however, provide the IMT staff with any written suggested re-write of the directive.
While it is our understanding that the two Chiefs of Police have some of the field records associated with the program, given the absence of those records assigned to training, the subparagraph can only remain in partial compliance.
The IMT provided technical assistance to the VIPD staff on the issue of roll call training and was subsequently notified, albeit after the end of the reporting quarter, that the Roll Call Training
74

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 75 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
policy was under review. The IMT provided input to that review and will continue to assist as needed.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to completely implement Roll Call Training will continue to inhibit compliance with this sub-paragraph.
Lack of management oversight and focus on continued delivery of roll call segments. While there have been some notices regarding this training it does not seem to be consistent with the directive in terms of frequency and comprehensiveness. In addition most notices relate to outside trainers and products.
The IMT has, in previous reports, noted the deficiencies in the current Roll Call Training policy and the VIPD will need to review and revise this directive in order to re-vitalize this valuable and necessary program. Of critical interest is who will be the deliverer of this training.
The Roll Call attendance training records in Power DMS are just that, attendance records, and fail to identify any testing or evaluation of the training effectiveness.
There is no requirement in the current 10-4 Roll Call Training Policy for annual planning and scheduling of roll call training. The directive does mention a review but fails to note the frequency or extent.
Failure to conduct a thorough review of what appears to be a poorly written directive will inhibit the operation and record keeping of the Roll Call Training Program.
Finally there appears to be little or no management oversight or focus on roll call training for the patrol officer and during the Summits senior managers stated that the activity had slowed significantly at this time.
75

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 76 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Recommendations to Gain Compliance The VIPD should immediately review the current version of 10-4, with specific emphasis on the review comments forwarded by the IMT which address areas such as the following:
1. Paragraph III, Definitions in order to remove references to non-training related operations as reflected in sub-paragraphs III, B-D.
2. Review and refine the data collection and retention issues under paragraph IV for the Training Director. Consideration should be made to move all of this, as well as components of paragraph VI, B, to the Training division, given the remote update capability of Power DMS. The activity previously handled by the districts or zones could be uploaded from that location and saved in Power DMS. This will facilitate more efficient evaluations of the program as well as ensure the records of training are linked to the officers.
3. Finally, and most important, that VIPD senior management become directly involved in the oversight of the Roll Call training Program, to the extent that they
a- Participate in the creation of training topics. b- Coordinate the scheduling of roll call training. c- Review the record-keeping associated with roll call training.
Although outside of the reporting period, the IMT Notes that it recently received a copy of the referenced directive and a request that the IMT review and provide comments. The IMT has responded and will report on this request during 1Q2015.
76

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 77 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Sub-Paragraph f, Status =Not in Substantial Compliance The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have created and maintained a training record system that captures attendance records, instructor and student evaluations, and test results. For >90% of the conducted Consent Decree related training sessions, evaluation review forms were collected from class participants. Activity This sub-paragraph was not reviewed by IMT staff, although the Training Director said during the Summit that there was no change in the current status. During the Nov Summit discussion was held regarding evaluation systems for training. The Training Director has taken the position that the testing done at the end of training session’s meets the requirement for training evaluation, while the IMT feels that a more robust and longitudinal training evaluation program, similar to Kirkpatrick's Four Levels of Training Evaluation, should be used.
Follow-up meetings by the IMT with the Training Director and one of his staff, revealed, in the IMT's opinion, serious flaws in the development of training materials and programs, which will inhibit or prohibit the implementation of the more robust longitudinal training evaluation program. These include the absence of performance objectives in the available lesson plans for review and a lack of understanding of the need for such objectives both from a lesson development perspective as well as enabling effective evaluation programs.
Subsequent discussions with the newly appointed Training Director indicate movement toward resolution of the above issues and the IMT looks forward to monitoring them during the 1Q2015.
Impediments to Compliance The VIPD Training Director and his staff see training evaluation as limited to the testing done at the end of each training class, or a combination of Level 1 and 2 evaluations. What they do not see necessary is Level 3 and 4 evaluation efforts. The failure to do so will inhibit compliance with the sub-paragraph required to "evaluate."
77

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 78 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
The absence of performance objectives within all training programs will continue to prevent implementation of useful and accurate evaluations of training effectiveness.
Failure to open training evaluation options and avenues to all personnel will limit the effectives of the evaluation component. Current indications from Training Review Committee notes seem to indicate that little or no such evaluations are being received. Recommendations to Gain Compliance In order to move forward the Use of Force evaluation requirements beyond Level 1, improve Level 2, and implement Levels 3 and 4 (if possible), as available, it is recommended that the VIPD Training Director:
Review all current lesson plans and training materials to ensure proper use of performance objectives (may also be called learning objectives, behavioral objectives, or training objectives) are in all lesson plans and training materials.
Base all testing in Level 2 upon the related performance objectives by using a test bank to develop multiple questions for each performance objective. This will allow for direct relationships between test questions that are missed to the performance objective for the material.
Develop longitudinal evaluation models for at least Level 3 which are student performance focused. In doing so, these evaluations will engage the trainee’s supervisor and department management in evaluating the impact of training on operations and employee work performance.
Engage the Training Review Committee in the development of the Levels 2-3 evaluation processes and models.
78

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 79 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
The IMT has provided technical assistance on these areas during the reporting quarter to the newly appointed Training Director and will continue to do so as needed.
Sub-Paragraph g, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed a process to review use of force incidents to identify patterns and trends that will influence training needs. The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have conducted semi-annual reviews of use of force incidents to evaluate training needs. The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed, reviewed and implemented all use of force training curricula (including lesson plans). Activity The most recent Training Review Committee reports indicate some level of review of UOF data generated by IAPro, however neither method or criteria used for the subsequent analysis was discussed in the report and no indication of any changes that would be needed were listed in the meeting minutes. IMT review of the data attached to the report indicates that there apparently is a serious problem with the use of verbal commands by field personnel, showing it to be the highest category of force used that was not effective in over 60% of the cases. This suggests that possibly how use of verbal commands is taught merits a review.
In addition, the issue of a needs assessment was not discussed during the Nov Summit, but was touched lightly during the follow-up meeting on 11/13/14 between the IMT and the previous Training Director and a member of his staff. A training needs assessment is always done prior to development of a training program and its' subordinate components. In the case of the Consent Decree some training is specifically required and thus the original training needs assessment may or may not have been accomplished. However as the training progresses and evaluations are conducted, additional training needs assessment should be conducted to see if the 1) the needs of the trainee have changed (e.g., they may be more proficient in areas they were not at the
79

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 80 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
beginning, and/or 2) the environment or rules have changed and as such additional or modified training may be required.
The key, in most cases to triggering a revisited needs assessment is the Level 2-3 evaluations, as noted previously, conducted by the training entity. In here lies the problem as the VIPD does not perform well developed Level 2 evaluations and no Levels 3, thus impacting adequate and effective needs assessment.
Discussions with the previous Training Director and selected staff member, seems to indicate a lack of understanding of the needs assessment or evaluation process, both key components to the Instructional Systems Design or ISD model. This will continue to impact training effectiveness as well as Consent Decree paragraph compliance. Subsequent engagement with the newly appointed Training Director indicates greater receptivity to these areas of need.
As noted above, the IMT began to see movement in this area towards the end of the reporting period and looks forward to monitoring it in 1Q2015. The IMT will also continue to provide whatever technical assistance the VIPD requests in support of this effort, within the IMT’s ability to do so.
Impediments to Compliance The VIPD has failed to demonstrate a clear evaluation system for review of UOF data against training programs and thus the sub-paragraph remains non-compliant.
Absent a renewed focus on this critical evaluation of available data for use in updating Use of Force training materials, will impact the quality of training delivered.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance The VIPD should establish, within its Training Review Committee, a clear and well developed evaluation program for UOF training materials and programs based upon data from the IAPro
80

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 81 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
system and other sources. The results of these reviews should further improve the delivery of effective UOF training.
VIPD should consider revisiting, on a periodic basis, the training needs assessment in order to determine if it is still current and relevant to the field operations needs, especially in the area of use of force.
Paragraph 77, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD shall continue to maintain training records regarding every VIPD officer that reliably indicate the training each officer has received. The training records shall, at a minimum, include the course description and duration, curriculum, and instructor for each officer. Activity This paragraph's current status was thoroughly reviewed with the VIPD and IMT staff during the August 2014 Summit.
During the November and summit and December, 2014 meetings, the Training Director advised there had been no forward progress on compliance for this paragraph.
Impediments to Compliance In August 2014 identified loading data into Power DMS. In September 2014 identified need for a plan and design for data entry into Power DMS.
Failure to accelerate the loading of curricula into the Power DMS system.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance In the November (as well as December) 2014, IMT Recommendations for improvement are noted under each sub-paragraph and include:
81

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 82 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
VIPD Training staff should increase capability and capacity to operate the Power DMS system and play a greater role in the uploading of training materials and student data.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Partial Compliance The Director of Training and/or his/her staff has maintained current and substantially complete training records for =95% of VIPD Officers. Activity This paragraph's current status was thoroughly reviewed with the VIPD and IMT staff during the August 2014 Summit.
During the November summit and December, 2014 meetings, the Training Director advised there had been no forward progress on compliance for this paragraph.
Impediments to Compliance Loading data into Power DMS.
Plan and design for data entry into Power DMS.
Impediments are noted under each sub-paragraph for this paragraph.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Recommendations for improvement are noted under each sub-paragraph and include: VIPD Training staff should increase capability and capacity to operate the Power DMS system and play a greater role in the uploading of training materials and student data.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>95% of the training records shall, at a minimum, include the course description and duration, curriculum, and instructor for each officer.
82

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 83 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Activity See comments in sub-paragraph a, above. In addition, during an online session in Power DMS on 11/13/14, in which a search was conducted for uploaded lesson plans and other items under the curriculum section, training staff could not locate any course curriculum stored within the system as required by the paragraph.
Impediments to Compliance See comments in sub-paragraph a, above. Recommendations to Gain Compliance See comments in sub-paragraph a, above. IMT has continued to provide Technical Assistance to the newly appointed Training Director in a wide variety of subject areas to support movement toward compliance with these paragraphs.
Paragraph 81, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD will provide training on appropriate burdens of proof to all supervisors, as well as the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility (to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform, and legally appropriate). The VIPD will also continue to provide training to supervisors on leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training will be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities, and will be made part of annual in-service training. Activity During the 11/12/14 summit and December court hearings the VIPD stated that there had been no substantive progress on this paragraph. IMT reviewed each sub-paragraph and that review revealed no progress.
83

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 84 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
VIPD scheduled leadership training, conducted by the FBI, for selected personnel during early February 2015 (02/2-6/15 on St. Croix and 02/9-13/15 on St Thomas). While this training did not specifically address directly related Consent Decree training, it did address overall concepts of leadership. It was attended by Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, Lieutenants, Sergeants and a few Corporal (totaling 68 personnel) and was apparently well received. The IMT will continue monitoring the VIPD’s initiatives in this area. It is also noted that the IMT has not received copies of the evaluations, testing, or a course follow-on report on this training, although it did view the initial planning documents, performance objectives, and schedule as provided by the FBI.
Impediments to Compliance After the August 2014 Summit the IMT provided this analysis of the compliance level of the paragraph, specifically geared toward supervisory training on leadership and command accountability.
While most of the requirements for compliance in this paragraph have been met, there is the clear need for more training in leadership and command accountability for supervisory, management and command personnel. While the training for command personnel may come in the form of "executive development," the IMT believes that command staff could benefit from participating in the supervisory and management training conducted within VIPD as well as attending developmental training conducted by any number of professional organizations and educational institutions.
We have urged command staff to attend part or all of the various supervisory courses taught by outside contractors. At a minimum, they should obtain briefings from these "visiting instructors," who are typically very well versed in their subject areas so that they have a sense of what is being taught to their subordinates but also to get information from subject matter experts on how their command issues are being addressed in other police agencies.
84

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 85 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
During the November summit and December 2014 court hearing, the VIPD indicated that no progress had been made on this paragraph.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Recommendations for bringing this paragraph into compliance are logged with each subparagraph and include:
Complete remedial upgrade to Power DMS and develop linkage protocol.
Continue Power DMS remedial upgrade and upload remedial training records when complete.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Substantial Compliance The VIPD will provide training on appropriate burdens of proof to all supervisors. IMT did not formerly evaluate this component; however the previous Director of Training indicated during the November summit and VIPD during the December court hearings that there was no change in compliance with the paragraph or sub-paragraphs.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Partial Compliance Training should include factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility. IMT did not formerly evaluate this component; however the VIPD indicated during the November summit and December court hearing that there was no change in compliance with the paragraph or sub-paragraphs. They need to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform, and legally appropriate. Training has been provided but the outcomes remain questionable.
Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Substantial Compliance Training should include factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility.
85

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 86 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Sub-Paragraph d, Status = Partial Compliance The training shall include techniques designed to promote proper police practices. IMT did not formerly evaluate this component; however the previous Director of Training indicated during the November summit and the VIPD during the December court hearing that there was no change in compliance with the paragraph or sub-paragraphs. Sub-Paragraph e, Status = Substantial Compliance This training will be provided w/I 90 days of promotion. Sub-Paragraph f, Status = Partial Compliance And will be made a part of annual in-service training. IMT did not formerly evaluate this component; however the previous Director of Training indicated during the November summit and the VIPD during the December court hearing that there was no change in compliance with the paragraph or sub-paragraphs. Additional detail on those paragraphs that are in Substantial Compliance as well as Court Goals are found at Appendices A and B to this report.
86

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 87 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department

V. VIPD USE OF FORCE REVIEW: MONITORS’ PERSPECTIVE MARCH 2015

Force incidents in the United States Virgin Islands have occurred with regularity between 2010and 2014. Though generally accepted police practice requires these data to be collected, data were neither tracked nor documented prior to 2010. The VIPD determined that documenting its force practices was necessary to comply with the Consent Decree. The chart below displays the total number of recorded force incidents for the five year period, 2010 through 2014.

Use of Force Incidents Territory-Wide 2010-2014(YTD)

149

132

132

113

60

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

The total number of recorded force incidents has increased from 60 to 149, 89 incidents, 148%. (Data is from the IAPro System in US Virgin Islands, 1-13-2015. It has not been validated.)
While the numbers may to indicate exceptional increases in force use by the Virgin Islands police officers, we find these numbers compelling for a far different reason. Previous to the Consent Decree force use within the territory went generally unreported and untracked by the VIPD. A comprehensive review of arrest reports by the IMT indicated that force was employed by the VIPD to bring persons into compliance and in custody but were not followed up by any
87

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 88 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
type of formal documentation, investigation, oversight, review or accountability. The IMT sees the current efforts and trends of the Territory in reporting, documenting, oversight, review, and accountability of its force policies in the most favorable light possible. The current practice is consistent with solid police practices’ as well as with the spirit of the Consent Decree with which the Territory is working to comply.
The reporting of force coupled with management oversight of all practices associated with the use of force is new within the VIPD. The new practices have challenged the previous culture of the agency in questioning staff about the who, what, how, when, why and where, force is applied within the agency and throughout the Territory. Coupled with the salient differences between the different Islands’ cultures in the Territory, the scope of the task becomes that much more complicated. It is however that very progress that is important to note here. It is the fact that reporting and oversight are happening on a more regular basis that the IMT wishes to be noted and reported to the Court. There is yet much more work to be done that must be noted also.
Having supervision readily and consistently available to respond and supervise force incidents is still a challenge for the VIPD. During this last reporting period supervisors did not arrive at the scene of force incidents consistent with their policies. Both VIPD audits and IMT reviews had the same findings. The IMT believes that it is not only a lack of qualified and trained supervisors but also the distribution of those supervisors. VIPD has repeatedly offered this rationale as the reason that they are unable to come into compliance with this Consent Decree provision. We believe that is certainly an existing problem but we also note that the VIPD does not adequately staff supervisors to work on "off hours," shifts that supervisors prefer not to work, like Friday, Saturday, Sunday evening and late hours. Late hours coverage issues on St. John’s are particularly vexing. We have repeatedly asked that the VIPD to conduct a manpower and allocation study to examine and learn where and when they need both their officers and supervisors to be working. This concept has been brought up to the new government.
88

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 89 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
The VIPD, especially the Force Work Group is attacking several other force related problems that seem to repeat themselves in audits and IMT reports, including supervisors failing to get statements from all witnesses, failing to get a statement from the person upon whom the force was used, failure to collect or account for all possible evidence, pictures, audio recordings, delayed reporting of incidents and investigations, not all documents in file (i.e., no arrest report in file, no 1A file, etc.). In an effort to correct these problems, the Force Work Group developed templates for officers, witnesses, and responding supervisors to follow. Appropriate personnel were trained during this reporting period on use of these documents. Still, the timeliness and accuracy of the management review of these documents has also been identified as lacking in the VIPD audits and IMT reviews. Getting supervisors, zone commanders and chiefs to document their concurrence and approval of investigations conducted by their subordinates has failed both VIPD’s audits and IMT review. To remedy this, the Force Work Group is developing a force checklist to be completed by each level of the chain of command. Taken in conjunction with the completion of the Use of Force Review Board (UFRB) and the Firearms Investigation Team (FIT) the VIPD, should be poised to make a strong push toward compliance with the use of force paragraphs of the consent decree during the upcoming quarters.
89

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 90 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
VI. VIPD AUDITING PERFORMANCE
The IMT judged the VIPD Compliance Audit for the First Quarter of 2014 to be materially superior to the previous audit and report, while noting many flaws, some of a serious nature. The VIPD’s Second Quarter 2014 Compliance Audit Report, submitted and reviewed by the IMT during the Fourth Quarter of 2014 did not warrant similarly positive credit with regard to improvement. It remained uneven, characterized by variations (inconsistencies in Work Group effort, methodological detail, and presentations, which continue to challenge the reader’s ability to assess accomplishments efficiently. The report still lacks integration and summary of four separate audit components. The IMT is frustrated to have to single out, again, the need for action to remedy these repetitive shortfalls. Failure to have done so by now is entirely explainable by VIPD leadership inaction. At the same time, it seems to point out that the limited improvement in the Second Quarter may have been attributable to the strides made in the previous quarter. Expectations for measurable improvement in auditing work and that which is audited in any three-month period must remain realistic.
The IMT’s most recent evaluation went far beyond citing need to address the repetitive problems. Our Review & Recommendations Report (January 6, 2014) called for (1) major reengineering of the VIPD auditing organization and staffing model and (2) conversion from current methodological and reporting protocols to a Metrics-Centered Model, of Use of Force patterned on the work of the Work Group. Successful implementation of these prescribed actions will serve all parties well as future compliance efforts unfold.
The collective experience of Work Group leaders and members to date, lessons learned during the past year, and the formal start-up of the Audit & Inspection Unit, coalesce to form an environment in which the VIPD can successfully restructure its audit organization and staffing configuration to achieve greater Consent Decree compliance effectiveness. Despite presence of an oversight Audit Work Group, the process remains decentralized -- a confederation of side-byside entities, sometimes integrated situationally, sometimes unintegrated. To more fully realize
90

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 91 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
potential, with expectation of accelerating Consent Decree compliance, the IMT recommends centralizing audit responsibility and concentrating assets directly in the Commissioner’s Office, in a newly structured Professional Responsibility cluster, under full-time, day-to-day leadership of a Chief (Consent Decree) Compliance Officer, equivalent in power to a deputy/assistant commissioner. It is worthy to consider placing Internal Affairs, the Audit & Inspections Unit, the Training Unit and the written directives (policy) function, under the leadership of the Chief Compliance Commander. This audit model will also promote greater independence and reduce the degree to which VIPD Audit Groups are auditing their own performance. The recommended restructuring is not intended to be viewed principally as a transfer of assets to another box on the organization chart, but as a strategic move to force-multiply the intensity, control, and influence of the audit operations and movement in response to unfulfilled Work Group recommendations in particular. (VIPD Compliance Audit, 2014 Second Quarter Report. IMT Review & Recommendations, July 6, 2014, pp. 2 and 3.) The Metrics-Centered Audit Model conversion is discussed in Section X, Outcome Assessments: Two New Initiatives.
91

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 92 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
VII.MEASUREMENTS & ASSESSMENTS
Consent decrees negotiated during the past several years have included provisions (paragraphs) that require parties to conduct "Outcome Assessments." These are found under Implementation/ Compliance Assessment. These provisions empower and require independent monitors to employ a broad range of measures and assessments to gauge both (1) degree of compliance of subject police agencies with mandated Consent Decree provisions and (2) impact of actions/remedies on the conditions which called for consent decree agreement in the first place. Four Consent Decrees that this IMT has studied establish constitutional policing as the principal outcome to be achieved – the ultimate compliance standard, and suggest use of an extensive package of companion and supporting measures and assessments (ranging from 15-47 in number). The 2009 Virgin Islands Consent Decree, negotiated earlier than those researched, does not include an Outcome Assessment paragraph. It does, however, explicitly commit the VIPD to practice constitutional and effective, and respectful policing, the governing outcome of later Consent Decrees:
□ A.2. "…. This Consent Decree (Agreement) is the result of a cooperative effort that evinces a commitment to constitutional policing on the part of the Department of Justice; the Territory of the Virgin Islands; and the Virgin Islands Police Department (collectively, "the parties”)."
□ B.3. The parties share a mutual interest in promoting effective and respectful policing. They join together in entering this agreement to promote police integrity and prevent conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
92

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 93 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Whether standards of constitutional, effective, and respectful policing are being met by the Territory and the VIPD in practice, is clearly a shared value and an inherent measurement and assessment obligation of the parties to the Consent Decree. Whether the conditions which underlie the Consent Decree (violation of 42 U.S.C., Paragraph 14141 – engaging in excessive use of force) are being remedied and reversed is clearly an inherent obligation of the parties to the Consent Decree.
Assessment & Measurement History
Paragraph 69 of the Consent Decree obligates the VIPD to "…develop a protocol for conducting audits," referred to as self assessments in some Consent Decrees. The VIPD is completing its fourth Compliance Audit. It has produced Quarterly Status Reports continuously since the Consent Decree became operational. They now number 22. On November 2, 2012, the Court adopted and ordered a VIPD Action Plan as part of the Consent Decree. The plan subsequently developed was stricken from the Consent Decree. (Amended Order, 5/22/14.)
The VIPD Audit Program, Quarterly Status reporting, and the now-repealed Audit Action Plan, were paralleled, report-by-report, with written IMT response documents as well as on-going monitoring, on-site and remotely. The totality of these still evolving processes constitute the core of measurement and assessment activity to date, documented and undocumented. The most recent IMT Audit Response Report (January, 2015) urged VIPD to adopt an operating and reporting protocol to ramp-up compliance measurement and assessment work.
Measurement & Assessment Future
Measurement and Assessment of VIPD paragraph compliance has been approached in the ways outlined above. Still evolving, there is much ground to cover. Impact remains relatively untouched. DOJ and the IMT are anxious to take Consent Decree Measurement and Assessment to the next level and have taken initial steps to do so.
93

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 94 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Considering VIPD Consent Decree specific conditions, practices, and accomplishments to date, known compliance challenges, resource issues, as well as VIPD information capacities and gaps, the IMT intends to employ the following criteria to design a Measurement and Assessment Framework:
□ Constitutional Policing Practices. Measures of lawful, constitutional uses of force will be the cornerstone of the measures and assessment package. These are the practices which the parties agreed to remedy. Final settlement of Consent Decree compliance can only be justified by demonstrating that constitutional behaviors and practices are in place and have been sustained for the two-year period required by the Consent Decree.
□ Process & Outcomes. We intend to measure and assess the degree to which the actions and mandates of the Consent Decree (the substantive paragraphs), which in measurements constructs are process/practice, produce the ultimate results expected, such as minimizing use of excessive force, which in measurement constructs are outcomes.
□ Inclusiveness. The IMT’s design will concentrate, in the long run, on the entire range of substantive provisions of the Consent Deecree: Use of Force, Citizen Complaints, Risk Management, and Training. Initial measurements and assessments will concentrate on Force paragraphs and sub-paragraphs.
□ Manageable Expectations. To keep the program focused and meet shortrange expectations of all parties, we will concentrate on an essential but limited range of measures and assessments, even within the Force cluster.
94

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 95 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
□ Honoring Infrastructure & Capacity Realities. At this juncture the IMT is conversant with the capacity of IAPro, its assets and limitations for measurement and assessment work. The range and quality of broader VIPD contextual operational data and information required for measurement is not known to us. It is common and ideal in the police work for agencies to undertake "big data," and "predictive analytics" approaches at the outset of diagnostic and measurement efforts – the point where we are now. As advantageous as this would be, we are opting to rely primarily on the current and improvement-practical data capabilities of the VIPD. How far this will take us remains unanswered for now.
Toward Substantial Compliance: Exit Decision
Earliest design work will be directed to defining the outcomes, conditions, and practices that U.S. District Court of the Virgin Islands, and then DOJ, feel must be considered and prioritized to satisfy and especially to exit the Consent Decree. Measurements will be developed/selected/conducted that operationalize these preferences. DOJ has published an extensive package of suggested measures in recent Consent Decrees. The Court has spoken at compliance hearings. A Territorial/VIPD-focused inquiry has not occurred. It should.
Measurement & Assessment Package: Phase 1
In accordance with the criteria outlined above, subject to modifications and insights which emerge from engagement of the parties, and more detailed immersions in the study of VIPD data capacities, the measures package could include any or all of those presented in Table 1, Measures & Assessments Clusters. Priorities within the entire set will emerge and evolve as work proceeds. From among the set, the IMT recommends the following measures and assessments for priority consideration:
95

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 96 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
□ Public Trust & Legitimacy - Proportion of the service population that judges the conduct of VIPD officers to be fair and impartial.
□ Use of Force - Rate of force used per police-citizen encounter. - Rate of force used lawfully. - Rate of force used unlawfully (excessively and unnecessarily).
□ EIP/Risk Management - Proportion of officers disciplined (for Consent Decree relevant violations). - Proportion of officers subject to repeat alerts (includes supervisors, commanders and executives). - Proportion of officers counseled, retrained, and/or subject to additional intervention options.
□ Citizen Complaints - Number and rate of citizen complaints. - Number not referred to IAB for investigation. - Number referred to IAB for investigation. - Findings of complaints investigated. - Dispositions of complaints investigated. - Disciplinary response to complaints investigated.
□ Training Number and proportion (percentage) of recruits, officers, FTOs, supervisors, commanders and executives who annually receive initial (academy-level), roll call, refresher/update (in-service) training on:
- Fourth Amendment and other constitutional policing concepts and practices. - VIPD’s use of force model. - Lawful/proper use of force decision-making. - Use of force reporting requirements. - Threat assessment. - De-escalation and other disengagement techniques and options. - Conflict management
96

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 97 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
VIPD Compliance Auditing
The IMT’s Measurement & Assessment Program will not supplant VIPD Compliance Auditing, but incorporate it into the overall approach. The VIPD remains responsible to the mandate of the Consent Decree to continue to account for and report on work and on results of every paragraph. The most recent IMT Audit Report Response (for the Second Quarter of 2014) recommends a methodology for bridging/integrating VIPD auditing and IMT measurement and assessment.
TABLE 1 MEASURES & ASSESSMENTS CLUSTERS
□ Constitutional Policing Practices Clusters
1. Number & Rate of Sustained Complaints (Citizen) & Charges (Internal) a. Abuse of Power b. Abuse of Process c. Harassment/Information d. Citizen Contest e. Civil Rights f. Failure to Perform – Constitutional Issue g. Failure to Take Citizen Complaint h. Firearms Discharge i. False Arrest j. Pointing Firearm k. Prejudicial Conduct l. Threats m. Unlawful Search n. Unnecessary/Excessive Use of Force o. Wrongful Detection p. Other Violation of Citizen Rights
These categories of complaints and charges are those used in the VIPD’s IAPro database. The content of the categories (the complaints and charges) need to be defined (reduced) for measurement. Measures for the Unnecessary/Excessive Use of Force category follow.
97

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 98 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
2. Number & Rate of Arrests for which there is Documented Reasonable Suspicion for a Stop & an Arrest
3. Number & Rate of Searches that Result in Contraband
Each measure in this cluster and those that follow, sub-measures will be applied (broken down) by time, place (Island, Zone), ethnicity, gender, age, and other, as appropriate.
□ Public Trust & Legitimacy Cluster Fair & Impartial Policing Cluster
Proportion of the service populations that judge the conduct of VIPD officers to be fair and impartial.
This measure would be applied to: - the service population in aggregate. - sub-populations by ethnicity, race, gender. - sub-populations by service area (neighborhoods). - sub-populations by service type (non-criminal). - sub-populations by victimizations. - sub-populations by enforcement actions/inactions.
□ Use of Force
1. Rate of force used per police-citizen encounter. 2. Rate of force used per arrest – lawfully. 3. Rate of force used per arrest – unlawfully, unnecessarily or excessively. 4. Number and rate of force complaints that are sustained and not sustained. 5. Number and rate of administrative force investigations in which each finding is
supported by a preponderance of evidence.
98

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 99 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
6. Number and proportion of officers found to have violated force policy, by number of instance/time period.
7. Canine bite ratio (covered by force type).
In addition to time, place, and subject sub-measurements, this cluster will produce data by force type and incident conditions (source of incident dispatch/stop/office discovery, presence of weapons, call/offense type, and other).
□ EIP/Risk Management
1. Proportion of officers subject to repeat Supervisory Alerts. 2. Number of officers subject to discussion with supervisors and/or commanders;
counseling; training; monitoring; and/or other intervention options to modify behavior. 3. Number of officers subject to Action Plans. 4. Qualitative assessment of impact/effectiveness of intervention options and Action Plans.
Measures should aggregate data by officers, supervisors, and operational units.
□ Citizen Complaints
1. Number and rate of citizen complaints, all types, by type. 2. Number referred to the IAB for investigation, all types, by type. 3. Findings of complaints referred to IAB, all types, by type. 4. Disposition of complaints investigated by IAB, all types, by type. 5. Disciplinary responses to findings and dispositions (all dispositions). 6. Qualitative assessment of policy, program and training actions which result from
findings and dispositions, patterns, and individual cases.
99

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 100 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
□ Training
1. Number and proportion (percentage) of VIPD recruits, officers, FTOs, supervisors, commanders and executives who have received initial (academy-level), roll call, refresher/update (in-service) training on:
a. Fourth Amendment and other constitutional policing concepts and practices. b. VIPD’s use of force model. c. Lawful/proper use of force decision-making. d. Use of force reporting requirements. e. Threat assessment. f. De-escalation and other disengagement techniques and options. g. Conflict management. h. Core Consent Decree policies.
2. Qualitative assessment of degree to which VIPD training practices conform to best practice standards with regard to: a. Needs assessment. b. Instructor certification. c. Delivery. d. Evaluations. e. Retraining. f. Management, including record-keeping.
Measurements should cover individual employees, units, assignments and shifts. Specific assessments required to address critical on-going VIPD training issues should focus on:
3. Percentage of members that complete simulator training.
- Percentage of sworn members who participate in de-escalation scenarios during simulator training.
- Percentage of employees that have a two-year training history entered in the Power DMS database.
- Percentage of instructor certifications entered in the Power DMS database.
100

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 101 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
A Consent Decree Tailored Database: Renewing Our Recommendations
The IMT’s Second Quarterly Report for 2014 stated a need to begin to build a database to support diagnostics and to settle a series of issues that were frustrating compliance efforts, including availability of supervisors. (See Section V, Mounting A Stronger Compliance Program.) Outlines of data requirements were presented in two classes, (1) Policing Environment and (2) Policies & Practices. Exploratory efforts of the IMT to gather a number of important data sets were abandoned, in large part by what is perceived to be the underdeveloped data capacity of the VIPD and, candidly, weak response from the department.
The data requirements set forth in our previous report include many that will also be required to understand and interpret measurements and assessments once they are available. Accordingly, we are renewing our call to the new leadership of the Territory and the VIPD to arrange for the presence of organizational (structural) and staffing (skills) assets as it fashions the 2015 version of the VIPD.
Protecting & Preserving Compliance
Beyond the measures and assessments defined and implied in the preceding materials, exit decision-making should incorporate assessments of the capacity of the VIPD to sustain full and substantial compliance beyond the life of the Consent Decree. "Capacity" includes a broad range of in-place best practices and confidence that the VIPD is culturally prepared to ensure that these practices are continually employed, nurtured and improved. Many of these have been cited in previous IMT reports, quarterlies and audit responses. Among the most essential are VIPD practices in such areas as: training; promotion; data and analytics; community and citizen engagement; discipline; performance measurement and evaluation; and leadership models. Assessing capacities requires primarily qualitative methodologies.
101

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 102 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
VIII. OUTCOME ASSESSMENTS: TWO NEW INITIATIVES
The IMT intends to launch the measurements and assessments start-up outlined in the previous section in the next, second quarter of 2015, with a gathering of the parties to begin to select and prioritize measures and assessments for application. This would entail: (1) selecting those that the parties feel are essential for judging whether the mandates of the Consent Decree and the requirements of constitutional policing are met; (2) grouping the selections in achievable (manageable) segments, again recognizing priorities; and (3) setting target implementation dates. This process is certain to produce additions to and subtractions from the sets in Table 1 and initial set suggested by the IMT. A very preliminary discussion was held with DOJ on February 26, 2015.
As the start-up program unfolds, measurement and assessment activities already underway will continue, primarily Work Group auditing, the IMT is encouraged to have learned (during the February Monthly Consent Decree Meeting) that the Citizen Complaint Work Group is adapting the Metrics-Based Auditing Model. It is useful, also, to report here on two Fourth Quarter measurement and assessment initiatives not previously reported on, one by the VIPD, the second by the IMT.
Response To Resistance Analysis The cornerstone of measures and assessments should come from the Force Cluster. Desperately needed is a comprehensive force information baseline including how much occurs (lawful and excessive), when, where, conditions and causes (correlates). This baseline does not exist today. The DOJ recently underscored need for collection of these sets of data. (Meeting at Government House, February 3, 2015.)
The most senior members of the Independent Monitoring Team, the Police Practices Experts who have monitored Consent Decree compliance since 2009, contend that the inability to document force reliably was a dominant characteristic of VIPD operations during the
102

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 103 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
negotiations that led to the Consent Decree agreement, as well as a defining cause for the Agreement. Absent this capacity, construction of a valid and reliable force baseline, even one composed of a limited range of basic dimensions, was not practical and was not attempted at that time. Addressing this essential need, called for in Paragraph 32 of the Consent Decree, had to await purchase, implementation, and field-based population of the IAPro data collection system.
This crucial gap in Consent Decree compliance programming is receiving attention by the VIPD’s compliance staff. The Use of Force Work Group has prepared a Response To Resistance Analysis Report: 2014. The findings and implications of the Analysis are forthcoming. Hopefully, they will be examined in the next Quarterly Report. It has been reported to the IMT that the IAB Director undertook a similar effort previously. A report to management was not acted upon.
Consent Decree Implementation: Workforce Perceptions Transformation of the culture of the VIPD (the organization) and the behavior of VIPD officers is an overarching goal of the Consent Decree, with respect to matters of constitutional policing. Among the correlates of successful transformation are the degree to which VIPD commanders and supervisors properly lead, motivate, inform, train, supervise, evaluate, and hold officers accountable in regard to constitutional policing behaviors. These correlates can be examined in a number of ways, one being organizational culture analysis. A range of correlates (conditions and factors) have been examined qualitatively throughout the course of the monitoring effort. The audit processes have featured quantitative protocols. Still, a number of culture-driven correlates have not been measured or measured routinely up to the current point in time. As a lead-up to a future organizational culture analysis, designed and administered with methodological rigor, the IMT conducted a series of preliminary interviews during the Fourth Quarter to test a series of considerations of significance to compliance success and sustainability.
103

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 104 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department

During December 2014 and January 2015, the IMT interviewed VIPD supervisors and commanders, a total of 23, 9 on St. Thomas and 14 on St. Croix. Scheduling issues prevented more interviews on St. Thomas/St. Johns. The interviews were conducted one-on-one. We pledged confidentiality to respondents. A 63-item interview instrument was used. The questions covered eight general areas:

Category Code A B C D E F G H

Category Title
IA Pro and Blue Team Use of Force Investigations
Citizen Complaints Early Intervention Program (EIP)
Training Consent Decree
Promotions Disciplinary Process

Number of Questions
5 12 15 11 10 3 3 4

While all questions sought the interviewee’s opinion or analysis of the current and past situation that a question focused on, some also called for the respondent to rate the quality or usefulness of the broader area under review. Some questions were restricted to commanders or managers. In other cases, such as training delivery, respondents were asked to rate training on a scale of 1 to 5. Most questions were open-ended and respondents were encouraged to elaborate or expand on answers as needed. A total of 1447 response items are in our database. This database can print reports upon selected criteria of the user. The interview instrument is appended.

While the IMT hopes to supplement the respondent universe during the coming months, the interviews to date crystalize a number of perceptual patterns. The results will be forwarded to the VIPD leadership for examination, analysis and development of actions to advance paragraph compliance. The value of the survey is to use the information collected to reinforce and sustain Consent Decree conditions and factors that in the judgment of commanders and supervisors are positive and to examine and modify, when appropriate, Consent Decree conditions and factors

104

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 105 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
that are not advancing or are impeding compliance. Accordingly, the IMT will assess the value of survey information to the VIPD leadership and when their leadership is able to use it constructively, beginning next quarter.
105

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 106 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
IX. VIPD COMPLIANCE ACTIVITY
In contrast to the absence of paragraph compliance movement, the VIPD’s report for the period, Status Report #22, conveys a series of actions it believes will contribute with varying impact and at varying impact points (future dates and periods), to Consent Decree compliance and intended compliance outcomes. Singled out in the Executive Summary of the Status Report are the following:
Training. The Training Bureau reports completed delivery of: (1) supervisory training for recently promoted supervisors (mandated by Paragraph 81 of the Consent Decree); (2) leadership training for supervisors; (3) supervisory in-service. The Bureau reports a search for experts to conduct Force Investigation Team (FIT) training and Training Advisory Committee reconstruction to achieve greater "inclusiveness." Coupled with this endeavor, the Bureau is developing a protocol to guide TAC operations.
Citizen Complaints. In pursuit of a strengthened Citizen Complaint Process, the VIPD reports quarterly progress that includes revision of the Citizen Complaint form to capture race, ethnicity, and national origin (to comply with Paragraph 61 of the Consent Decree). Printed in the three Consent Decree required language, these have been placed in all Consent Decree required locations.
In quest of enhancing the supply of training, citizen complaint process and general Consent Decree information, several televisions have been secured and installed in various zones. Next step is development of a protocol to maximize and regulate use of this communication asset.
The VIPD continues to seek ways to reduce the number of outstanding complaint investigations, beyond the Waiver and Extension request procedure to be implemented.
106

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 107 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
In December 2014, VIPD issued a Directive regarding the handling of training needs identified in complaint investigations (paragraph 58). Use of Force. Three force policies have been submitted to DOJ for review and approval: Reporting, Investigation & Review of Force; FIT; and Review Board. The Status Report calls attention to continuing efforts to staff the FIT and Force Review Board. The Policy Committee is being restructured to "boost and reinvigorate" its membership. A new chairperson has been appointed. A first-time "RRR Audit" has been conducted. This initiative, a particularly significant one, for managing force lawfully. Conditional material and observations on the VIPD’s Quarter 4 Progress, along with update information received from the VIPD in response to the IMT’s draft of its (this) Fourth Quarter Report have been incorporated into the compliance detail material which appears earlier in this report.
107

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 108 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
X. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
We are quite pleased to begin work with the new command staff of the Virgin Islands Police Department. We sincerely hope and expect that we will achieve much together in the days and months to come. That being said, there is much work to be done. Compliance progress ground to a halt during the transition between administrations and, as of yet, has not begun to advance. We, as monitors remain ready and available to assist in any way that we can. We sincerely hope that the new administration and command staff is receptive to our suggestions and recommendations understanding that we share common goals and objectives.
We are finding that the newly appointed Training Director is communicating with the monitoring team in a way that we have not previously experienced. We wish him well and look forward to making progress toward substantial compliance. The challenges facing the Training Bureau are going to take time but are not insurmountable. To date, VIPD has tended to approach Consent Decree progress in a manner that equated to "checking the boxes," seeing the paragraphs as singular requirements rather than comprehensively in terms of commonality that might exist among several paragraphs. Recognizing this should lead to joint solutions among paragraphs or across unit or work group lines. This is not unique to Training and we have seen it throughout. This has led, in part, to the current stagnation of progress in reaching substantial compliance. As long as paragraphs could reach compliance by the work of a single unit or work group, the "box" got checked. Now that many of the remaining paragraphs require the coordination of multiple command officers or a joint approach by two or more work groups, the effort has bogged down.
This condition is a symptom of a broader set of problems throughout the organization. We don’t always see the kind of coordination of effort and communication necessary in a successful modern police agency. We frequently see joint meetings when a crisis arises and people must meet to solve a problem. This leads to short term fixes that typically require re-visiting because a problem repeats itself.
108

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 109 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
We have made recommendations that are more comprehensive in nature and often extend beyond the strict reading of the Consent Decree. Our suggestions are always based on successful policies, practices and functions that we find in the departments that we have worked with or have examined of similar size to the VIPD. These recommendations have often been met with rejection or delay, awaiting future plans, often not in the department’s immediate future. This kind of thinking and behavior has led us to the situation that we currently find. Full substantial compliance is not yet within sight.
We do see improvement in some critical areas. Use of force and citizen complaint investigations conducted in the zones show marked improvement during the past year. While these are lower level cases compared to Internal Affairs cases, field supervisors have clearly improved their reviews and documentation of simple force cases. There remains a problem of finishing reviews within allotted timetables, yet the substance of reviews has noticeably improved.
We are concerned about the kinds of problems we find in more serious cases. When, because of the seriousness of a case, documentation of the investigative steps is most crucial, we discover missing documentation, lack of thoroughness and a failure to interview important witnesses. Most troubling is the administration of sustained cases that arise from internal investigations. The monitors are struck by two critical issues. The first surrounds the manner in which administrative hearings are conducted. The nature and conduct of the hearings are unlike any that we are familiar with. We have recommended that careful study be conducted to establish an administrative hearing process more in line with generally accepted practices for administrative review and what are commonly called, "Loudermill Hearings."
More disconcerting are cases where allegations are sustained and the investigation and hearing officers summarily dismiss the charges with no written explanation for the action. We are deeply troubled by this action. Our inquiries concerning this kind of activity have gone unanswered.
109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-1 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 110 of 110
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2014 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Similarly, while on a monitoring trip, our Police Practices Experts observed simulator training which resulted in questionable judgment employed by a student. When questioned about the reasons and justifications for the action he took, the student, an experienced officer, cited that he had been taught during in-service training that an officer could resort to deadly force when, in his or her mind, there is a threat of serious bodily harm or death to the officer and that there is no requirement beyond the officer’s state of mind. He seemed unaware of the fact that the judgment displayed had to be objectively reasonable. Further inquiry from the monitors resulted in differing opinions among instructors. When we filed a written inquiry about the incident and the outcome we received a written response that was totally inadequate and did not address the core issues of our communication. When brought to the attention of the Commissioner, both in writing and verbally during the summit, he indicated that he had not seen the response to our letter and that he was completely unaware of the inquiry, but promised a much more complete answer to our questions and one that would be delivered in a timely fashion. To date, we have never received a response and the commissioner has since left the service. Both public and officer safety demands that this crucial policy and training issue receive immediate attention.
110

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-2 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 1 of 26

Paragraphs Currently In Substantial Compliance Or NA Status As Of End of Fourth Quarter 2014

Appendix A To
4Q2014 IMT Report

Paragraph 031

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 11/06/2013

Group

USE OF FORCE POLICIES

Group Code 1

CD Wording

Following the initial implementation of the risk management system, and as experience and the availability of new technology may warrant, the VIPD may propose to add, subtract, or modify data tables and fields, modify the list of documents scanned or electronically attached, and add, subtract, or modify standardized reports and queries. The VIPD will submit all such proposals for review and approval by DOJ before implementation.

Activity/Comments

IMT takes note that the newly installed administration has taken the initiative to expedite required reviews of all policy, with IMT and DOJ being afforded review opportunity.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 11/06/2013

Compliance Reqmts
Sub-Para b

Definitions of all force terms are consistent with the Consent Decree, applicable

law, and generally accepted police practices. The issuance of the policy and its

continuation indicate substantial compliance.

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 11/06/2013

Compliance Reqmts Definition of "force" comports with 21 of the Consent Decree. The issuance of the

policy and its continuation indicate substantial compliance.

Sub-Para c

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 11/06/2013

Compliance Reqmts
Sub-Para d

Incorporates a use of force model that teaches disengagement, area

containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements or

calling in specialized units as appropriate responses to a situation. The issuance

of the policy and its continuation indicate substantial compliance.

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 11/06/2013

Compliance Reqmts Advises that, whenever possible, individuals should be allowed to submit to arrest before force is used. The issuance of the policy and its continuation indicate substantial compliance.

Sub-Para e
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 11/06/2013

Reinforces that the use of excessive force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and/or civil liability. The issuance of the policy and its continuation indicate substantial compliance.

Sub-Para f

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 11/06/2013

Compliance Reqmts Ensures that sufficient less lethal alternatives are available to all patrol officers. The issuance of the policy and its continuation indicate substantial compliance.

Sub-Para g
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 11/06/2013

Explicitly prohibits the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized. The issuance of the policy and its continuation indicate substantial compliance.

Sub-Para h
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 11/06/2013

VIPD satisfies all of the above requirements of 31(a-g) as provided in the "Definition of Substantial Compliance".

End of Paragraph 031

IMT-Rpt: para_stat_SC_NA V1-032415

The paragraphs in this report are in Substantial Compliance or are noted as Not Applicable Page 1 of 26 (NA) and as such receive periodic spot checking and review by the IMT.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-2 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 2 of 26

Paragraphs Currently In Substantial Compliance Or NA Status As Of End of Fourth Quarter 2014

Appendix A To
4Q2014 IMT Report

Paragraph 039

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 11/06/2013

Group

Group Code

CD Wording VIPD shall complete development of a Use of Firearms policy that complies with applicable law and professional standards. The policy shall prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition and shall inform officers that any such use may subject them to disciplinary action. The policy shall establish a single, uniform reporting system for all firearms discharges. The policy shall prohibit officers from obtaining service ammunition from any source except through official channels, and shall specify the number of rounds VIPD authorizes its officers to carry. The policy will continue to require that all discharges of firearms by officers on or off-duty, including unintentional discharges, be reported and investigated.
Activity/Comments

The IMT, through case reviews and spot checks of IAPro, monitors the VIPD continued compliance with this paragraph. In those cases where issues have arisen such as improper ammunition, the VIPD has taken appropriate action as part of the case resolution.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 11/06/2013

Compliance Reqmts
Sub-Para b

The VIPD Use of Firearms policy will comply with applicable law and current

professional standards, will be approved by DOJ, and is distributed to sworn

personnel and applicable civilian employees.

.

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 11/06/2013

Compliance Reqmts
Sub-Para c

=>99% of sworn personnel do not possess or use unauthorized firearms or

ammunition. In =>99% of the cases where an officer is found to be in possession

of unauthorized firearms or ammunition, there is evidence that an investigation

was conducted and appropriate corrective action was taken which includes

bringing the officer's conduct into compliance with the VIPD firearms policy.

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 11/06/2013

Compliance Reqmts =>99% of the firearm discharges are documented on a RRR.

Sub-Para d

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 11/06/2013

Compliance Reqmts =99% of the service ammunition obtained and used by officers is obtained

through official VIPD channels.

Sub-Para e

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 11/06/2013

Compliance Reqmts See c, above

Sub-Para f

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 11/06/2013

Compliance Reqmts

=>95% of sworn personnel have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training for the Use of Firearms policy and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel.

Sub-Para g

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 11/06/2013

Compliance Reqmts =>95% of sworn personnel displayed knowledge and proficiency in the use of

IMT-Rpt: para_stat_SC_NA V1-032415

The paragraphs in this report are in Substantial Compliance or are noted as Not Applicable Page 2 of 26 (NA) and as such receive periodic spot checking and review by the IMT.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-2 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 3 of 26

Paragraphs Currently In Substantial Compliance Or NA Status As Of End of Fourth Quarter 2014

Appendix A To
4Q2014 IMT Report

firearms, as evidenced by compliance with the policy requirements.and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel.
End of Paragraph 039

Paragraph 040
Group

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 11/06/2013
Group Code

CD Wording The VIPD shall revise its policies regarding off-duty officers taking police action to a. provide that off-duty officers shall notify on-duty VIPD or local law enforcement officers before taking police action, absent exigent circumstances, so that they may respond with appropriate personnel and resources to handle the problem, b. provide that, if it appears the officer has consumed alcohol or is otherwise impaired, the officer shall submit to field sobriety breathalyzer and/or blood tests.
Activity/Comments

The IMT monitors this paragraph through review of completed IAB case files and spot checks of remedial action retraining as recorded in Power DMS. While not all remedial training has been recorded, the paper case files indicate both referral and notification of attendance by VIPD personnel.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 11/06/2013

Compliance Reqmts
Sub-Para b

In =>85% of reported incidents involving off-duty officers taking police action, the

off-duty officer's conduct comports with policies regarding off-duty officers taking

police action and 31(a)-(g) of the Consent Decree

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 11/06/2013

Compliance Reqmts
Sub-Para c

In =>90% of the incidents where an off-duty officer taking police action appeared

to have consumed alcohol, the off-duty officer submitted to field sobriety,

breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 11/06/2013

Compliance Reqmts

Obtained DOJ approval of use of force policy on off-duty officers taking police action. Approved policies are distributed to sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees.

Sub-Para d
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 11/06/2013

=>95% of sworn personnel have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training for each new or revised policy regarding off-duty officers taking police action and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel.

End of Paragraph 040

IMT-Rpt: para_stat_SC_NA V1-032415

The paragraphs in this report are in Substantial Compliance or are noted as Not Applicable Page 3 of 26 (NA) and as such receive periodic spot checking and review by the IMT.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-2 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 4 of 26

Paragraphs Currently In Substantial Compliance Or NA Status As Of End of Fourth Quarter 2014

Appendix A To
4Q2014 IMT Report

Paragraph 041

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/27/2014

Group

EVALUATION, DOCUMENTATION, AND REVIEW OF USE OF FORCE

Group Code 1

CD Wording The VIPD shall continue to provide an intermediate force device, which is between chemical spray and firearms on the force continuum, that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The VIPD shall continue its policy regarding the intermediate force device, incorporate the intermediate force device into the force continuum and train all officers in its use on an annual basis.
Activity/Comments

IMT monitors continued compliance with this paragraph through case review and spot checks of data recorded in Power DMS regarding remedial training records.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/27/2014

Compliance Reqmts =>95% of patrol and other applicable officers carry an intermediate force device at all times while on-duty.

Sub-Para b
Compliance Reqmts
Sub-Para c
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/25/2014

=>95% of sworn personnel display knowledge and proficiency on using intermediate force devices, as evidenced by compliance with the policy requirements..

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/27/2014

=>95% of sworn personnel have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training for each new or revised policy related to intermediate force devices and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel.

End of Paragraph 041

Paragraph 042

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 11/06/2013

Group

CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS

Group Code 2

CD Wording The VIPD will develop and implement a program to inform persons that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any officer. This program will include distribution of complaint forms, fact sheets, informational posters, and public service announcements that describe the citizen complaint process.
Activity/Comments

IMT monitors this paragraph through VIPD forwarding of inventory spot checks as well physical checks by IMT personnel while in police facilities. The recent interviews of supervisory and command personnel supported the reported inventory actions.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 11/06/2013

Compliance Reqmts The VIPD will develop and implement a program to inform persons that they may

file complaints regarding the performance of officers.

Sub-Para b

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 11/06/2013

IMT-Rpt: para_stat_SC_NA V1-032415

The paragraphs in this report are in Substantial Compliance or are noted as Not Applicable Page 4 of 26 (NA) and as such receive periodic spot checking and review by the IMT.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-2 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 5 of 26

Paragraphs Currently In Substantial Compliance Or NA Status As Of End of Fourth Quarter 2014

Appendix A To
4Q2014 IMT Report

Compliance Reqmts

In =>80% of VIPD facilities, vehicles, and governmental properties such as VIPD district stations, libraries, the internet and upon request, to community groups and community centers, complaint information brochures and forms are available
End of Paragraph 042

Paragraph 043

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 05/23/2014

Group

CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS

Group Code 2

CD Wording The VIPD will make complaint forms and informational materials available at government properties such as VIPD district stations, substations, mobile substations, libraries, the Internet, and, upon request, to community groups and community centers. At each VIPD district station, substation, and mobile substation, the VIPD will permanently post a placard describing the complaint process and include the relevant phone numbers. These placards shall be displayed in both English and Spanish, and where deemed necessary, in French or French Patois, to account for diversity in the VI population. The VIPD will require all officers to carry informational brochures and complaint forms, in English and Spanish, and where deemed necessary, in French or French Patois, in their vehicles at all times while on duty. If a citizen objects to an officer's conduct, that officer will inform the citizen of his or her right to make a complaint. Officers will not discourage any person from making a complaint.
Activity/Comments

IMT has monitored this activity as recently as December and January when IMT personnel were able to visit police facilities and personally observe the placards on display. Further the recent interviews of supervisory and command personnel back up VIPD reporting that VIPD personnel do in fact carry adequate supplies of complaint forms in department vehicles.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 05/23/2014

Compliance Reqmts In =>80% of the VIPD facilities, vehicles, and government properties, complaint information brochures and forms are available.

Sub-Para b

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 05/23/2014

Compliance Reqmts In =>80% of VIPD district stations, substation, and mobile stations, a placard is displayed describing the complaint process, including relevant phone numbers.

Sub-Para c
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 05/23/2014

In =>80% of the previously noted loations, the posted placards will be deisplayed in both English and Spanish, and where deemed necessary in French or French Patois, to account for diversity in the VI population.

Sub-Para d

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 05/23/2014

Compliance Reqmts In =>80% of officers carry the informational brochures and complaint forms with them at all times while on-duty.

Sub-Para e
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 05/23/2014

In =>80% of the instances, where a citizen objects to an officer's conduct, that officer will inform the citizen of his or her right to make a complaint. Officers will not discourage any person from making a complaint.

End of Paragraph 043

IMT-Rpt: para_stat_SC_NA V1-032415

The paragraphs in this report are in Substantial Compliance or are noted as Not Applicable Page 5 of 26 (NA) and as such receive periodic spot checking and review by the IMT.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-2 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 6 of 26

Paragraphs Currently In Substantial Compliance Or NA Status As Of End of Fourth Quarter 2014

Appendix A To
4Q2014 IMT Report

Paragraph 045

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 05/23/2014

Group

CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS

Group Code 2

CD Wording Copies of all allegations of misconduct against the VIPD filed with the Zone Commands will be referred to Internal Affairs Unit ("IAU") within five business days.

- Copies of all allegations of misconduct against the VIPD filed with the Zone Commands will be referred to Internal Affairs Unit ("IAU") within five business days.
Activity/Comments
IMT monitors compliance with this paragraph by reviewing completed IAB case files, spot checks within IAPro, and on-site interviews with VIPD personnel. VIPD auditing of this paragraph is also used as part of the monitoring profile.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 05/23/2014

Compliance Reqmts
Sub-Para b
Compliance Reqmts

=>90% of the allegations filed at Zone or unit facilities are forwarded to IAU. =>90% of the allegations filed at the Zone or unit facilities are received at IAU within 5 business days.

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 05/23/2014

=>90% of the allegations filed at the Zone or unit facilities are received at IAU within 5 business days.
End of Paragraph 045

Paragraph 046

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/15/2014

Group

CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS

Group Code 2

CD Wording Complaints will be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, for which the Territory will develop and implement appropriate training.
Activity/Comments

IMT monitors this paragraph through case file review, lesson plan review, and training testing reports. The VIPD audit this through similar means. Indications are that VIPD makes all possible effort to assure all personnel have been trained on this subject, both initially and refresher, however recent anecdotal interviews seem indicate a need for VIPD increased attention to training delivery in this area in order to reinforce preponderance of evidence concepts.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/15/2014

Compliance Reqmts
Sub-Para b

=>90% of completed investigations into complaints/allegations of misconduct

include a substantive analysis and assessment of the evidence, and a finding

that is based upon the preponderance of evidence standard.

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/15/2014

Compliance Reqmts

=>95% of sworn personnel have either: (a) attended and successfully completed training on the preponderance of the evidence standard and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel.

IMT-Rpt: para_stat_SC_NA V1-032415

The paragraphs in this report are in Substantial Compliance or are noted as Not Applicable Page 6 of 26 (NA) and as such receive periodic spot checking and review by the IMT.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-2 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 7 of 26

Paragraphs Currently In Substantial Compliance Or NA Status As Of End of Fourth Quarter 2014

Appendix A To
4Q2014 IMT Report

Sub-Para c
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/15/2014

All training on the preponderance of the evidence comports with the requirements of the Consent Decree, and is taught from curricula/lesson plans that: (a) follow a standard format; (b) identify training objectives; (c) incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises); and (d) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal counsel.

End of Paragraph 046

Paragraph 047

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

Group

CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS

SC Date 11/06/2013 Group Code 2

CD Wording The VIPD will explicitly prohibit from investigating an incident any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to the injury to a person, or who authorized the conduct that led to these reportable incidents.
Activity/Comments

IMT monitors compliance through IAB case review and has not discovered a lack of compliance with this paragraph's standard. Supervisory personnel appear to be doing a good job ensuring that the investigations are not compromised by violations of this requirement.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 11/06/2013

Compliance Reqmts

In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he /she was not involved in the use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize conduct leading to the use of force incident).
End of Paragraph 047

Paragraph 048

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 04/01/2014

Group

CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS

Group Code 2

CD Wording The VIPD will investigate every citizen complaint. The VIPD will establish a clear policy and procedure regarding the intake of any complaint, including anonymous and confidential complaints, against a VIPD officer. This policy and these procedures will include instructions to an officer for taking a complaint and prompt delivery to a supervisor.
Activity/Comments

IMT monitors compliance with this paragraph through review of training records, one on one interviews, and IAB case reviews.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 04/01/2014

Compliance Reqmts For =>90% of the complaints lodged and recorded, a file documents the actions

taken by VIPD in response to the complaint.

Sub-Para b

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 04/01/2014

Compliance Reqmts Obtained DOJ approval of a policy and procedure for the intake of complaints.

Sub-Para c
Compliance Reqmts
Sub-Para d
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 04/01/2014

=>90% of the documented complaints are promptly delivered to a supervisor.

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 04/01/2014

=>95% of all sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have been trained and demonstrated the required proficiency on the complaint intake policy

IMT-Rpt: para_stat_SC_NA V1-032415

The paragraphs in this report are in Substantial Compliance or are noted as Not Applicable Page 7 of 26 (NA) and as such receive periodic spot checking and review by the IMT.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-2 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 8 of 26

Paragraphs Currently In Substantial Compliance Or NA Status As Of End of Fourth Quarter 2014

Appendix A To
4Q2014 IMT Report

and comports with the Consent Decree, including 44 and 48.

End of Paragraph 048

Paragraph 049

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 06/15/2014

Group

CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS

Group Code 2

CD Wording The VIPD will institute a centralized numbering and tracking system for all complaints, and each complaint will receive a tracking number as quickly as possible. The IAU will be designated as the primary and centralized agency to determine whether the investigation will be assigned to zone (one of the seven zones located throughout the Virgin Islands), retained by the IAU, or referred for possible criminal investigation. If the IAU refers a complaint to a zone, copies of all documents, findings, and recommendations should be immediately forwarded to the IAU for tracking and monitoring. For complaints alleging the excessive use of force or violation of a person's constitutional rights, the Police Commissioner should be notified no less than twenty-four hours after receipt of a complaint.
Activity/Comments

IMT monitors compliance by review of the IAPro database, initially at both STT and STX, but now remotely from their home offices, to ensure adequate access. Runs are made to see who has been logging into the database and thus who has access. Visits to both IAB locations has validated agent access and organizational operations. The IAPro database remains the main investigative database, as per the paragraph standard, however as the system has matured, supplemental files have been created to support the main database, such as records of K-9 deployment to cross check against use of force reporting.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 06/15/2014

Compliance Reqmts
Sub-Para b

Established a separate IAPro database for the STT/STJ and STX Districts such

that:

(1) each database will be accessible from each District;

(2) IAU agents in each District will have access to their respective databases;

(3) the Director of IAU, Assistant Director of IAU, and EIP Coordinator will have

access to both databases;

(4) each complaint will receive a unique tracking number, with an STT extension

for the St. Thomas/St. John District and an STX extension for the St. Croix

District, so that no two complaints will have the same number within or between

databases;

(5) information in each database will be organized by District, and can be sorted

by officer; and

(6) if an officer transfers from one District to another, his/her information will be

transferred to the new District's database.

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/15/2014

Compliance Reqmts =>90% of allegations brought to the attention of the VIPD are assigned a unique

identifier.

Sub-Para c

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 06/15/2014

Compliance Reqmts
Sub-Para d

In =>90% of the complaints that the IAU refers to a Zone, copies of all

documents, findings and recommendations are forwarded to the IAU as needed

or at completion.

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 06/15/2014

Compliance Reqmts =>95% of complaints alleging excessive use of force or a civil rights violation are

reported to the Police Commissioner within 24 hours of receiving the complaint

Sub-Para e

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 06/15/2014

IMT-Rpt: para_stat_SC_NA V1-032415

The paragraphs in this report are in Substantial Compliance or are noted as Not Applicable Page 8 of 26 (NA) and as such receive periodic spot checking and review by the IMT.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-2 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 9 of 26

Paragraphs Currently In Substantial Compliance Or NA Status As Of End of Fourth Quarter 2014

Appendix A To
4Q2014 IMT Report

Compliance Reqmts For =>90% of the investigations, evidence exists that IAU adequately tracked and monitored the complaint. End of Paragraph 049

Paragraph 050

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

Group

CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS

Group Code 2

CD Wording The VIPD will adopt a single policy concerning the investigation of misconduct complaints, regardless of whether the investigation is conducted by the IAU or a zone.
Activity/Comments

IMT monitors compliance with this paragraph by checking training records for both initial and in-service training. Interviews with VIPD personnel are also used as well as VIPD auditing reports.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

Compliance Reqmts Obtained DOJ approval of a policy concerning the investigation of misconduct complaints.

Sub-Para b
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

=>95% of sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training for each new or revised policy concerning the investigation of misconduct complaints and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees.

Sub-Para c
Compliance Reqmts
Sub-Para d
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

=>90% of sworn personnel display knowledge and proficiency of investigating

misconduct complaints, as evidenced by compliance with the policy requirements

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

All training on investigating misconduct complaints comports with the requirements of the Consent Decree, and is taught from curricula/lesson plans that: (a) follow a standard format; (b) identify training objectives; (c) incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises); and (d) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal counsel.

Sub-Para e
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

=>90% of completed investigations into complaints of misconduct are in compliance with the provisions of the Consent Decree.
End of Paragraph 050

IMT-Rpt: para_stat_SC_NA V1-032415

The paragraphs in this report are in Substantial Compliance or are noted as Not Applicable Page 9 of 26 (NA) and as such receive periodic spot checking and review by the IMT.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-2 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 10 of 26

Paragraphs Currently In Substantial Compliance Or NA Status As Of End of Fourth Quarter 2014

Appendix A To
4Q2014 IMT Report

Paragraph 051

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

Group

CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS

SC Date 08/26/2014 Group Code 2

CD Wording The VIPD will establish policies and procedures and train all of its investigators on the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility; examination and interrogation of accused officers and other witnesses; identifying misconduct even if it is not specifically named in the complaint; and using the preponderance of the evidence standard as the appropriate burden of proof. VIPD investigators will ensure that all officers on the scene of an incident provide a statement regarding the incident. The policy will require that all interviews be mechanically recorded using an audio or video tape.
Activity/Comments

IMT monitors this paragraph through review of training records and curriculum. IMT has also been assisting the department with improvements to training program development and evaluations. While not out of compliance with the standards prescribed, efforts are under way to increase the quality of the various training programs.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/26/2014

Compliance Reqmts Policies are developed, implemented, and distributed to VIPD investigators.

Sub-Para b
Compliance Reqmts
Sub-Para c
Compliance Reqmts
Sub-Para d
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/26/2014

In =>90% of the cases that VIPD investigators will ensure that all officers on the scene of an incident provide a statement regarding the incident. 08/28/2014- Changed by AM based on discussions with IAB

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/26/2014

=>90% of all interviews related to a complaint of misconduct will be mechanically recorded using an audio or video tape.

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/26/2014

=>95% of all investigators and probationary officers have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training concerning the components identified in 51 of the Consent Decree and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if investigators and probationary officers have not successfully completed the required training and passed proficiency test(s), investigators and probationary officers have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where investigators and probationary officers have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the investigators and probationary officers.

Sub-Para e
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/26/2014

All training comports with the requirements of the Consent Decree, and is taught from curricula/lessons plan that: (a) follow a standard format; (b) identify training objectives; (c) incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises); and (d) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal counsel.

Sub-Para f

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/26/2014

IMT-Rpt: para_stat_SC_NA V1-032415

The paragraphs in this report are in Substantial Compliance or are noted as Not Applicable Page 10 of 26 (NA) and as such receive periodic spot checking and review by the IMT.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-2 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 11 of 26

Paragraphs Currently In Substantial Compliance Or NA Status As Of End of Fourth Quarter 2014

Appendix A To
4Q2014 IMT Report

Compliance Reqmts =>90% of completed investigations into complaints of misconduct include a documented and substantive analysis and assessment of the evidence, and a finding that is based upon the preponderance of evidence standard.

Sub-Para g

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/26/2014

Compliance Reqmts In =>90% of the incidents giving rise of allegations of misconduct, all officers on the scene provided a statement regarding the incident.

End of Paragraph 051

Paragraph 052

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

Group

CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS

Group Code 2

CD Wording The policy will require that the investigative findings include whether: 1) the police action was in compliance with policy, training and legal standards, regardless of whether the complainant suffered harm; 2) the incident involved misconduct by any officer; 3) the use of different tactics should or could have been employed; 4) the incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and 5) the incident suggests that the VIPD should revise its policies, training, or tactics.
Activity/Comments

IMT uses the same monitoring points here as in paragraph 51.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

Compliance Reqmts

The VIPD policy formalizes a process for review of all uses of force that ensures the consideration of and documentation of all of the findings identified in 52 and that =>90 % of all use of force investigations includes documented findings of all of the considerations required by 52.

Sub-Para b
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

=>95% of all supervisors have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training related to this policy and demonstrated proficiency through proficiency tests; or (b) if supervisors have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency tests, supervisors have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where supervisors have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the supervisors.

Sub-Para c
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

All training comports with the requirements of the Consent Decree, and is taught from curricula/lessons plan that: (a) follow a standard format; (b) identify training objectives; (c) incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises); and (d) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal counsel.

End of Paragraph 052

IMT-Rpt: para_stat_SC_NA V1-032415

The paragraphs in this report are in Substantial Compliance or are noted as Not Applicable Page 11 of 26 (NA) and as such receive periodic spot checking and review by the IMT.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-2 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 12 of 26

Paragraphs Currently In Substantial Compliance Or NA Status As Of End of Fourth Quarter 2014

Appendix A To
4Q2014 IMT Report

Paragraph 053

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

Group

CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS

Group Code 2

CD Wording The policy will provide clear guidance to all investigators regarding the procedures for handling criminal misconduct allegations, referring them to the Virgin Islands Attorney General's Office or other appropriate agency for possible criminal prosecution, and the entity or individual who should make the determination of whether the complaint should be investigated criminally. The policy will be revised to require the completion of an administrative investigation, irrespective of the initiation or outcome of criminal proceedings.
Activity/Comments

IMT has worked with the VIAG, VIPD IAB, and Training Division to monitor the requirements of this paragraph.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

Compliance Reqmts

In collaboration with the Virgin Islands Attorney General's Office, the VIPD has issued a policy that provides clear guidance on how to handle allegations of criminal misconduct by sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees and includes the elements of 53.

Sub-Para b
Compliance Reqmts
Sub-Para c
Compliance Reqmts

Status NA

SC Date 12/18/2013

In =>90% of investigations involving criminal investigations that are referred to the Attorney General's Office or other appropriate agency, the VIPD has documentation that it has completed, to the extent possible, its own administrative investigation. Moved above to para 100 replace here with Revised policy completed.

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

=>95% of all supervisors have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training related to this policy and demonstrated proficiency through proficiency test(s); or (b) if supervisors have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency tests, supervisors have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or

Where supervisors have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the supervisor.

Sub-Para d
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

All training comports with the requirements of the Consent Decree, and is taught from curricula/lessons plan that: (a) follow a standard format; (b) identify training objectives; (c) incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises); and (d) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal counsel.

End of Paragraph 053

IMT-Rpt: para_stat_SC_NA V1-032415

The paragraphs in this report are in Substantial Compliance or are noted as Not Applicable Page 12 of 26 (NA) and as such receive periodic spot checking and review by the IMT.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-2 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 13 of 26

Paragraphs Currently In Substantial Compliance Or NA Status As Of End of Fourth Quarter 2014

Appendix A To
4Q2014 IMT Report

Paragraph 054

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/26/2014

Group

CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS

Group Code 2

CD Wording In each investigation, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. There will be no automatic preference for an officer's statement over a non-officer's statement, nor will the VIPD completely disregard a witness' statement merely because the witness has some connection to the complainant. The VIPD will make efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.
Activity/Comments

IMT monitors this paragraph through review of completed cases, training records of VIPD personnel, and training curriculum review.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/27/2014

Compliance Reqmts The VIPD has developed a process for ensuring that supervisors are aware of and have been trained on ways to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.

Sub-Para b
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/27/2014

In =>90% of completed investigations, there is documented evidence that a supervisor did not give an automatic preference for an officer's statement over a non-officer's statement.

Sub-Para c

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/27/2014

Compliance Reqmts In =>95% of completed investigations, reasonable efforts are made to resolve any inconsistencies.

End of Paragraph 054

Paragraph 055

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/22/2014

Group

CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS

Group Code 2

CD Wording During an investigation, all relevant police activity, including each use of force (i.e., not just the type of force complained about) will be investigated. The investigation will also evaluate any searches or seizures that occurred during the incident. The VIPD will not close an investigation simply because the complaint is withdrawn or the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of injury or the complainant will not provide additional statements or written statements; rather, the investigating agency will continue its investigation as necessary to determine whether the original allegation(s) can be resolved based on the information, evidence, and investigatory procedures and techniques available. In each investigation, the fact that a complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense will not be considered as evidence of whether a VIPD officer used or did not use a type of force, nor will it justify discontinuing the investigation.
Activity/Comments

IMT monitors compliance by reviewing completed IAB case files. With regard to the follow through of investigations, even after a complainant withdraw the complaint or witnesses are unavailable, IMT notes that the VIPD does attempt to finish these cases to the best of their ability despite the absence of the resources.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/27/2014

IMT-Rpt: para_stat_SC_NA V1-032415

The paragraphs in this report are in Substantial Compliance or are noted as Not Applicable Page 13 of 26 (NA) and as such receive periodic spot checking and review by the IMT.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-2 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 14 of 26

Paragraphs Currently In Substantial Compliance Or NA Status As Of End of Fourth Quarter 2014

Appendix A To
4Q2014 IMT Report

Compliance Reqmts In =>90% of investigations, there is documented evidence that all misconduct revealed by the investigation, whether part of the initial allegation or discovered during the investigation, has been reasonably investigated and addressed.

Sub-Para b
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 09/27/2014

In =>90% of completed investigations, the investigative reports include documentation that the supervisor has evaluated any searches or seizures that occurred during the incident.

Sub-Para c
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/27/2014

In =>90% of completed investigations, a supervisor has ensured the continuation of every investigation - even when the complaint is withdrawn, or the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of injury, or the complainant will not provide additional statements or written statements - until the VIPD has determined whether the original allegation(s) can be resolved based on the information, evidence, and investigatory procedures and techniques available.

Sub-Para d
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/27/2014

In =>90% of completed investigations, a supervisor has not considered the fact that a complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense as evidence of whether a VIPD officer used or did not use a type of force, or as a justification for discontinuing the investigation.

Sub-Para e

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/27/2014

Compliance Reqmts In =>90% of completed investigations, the elements identified in paragraph 55 of the Consent Decree have been considered, analyzed and documented.

End of Paragraph 055

Paragraph 056

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/26/2014

Group

CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS

Group Code 2

CD Wording The complainant will be periodically kept informed regarding the status of the investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, the complainant will be notified of its outcome, including an appropriate statement regarding whether any non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action was taken.
Activity/Comments

IMT monitors compliance by review of completed IAB case files and all have been shown to be resolved or disposed of in accordance with the standard and VIPD policy.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/26/2014

Compliance Reqmts In =>90% the complaintant will be periodically kept informed regarding the status

of the investigation.

Sub-Para b

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/26/2014

Compliance Reqmts
Sub-Para c

In =>90% of the cases, upon completion of the investigation, the complainant will

be notified of its outcome, including an appropriate statement regarding whether

any non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action was taken.

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/26/2014

Compliance Reqmts =>90% of investigations have been resolved by making one of the dispositions

IMT-Rpt: para_stat_SC_NA V1-032415

The paragraphs in this report are in Substantial Compliance or are noted as Not Applicable Page 14 of 26 (NA) and as such receive periodic spot checking and review by the IMT.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-2 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 15 of 26

Paragraphs Currently In Substantial Compliance Or NA Status As Of End of Fourth Quarter 2014

Appendix A To
4Q2014 IMT Report

identified in 57 of the Consent Decree.

End of Paragraph 056

Paragraph 057

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 10/13/2013

Group

CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS

Group Code 2

CD Wording

Each allegation in an investigation will be resolved by making one of the following dispositions: "Unfounded," where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that no facts to support that the incident complained of actually occurred; "Sustained," where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person's allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the incident occurred and the actions of the officer were improper; "Not Sustained," where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred; and "Exonerated," where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate VIPD policies, procedures, or training.

Activity/Comments
IMT monitors compliance with this paragraph through review of IAB completed case files and spot checks of the IAPro database. While some cases take longer than needed to complete, they are resolved using one of the authorized dispositions.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 10/13/2013

Compliance Reqmts >90% of investigations have been resolved by making one of the dispositions

identified in 57 of the Consent Decree.

Sub-Para b

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 10/13/2013

Compliance Reqmts See 57

Sub-Para c

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 10/13/2013

Compliance Reqmts See 57

Sub-Para d

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 10/13/2013

Compliance Reqmts See 57

End of Paragraph 057

Paragraph 061

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/27/2014

Group

MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION

Group Code 3

CD Wording The new risk management system will include, for the incidents included in the database,

appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (e.g., name, badge number, shift

and supervisor) and civilian (e.g., race, ethnicity or national origin, if available).

Activity/Comments
IMT monitors compliance of this paragraph through both review of completed IAB case files and actual review of the IAPro database.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/27/2014

Compliance Reqmts VIPD has established a uniform method of identifying sworn personnel to ensure accurate identification and tracking of all employee conduct.

IMT-Rpt: para_stat_SC_NA V1-032415

The paragraphs in this report are in Substantial Compliance or are noted as Not Applicable Page 15 of 26 (NA) and as such receive periodic spot checking and review by the IMT.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-2 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 16 of 26

Paragraphs Currently In Substantial Compliance Or NA Status As Of End of Fourth Quarter 2014

Appendix A To
4Q2014 IMT Report

=>95% of the incidents included in the database, the name and unique identifier for each involved officer has been entered with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

Sub-Para b
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/27/2014

VIPD has established a uniform method of identifying applicable civilian employees to ensure accurate identification and tracking of all employee conduct and in =>95% of the incidents included in the database, the appropriate identifying information (e.g., name, ethnicity or national original), if available, for each involved civilian has been entered with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness

Sub-Para c
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/27/2014

=>95% of the incidents included in the database, the shift and assignment for each on-duty supervisor has been entered with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

End of Paragraph 061

Paragraph 062

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

Group

MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION

Group Code 3

CD Wording

Within 120 days of the implementation of the new risk management system, or later with the agreement of DOJ, the VIPD will prepare, for the review and approval of DOJ, a plan for including appropriate fields and values of new and historical data into the risk management system (the "Data Input Plan"). The Data Input Plan will identify the data to be included and the means for inputting such data (direct entry or otherwise), the specific fields of information to be included, the past time periods for which information is to be included, the deadlines for inputting the data, and the responsibility for the input of the data. The Data Input Plan will include historical data that is up-to-date and complete in the risk management system. The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final review and approval within 30 days after it is presented for approval.

Activity/Comments
The Data Plan is based upon the IAPro system and both DOJ and IMT have reviewed and approved the plan and subsequent implementation of the IAPro system. IAPro continues to be the data center for IAB case processing and documenting.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

Compliance Reqmts The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final review and approval within 30 days after it is presented for approval and that VIPD has received DOJ approval for its Data Input Plan.

Sub-Para b
Compliance Reqmts
Sub-Para c
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

The Data Input Plan identifies the data to be included and the means for inputting

such data (direct entry or otherwise), the specific fields of information to be

included, the past time periods for which information is to be included, the

deadlines for inputting the data, and the responsibility for the input of the data.

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

=>90% of the historical data required by the Data Input Plan is up-to-date with a

IMT-Rpt: para_stat_SC_NA V1-032415

The paragraphs in this report are in Substantial Compliance or are noted as Not Applicable Page 16 of 26 (NA) and as such receive periodic spot checking and review by the IMT.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-2 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 17 of 26

Paragraphs Currently In Substantial Compliance Or NA Status As Of End of Fourth Quarter 2014

Appendix A To
4Q2014 IMT Report

reasonable level of accuracy and completeness

End of Paragraph 062

Paragraph 063

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

Group

MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION

SC Date 08/27/2014 Group Code 3

CD Wording The VIPD will, within 120 days, prepare for the review and approval of DOJ, and thereafter implement, a protocol for using the risk management system. The VIPD will submit for the review and approval of DOJ all proposed modifications to the protocol prior to implementing such modifications.
Activity/Comments

The IMT monitors the policy (through reviews), training (monitoring deliveries, review of curricula, and review of Power DMS), and implementation (through case review) of the risk management system.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/27/2014

Compliance Reqmts The VIPD has received approval from DOJ, and implemented a protocol for using

the RMS.

Sub-Para b

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/27/2014

Compliance Reqmts The VIPD has audited the RMS and confirmed that it reflects the protocol.

End of Paragraph 063

IMT-Rpt: para_stat_SC_NA V1-032415

The paragraphs in this report are in Substantial Compliance or are noted as Not Applicable Page 17 of 26 (NA) and as such receive periodic spot checking and review by the IMT.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-2 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 18 of 26

Paragraphs Currently In Substantial Compliance Or NA Status As Of End of Fourth Quarter 2014

Appendix A To
4Q2014 IMT Report

Paragraph 064

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

Group

MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION

Group Code 3

CD Wording The protocol for using the risk management system will include the following provisions and elements:

a. The protocol is comprised of the following components: data storage, data retrieval, reporting, data analysis, pattern identification, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation and audit.

b. The protocol will require the automated system to analyze the data according to the following criteria: i) number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; ii) average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and iii) identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit.

c. The protocol will require the system to generate reports on a monthly basis describing the data and data analysis and identifying individual and unit patterns.

d. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors will review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, system reports, and will evaluate individual officer, supervisor, and unit activity.

e. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors initiate intervention for individual officers, supervisors and for units based on appropriate activity and pattern assessment of the information contained in the risk management system.

f. The protocol will require that intervention options include discussion by deputy chiefs, managers, supervisors, and officers; counseling; training; and supervised, monitored, and documented action plans and strategies designed to modify activity. All interventions will be documented in writing and entered into the automated system (appropriate intervention options will be employed based on the evaluation described in subsection (e) above).

g. The protocol will specify that actions taken as a result of information from the risk management system be based on all relevant and appropriate information, including the nature of the officer's assignment, crime trends and crime problems, and not solely on the number or percentages of incidents in any category of information recorded in the risk management system.

h. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors. will promptly review the risk management system records of all officers recently transferred to their sections and units.

i. The protocol will require that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors be evaluated on their ability to use the risk management system to enhance effectiveness and reduce risk.

j. The protocol will require that the system be managed and administered by the Internal Affairs Unit of the VIPD. The IAU of the VIPD will conduct quarterly audits of the system to ensure action is taken according to the process described above.

k. The protocol will require regular reviews, at no less than quarterly intervals, by appropriate managers of all relevant risk management system information to evaluate officer

IMT-Rpt: para_stat_SC_NA V1-032415

The paragraphs in this report are in Substantial Compliance or are noted as Not Applicable Page 18 of 26 (NA) and as such receive periodic spot checking and review by the IMT.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-2 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 19 of 26

Paragraphs Currently In Substantial Compliance Or NA Status As Of End of Fourth Quarter 2014

Appendix A To
4Q2014 IMT Report

performance territory-wide, and to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all VIPD units in order to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents.

Activity/Comments
The iMT monitors compliance with this paragraph through active review of case files, interaction with the software (accessing) by managers and command personnel, and VIPD audits. The current IAPro system meets all data elements and reporting criteria of the paragraph standard and IMT continues to monitor its use through periodic ad-hoc audits of data, reports, and management access.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

Compliance Reqmts

The VIPD has received DOJ approval of a protocol with the components identified

in 64(a) of the Consent Decree.

2.

The VIPD has implemented a protocol for using the RMS that includes the

components identified in 64(a) of the Consent Decree.

Sub-Para b
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

The VIPD has received DOJ approval of a protocol that includes an automated

system to analyze the data according to the criteria identified in 64(b) of the

Consent Decree.

2.

The VIPD implemented a protocol that includes an automated system to

analyze the data according to the criteria identified in 64(b) of the Consent

Decree.

Sub-Para c

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

Compliance Reqmts Reports are generated and distributed to appropriate sworn personnel (e.g., Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, and supervisors) on a monthly basis

Sub-Para d
Compliance Reqmts
Sub-Para e
Compliance Reqmts
Sub-Para f
Compliance Reqmts
Sub-Para g
Compliance Reqmts
Sub-Para h
Compliance Reqmts

Sub Para c-k is on Para 100; remove from para 64 Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

=>90% of the reviews conducted by the Deputy Chiefs, managers, and

supervisors comport with the RMS protocol.

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date

12/18/2013

Deputy Chiefs, managers and supervisors have initiated intervention in =>90% of

instances based on activity and pattern assessment contained in the RMS.

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

Interventions, as exemplified in paragraph 64 of the Consent Decree, comport

with the RMS protocol =>90% of the time.

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

=>90% of interventions are based on all relevant and appropriate information,

including the nature of the officer's assignment, crime trends and crime problems,

and not solely on the number or percentages of incidents in any category of

information recorded in the risk management system.

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

In =>90% of instances when officers are transferred to a new section or unit, Deputy Chiefs, managers and supervisors for the relevant section or unit have promptly reviewed the RMS records of such officers.

IMT-Rpt: para_stat_SC_NA V1-032415

The paragraphs in this report are in Substantial Compliance or are noted as Not Applicable Page 19 of 26 (NA) and as such receive periodic spot checking and review by the IMT.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-2 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 20 of 26

Paragraphs Currently In Substantial Compliance Or NA Status As Of End of Fourth Quarter 2014

Appendix A To
4Q2014 IMT Report

Sub-Para i
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

The VIPD has established a protocol for evaluating whether deputy chiefs,

managers and supervisors are able to use the RMS system to enhance

effectiveness and risk.

2.

This evaluation protocol is followed with a >90% level of accuracy and

completeness.

Sub-Para j
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

The RMS is managed and administered by IAU. IAU conducts audits on a quarterly basis with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

Sub-Para k
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

The Police Commissioner's Office, with IAU assistance, has convened, at least quarterly, a meeting of senior managers to review all RMS data to evaluate officer performance territory-wide and make appropriate comparisons of officers, supervisors, units, and mangers to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents.
End of Paragraph 064

Paragraph 065

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/27/2014

Group

MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION

Group Code 3

CD Wording The VIPD will maintain all personally identifiable information about an officer included in the

risk management system during the officer's employment with the VIPD for at least five

years. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis will be maintained indefinitely in the risk management system. On an ongoing basis, the VIPD will enter information into

the risk management system in a timely, accurate, and complete manner, and maintain the

data in a secure and confidential manner.
Activity/Comments

IMT periodically monitors complaince of this paragraph through review of former officer data within the IAPro system, which is approaching its full five years of operation.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/27/2014

Compliance Reqmts The VIPD has received approval from DOJ, and implemented a protocol for using the RMS.

Sub-Para b
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/27/2014

The VIPD has audited the RMS and confirmed that it reflects the protocol.

End of Paragraph 065

IMT-Rpt: para_stat_SC_NA V1-032415

The paragraphs in this report are in Substantial Compliance or are noted as Not Applicable Page 20 of 26 (NA) and as such receive periodic spot checking and review by the IMT.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-2 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 21 of 26

Paragraphs Currently In Substantial Compliance Or NA Status As Of End of Fourth Quarter 2014

Appendix A To
4Q2014 IMT Report

Paragraph 066

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 02/10/2014

Group

MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION

Group Code 3

CD Wording

The new risk management system will be purchased off the shelf and customized by VIPD. Alternatively, the new risk management system may be developed and implemented according to the following schedule: a. Within 150 days of the effective date of this Agreement, subject to the review and approval of DOJ, the VIPD will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP). b. Within 270 days of the issuance of the RFP, or later with the agreement of DOJ, the VIPD will select the contractor to create the risk management system. c. Within 150 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the VIPD will submit the protocol for using the risk management system to DOJ for review and approval. The VIPD will share drafts of this document with DOJ and the Monitor (a position described in Section VII) to allow DOJ and the Monitor to become familiar with the document as it develops and to provide informal comments on it. The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final approval within 30 days after it is presented for review and approval. d. Within 14 months of selecting the contractor, the VIPD will have ready for testing a beta version of the risk management system consisting of: i) server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the VIPD's existing automated systems; ii) necessary data base software installed and configured; iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and iv) the use of force information system completed, including historic data. DOJ and the Monitor will have the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version using use of force data and test data created specifically for purposes of checking the risk management system. e. The risk management system computer program and computer hardware will be operational and fully implemented within 20 months of the selection of the risk management system contractor.

Activity/Comments
This paragraph was in compliance with the purchase and implementation of the IAPro system. IAPro remains in active use within the IAB.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 02/10/2014

Compliance Reqmts Completed

Sub-Para b

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 02/10/2014

Compliance Reqmts Completed

Sub-Para c

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 02/10/2014

Compliance Reqmts Within 150 days of the effective date of this Agreement, subject to the review and

approval of DOJ, the VIPD will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP).

Sub-Para d

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 02/10/2014

Compliance Reqmts Within 270 days of the issuance of the RFP, or later with the agreement of DOJ,

the VIPD will select the contractor to create the risk management system.

Sub-Para e

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 02/10/2014

Compliance Reqmts

Within 150 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the VIPD will submit the protocol for using the risk management system to DOJ for review and approval. The VIPD will share drafts of this document with DOJ and the Monitor (a position described in Section VII) to allow DOJ and the Monitor to become familiar with the document as it develops and to provide informal comments on it. The VIPD and DOJ will together seek to ensure that the protocol receives final approval within 30 days after it is presented for review and approval.

IMT-Rpt: para_stat_SC_NA V1-032415

The paragraphs in this report are in Substantial Compliance or are noted as Not Applicable Page 21 of 26 (NA) and as such receive periodic spot checking and review by the IMT.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-2 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 22 of 26

Paragraphs Currently In Substantial Compliance Or NA Status As Of End of Fourth Quarter 2014

Appendix A To
4Q2014 IMT Report

Sub-Para f
Compliance Reqmts
Sub-Para g
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 02/10/2014

Within 14 months of selecting the contractor, the VIPD will have ready for testing

a beta version of the risk management system consisting of: i) server hardware

and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the VIPD's

existing automated systems; ii) necessary data base software installed and

configured; iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and iv)

the use of force information system completed, including historic data. DOJ and

the Monitor will have the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version

using use of force data and test data created specifically for purposes of

checking the risk management system.

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 02/10/2014

The risk management system computer program and computer hardware will be operational and fully implemented within 20 months of the selection of the risk management system contractor.

End of Paragraph 066

Paragraph 070

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

Group

MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION

SC Date 12/18/2013 Group Code 3

CD Wording The VIPD will develop a disciplinary matrix to take into account an officer's violations of different rules, rather than just repeated violations of the same rule. The VIPD will further revise this matrix to increase the penalties for uses of excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, or dishonesty, to reflect the seriousness of those infractions. The revised disciplinary matrix will provide the VIPD with the discretion to impose any appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes the officer's misconduct exhibits a lack of fitness for duty. This revised matrix will be subject to the review and approval of DOJ.
Activity/Comments

The IMT monitors the current matrix, which was approved by DOJ, for objectivity and fairness. Recent interviews conducted by the IMT seem to indicate a need for review of this matrix in light of current operations and needs and the iMT has suggested such to the VIPD. The current matrix, however, complies with the minimum standards of the paragraph.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

Compliance Reqmts The VIPD has developed a disciplinary matrix to take into account an officer's violations of different rules, rather than just repeated violations of the same rule.

Sub-Para b
Compliance Reqmts
Sub-Para c
Compliance Reqmts
Sub-Para d
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

The VIPD has further revised this matrix to increase the penalties for uses of

excessive force, improper searches and seizures, discrimination, or dishonesty,

to reflect the seriousness of those infractions.

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

The revised disciplinary matrix provides the VIPD with the discretion to impose

any appropriate punishment when the VIPD believes the officer's misconduct

exhibits a lack of fitness for duty.

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 12/18/2013

This revised matrix has been reviewed and approved by the DOJ.

End of Paragraph 070

IMT-Rpt: para_stat_SC_NA V1-032415

The paragraphs in this report are in Substantial Compliance or are noted as Not Applicable Page 22 of 26 (NA) and as such receive periodic spot checking and review by the IMT.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-2 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 23 of 26

Paragraphs Currently In Substantial Compliance Or NA Status As Of End of Fourth Quarter 2014

Appendix A To
4Q2014 IMT Report

Paragraph 075

Group

TRAINING

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/27/2014 Group Code 4

CD Wording The VIPD will continue to provide training consistent with VIPD policy, law, and proper police practices, and will ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by instructors. The VIPD will make best efforts to train each work shift as a team in their use of force training.
Activity/Comments

The IMT monitors both the classroom and roll call components of this paragraph to ensure compliance. While curricula appears to met this standard, the roll call training program is in need of review and adjustment to more effective and consistent delivery. The VIPD is in agreement and has commenced a department review of the roll call program. The IMT is participating in that review and has provided input to the proposed revised policy as well as technical assistance to the Training Director in the area of delivery, management, and evaluation of the program. The iMT will continue to monitor and provide assistance as needed.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/27/2014

Compliance Reqmts The VIPD has delivered training that is consistent with the content of approved

lesson plans.

Sub-Para b

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/27/2014

Compliance Reqmts

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff has developed a plan to provide training for each work shift as a team on use of force and implements that plan. To the extent possible, the Director of Training and/or his/her staff have provided training for each work team on use of force

End of Paragraph 075

Paragraph 076

Group

TRAINING

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/27/2014 Group Code 4

CD Wording The VIPD shall continue to keep adequate records of lesson plans and other training materials, such that the most current training documents are maintained in a central, commonly accessible file, and are clearly dated.
Activity/Comments

the IMT monitors compliance by review of current lesson plans and other curricula and has provided VIPD Training Division with technical assistance to enhance both the development and evaluation potential of training materials.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/27/2014

Compliance Reqmts

The VIPD has established a central, commonly accessible repository for lesson plans and training materials. =95% of training materials are clearly dated. Training records are maintained in a central, commonly accessible repository. =95% of lesson plans contain all of the required signatures of review and approval.
End of Paragraph 076

IMT-Rpt: para_stat_SC_NA V1-032415

The paragraphs in this report are in Substantial Compliance or are noted as Not Applicable Page 23 of 26 (NA) and as such receive periodic spot checking and review by the IMT.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-2 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 24 of 26

Paragraphs Currently In Substantial Compliance Or NA Status As Of End of Fourth Quarter 2014

Appendix A To
4Q2014 IMT Report

Paragraph 078

Group

TRAINING

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/27/2014 Group Code 4

CD Wording The Training Director, in consultation with the Attorney General's Office, will review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure compliance with applicable laws and VIPD policy.
Activity/Comments

The IMT monitors compliance by review of lesson plans to ensure that the VIAG has approved the materials.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/27/2014

Compliance Reqmts

The Training Director and/or his/her staff has reviewed 100% of all force-related policies and training curricula/lessons plans regularly [at least annually] to ensure compliance with applicable laws and VIPD policy and there is documentation of this review. 100% of force-related training curricula/lesson plans adequately incorporate critical thinking, decision-making instruction, applicable law(s) and VIPD policy. The VIPD has developed a process by which the Attorney General's Office reviews any additions, changes and/or modifications regarding use of force training or policies to ensure compliance with applicable laws. 100% of force-related policies and training curricula/lessons plans have received at least annual review by the Attorney General's Office and those reviews are documented in writing.
End of Paragraph 078

Paragraph 079

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date

Group

TRAINING

Group Code 4

CD Wording

The VIPD will continue to provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on use of force. Such training will include and address the following topics: a. the VIPD's use of force model, as described in this Agreement; b. proper use of force decision-making; c. the VIPD's use of force reporting requirements; d. the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements; e. examples of scenarios faced by VIPD officers that illustrate proper use of force decision-making; f. interactive exercises that emphasize proper use of force decision-making; g. de-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without using force, and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation even when the use of force would be legally justified; h. threat assessment; i. appropriate training on conflict management.

Activity/Comments
The IMT monitors that approved training curricula is used to deliver Use of Force training courses at both the entry and in-service levels, that are tailored for the student population. Materials comport with the minimum requirements of this paragraph.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/27/2014

Compliance Reqmts =>95% of sworn personnel have (a) attended and successfully completed the

IMT-Rpt: para_stat_SC_NA V1-032415

The paragraphs in this report are in Substantial Compliance or are noted as Not Applicable Page 24 of 26 (NA) and as such receive periodic spot checking and review by the IMT.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-2 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 25 of 26

Paragraphs Currently In Substantial Compliance Or NA Status As Of End of Fourth Quarter 2014

Appendix A To
4Q2014 IMT Report

initial in-service training for each new or revised use of force policy that includes and addresses the issues in paragraph 79(a)-(i) and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel in each of the categories of recruits, officers, supervisors and managers have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel.

Sub-Para b
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/28/2014

At least annually, the Training Director and/or his/her staff develop a training schedule and curricula for 100% of all use of force related policies that incorporates and addresses all of the components identified in 79(a)-(i).

Sub-Para c
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/28/2014

At least annually, the Training Director and/or his/her staff implement that training schedule and curricula for 100% of all use of force related policies based on 79(a)-(i).

Sub-Para d
Compliance Reqmts

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/28/2014

All training comports with the requirements of the Consent Decree, and is taught from curricula/lessons plan that: (a) follow a standard format; (b) identify training objectives; (c) incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises); and (d) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal counsel.

Sub-Para e

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/28/2014

Compliance Reqmts Where train-the-trainer or specific force tool certifications are required, =>95% of recruits, officers, supervisors and managers have those certifications.

End of Paragraph 079

Paragraph 080

Paragraph Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/01/2014

Group

TRAINING

Group Code 4

CD Wording The VIPD will continue to provide training to all its officers on the VIPD citizen complaint process. The VIPD will develop a protocol for all its officers on appropriate conduct and responses in handling citizens' complaints and will train officers in the protocol.
Activity/Comments

The IMT monitors compliance with this paragraph by reviewing entry level and in-service training schedules and materials to ensure that requirements of this paragraph are compiled with. Student rosters are provided and IMT attempts to match them against the courses delivered.

Sub-Paragraph Detail

Sub-Para a

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/15/2014

Compliance Reqmts

=95% of sworn personnel have (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training for each new or revised complaint process related policy and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the sworn personnel have entered and successfully completed a remedial

IMT-Rpt: para_stat_SC_NA V1-032415

The paragraphs in this report are in Substantial Compliance or are noted as Not Applicable Page 25 of 26 (NA) and as such receive periodic spot checking and review by the IMT.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-2 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 26 of 26

Paragraphs Currently In Substantial Compliance Or NA Status As Of End of Fourth Quarter 2014

Appendix A To
4Q2014 IMT Report

Sub-Para b
Compliance Reqmts

program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where sworn personnel have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Date 08/15/2014

The VIPD has developed policies or protocols related to the citizen complaint process, which address appropriate conduct and response in handling citizen complaints.

End of Paragraph 080

IMT-Rpt: para_stat_SC_NA V1-032415

The paragraphs in this report are in Substantial Compliance or are noted as Not Applicable Page 26 of 26 (NA) and as such receive periodic spot checking and review by the IMT.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-3 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 1 of 6

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 4Q2014

Appendix B To
4Q2014 IMT Report

Paragraph 032

Status Not In Substantial Compliance

Sub-Paragraph b

Status Partial Compliance

SC Requirement =>95% of RRRs indicate each and every type of force that was used

Goal 08/15/2014

Sub-Paragraph c

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Goal 08/15/2014

SC Requirement =>95% of RRRs contain an evaluation of each type of force used by a supervisor

Sub-Paragraph d

Status Partial Compliance

Goal 08/15/2014

SC Requirement =>95% of RRRs contain a narrative description of the events preceding the use of force written by the supervisor or assigned investigator.

Sub-Paragraph f

Status Partial Compliance

Goal 08/15/2014

SC Requirement =>95% of the reports will include an audio or videotaped statement, unless the level of force used is at the lowest level as described by DOJ approved VIPD policy.

End Paragraph 032

Paragraph 033

Status Not In Substantial Compliance

Sub-Paragraph a

Status Partial Compliance

Goal 11/21/2014

SC Requirement In =>95% of the identified use of force incidents, the officer using force notified his/her supervisor immediately as required by VIPD policy.

Sub-Paragraph b

Status Partial Compliance

Goal 02/20/2015

SC Requirement In =>90% of the incidents where the supervisor was required to respond to the scene, he/she responded within a reasonable amount of time.

Sub-Paragraph c

Status Partial Compliance

Goal 02/20/2015

SC Requirement In =>90% of the incidents did the supervisor respond to the scene,he/she examined the person for injury,

Sub-Paragraph d

Status Partial Compliance

Goal 02/20/2015

SC Requirement In =>05% of the incidents where a supervisor responded to the scene, he/she interviewed the subject for injury or complaint of pain.

Sub-Paragraph e

Status Partial Compliance

Goal 11/21/2014

SC Requirement In =>90% of the incidents where the Supervisors responded to the scene, he/she ensured that subjects received any necessary medical attention.

End Paragraph 033

Paragraph 034

Status Not In Substantial Compliance

Sub-Paragraph a

Status Partial Compliance

Goal 08/15/2014

SC Requirement In =>95% of the reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he/she was not involved in the use of force

incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize or

participate in conduct leading to the use of force incident), will review, evaluate, and document each use of force.

Sub-Paragraph b

Status Partial Compliance

Goal 08/15/2014

SC Requirement In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completes the

supervisor's narrative description of the RRR in a manner that comports with the

requirements of para 34 of the Consent Decree.

IMT-courtgoals_statusrptA Detailed discussion of the Court Ordered Goal paragraphs above can be

V1 032415

found in Section IV. Compliance Status: Detail of the base report.

Page 1 of 6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-3 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 2 of 6

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 4Q2014

Appendix B To
4Q2014 IMT Report

Sub-Paragraph c

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Goal 11/21/2014

SC Requirement

In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completed his/her review and evaluation according to VIPD's use of force policies and all other requirements of 31 of the Consent Decree and includeg a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer/s conduct.

Sub-Paragraph d

Status Partial Compliance

Goal 02/20/2015

SC Requirement In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completed his/her

review and evaluation according to VIPD's use of force policies and all other

requirements of 31 of the Consent Decree and will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officers actions were within VIPD policy.

Sub-Paragraph e

Status Partial Compliance

SC Requirement See a, above.

Goal 08/15/2014

End Paragraph 034

Paragraph 035

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Sub-Paragraph a

Status Partial Compliance

Goal 02/20/2015

SC Requirement In =>90% of the interviews conducted during use of force reviews, leading questions were avoided.

End Paragraph 035

Paragraph 036

Status Not In Substantial Compliance

Sub-Paragraph a

Status Partial Compliance

Goal 08/15/2014

SC Requirement =>90% of the Use of Force reports, the supervisors, or designated investigating

officers or units, who supervised the officer using the force, conducted the investigation of all uses of force or injury resulting from the use of force by that officer. This requirement does nto apply to the lowest level use of force as defined in

DOJ approved VIPD policy.

Sub-Paragraph b

Status Partial Compliance

Goal 08/15/2014

SC Requirement In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, all witnesses, to the extent practicable, are interviewed in the investigating supervisor's reports.

End Paragraph 036

Paragraph 044

Status Not In Substantial Compliance

Sub-Paragraph i

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Goal 05/23/2014

SC Requirement =>90% of complaints are documented and resolved in writing and completed investigations into complaints comport with the provisions of the Consent Decree.

End Paragraph 044

Paragraph 058

Status Not In Substantial Compliance

Sub-Paragraph c

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Goal 05/23/2014

SC Requirement =>90% of any identified problems and/or training needs have been relayed to the appropriate VIPD entity.

IMT-courtgoals_statusrptA Detailed discussion of the Court Ordered Goal paragraphs above can be

V1 032415

found in Section IV. Compliance Status: Detail of the base report.

Page 2 of 6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-3 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 3 of 6

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 4Q2014

Appendix B To
4Q2014 IMT Report

Sub-Paragraph d

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Goal 05/23/2014

SC Requirement =>90% of the cases where there is a determination that modification to or additional training is required, there is documented evidence that VIPD implemented additional training.

Sub-Paragraph e

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Goal 05/23/2014

SC Requirement =>90% of the cases where the VIPD identified policy or equipment deficiencies, there is documented evidence that corrective measures were implemented.

End Paragraph 058

Paragraph 060

Status Not In Substantial Compliance

Sub-Paragraph c

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Goal 08/15/2014

SC Requirement =>95% of the canisters of chemical spray issued to officers will be entered into RMS,

including the date of issuance and date of expirations of the chemical spray, with a

reasonable level of accuracy and completeness and the VIPD has developed a process to track the amount of OC Spray used by Officers.

Sub-Paragraph d

Status Partial Compliance

Goal 08/15/2014

SC Requirement =>95% of all injuries to prisoners will be entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

Sub-Paragraph h

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Goal 08/15/2014

SC Requirement

=>95% of criminal proceedings initiated, civil or administrative claims filed, and civil lawsuits served against the Territory, the VIPD, and its Officers resulting from VIPD operations will be entered in RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

End Paragraph 060

Paragraph 069

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Sub-Paragraph a

Status Partial Compliance

Goal 08/15/2014

SC Requirement The VIPD has developed a protocol for conducting audits. The protocol will be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits.

Sub-Paragraph b

Status Partial Compliance

Goal 08/15/2014

SC Requirement The protocol establishes a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all VIPD zones

End Paragraph 069

Paragraph 071

Status Not In Substantial Compliance

Sub-Paragraph b

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Goal 11/21/2014

SC Requirement =>90% of the time, these established time periods are not violated except for in exigent circumstances and with the Police Commissioner's written approval for

tolling and notice to the complainant.

IMT-courtgoals_statusrptA Detailed discussion of the Court Ordered Goal paragraphs above can be

V1 032415

found in Section IV. Compliance Status: Detail of the base report.

Page 3 of 6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-3 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 4 of 6

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 4Q2014

Appendix B To
4Q2014 IMT Report

End Paragraph 071

Paragraph 072

Status Not In Substantial Compliance

Sub-Paragraph a

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Goal 11/21/2014

SC Requirement In =>90% of the cases where the matrix calls for discipline, discipline is imposed.

Sub-Paragraph b

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Goal 11/21/2014

SC Requirement In =>90% of the cases where discipline is imposed, there is evidence that the VIPD has also considered non-disciplinary corrective action.

End Paragraph 072

Paragraph 073

Status Not In Substantial Compliance

Sub-Paragraph a

Status Partial Compliance

Goal 05/23/2014

SC Requirement The Training Division has coordinated and reviewed all use of force training. This review occurs: at least semi-annually and needs to be comprehensive and analytical.

Sub-Paragraph b

Status Substantial Compliance

Goal 05/23/2014

SC Requirement The Training Division issues reports to DOJ and OIM regarding its review of use of

force policies and training programs within a reasonable time after each review, or at least every six (6) months.

End Paragraph 073

Paragraph 074

Status Not In Substantial Compliance

Sub-Paragraph a

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Goal 05/23/2014

SC Requirement The Director of Training and/or his/her staff reviews all use of force training. The Director of Training and/or his/her staff obtains legal review of all use of force

training curricula.

Sub-Paragraph c

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Goal 05/23/2014

SC Requirement The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed a process to continually select and evaluate VIPD officer trainers.

>95% of the training staff has received appropriate training and certification in the subject matter(s) that they are assigned to teach.

Sub-Paragraph d

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Goal 05/23/2014

SC Requirement The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have reviewed and provided written approval of all curricula, course schedules and lesson plans.

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have created and maintained a training record system that captures attendance records, instructor and student evaluations, and test results.

Sub-Paragraph e

Status Partial Compliance

Goal 05/23/2014

SC Requirement The Training Director and/or his/her staff, in conjunction with the Chiefs and Deputy

IMT-courtgoals_statusrptA Detailed discussion of the Court Ordered Goal paragraphs above can be

V1 032415

found in Section IV. Compliance Status: Detail of the base report.

Page 4 of 6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-3 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 5 of 6

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 4Q2014

Appendix B To
4Q2014 IMT Report

Chiefs, have created a process for the development, implementation and approval of all Roll Call training curricula.

The Training Director and/or his/her staff, in conjunction with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs, have developed, implemented and approved all Roll Call training curricula.

The Training Director and/or his/her staff have maintained written documentation of this process.

Sub-Paragraph f

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Goal 05/23/2014

SC Requirement The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have created and maintained a training record system that captures attendance records, instructor and student evaluations, and test results.

For >90% of the conducted Consent Decree related training sessions, evaluation review forms were collected from class participants.

Sub-Paragraph g

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Goal 05/23/2014

SC Requirement The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed a process to review use of force incidents to identify patterns and trends that will influence training needs.

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have conducted semi-annual reviews of use of force incidents to evaluate training needs.

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed, reviewed and implemented all use of force training curricula (including lesson plans).

End Paragraph 074

Paragraph 077

Status Not In Substantial Compliance

Sub-Paragraph a

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Goal 05/23/2014

SC Requirement The Director of Training and/or his/her staff has maintained current and substantially complete training records for =95% of VIPD Officers.

Sub-Paragraph b

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Goal 05/23/2014

SC Requirement =>95% of the training records shall, at a minimum, include the course description and duration, curriculum, and instructor for each officer.

End Paragraph 077

Paragraph 081

Status Not In Substantial Compliance

Sub-Paragraph a

Status Substantial Compliance

Goal 05/23/2014

SC Requirement The VIPD will provide training on appropriate burdens of proof to all supervisors.

Sub-Paragraph b

Status Partial Compliance

Goal 05/23/2014

SC Requirement Training should include factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility.

IMT-courtgoals_statusrptA Detailed discussion of the Court Ordered Goal paragraphs above can be

V1 032415

found in Section IV. Compliance Status: Detail of the base report.

Page 5 of 6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 147-3 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 6 of 6

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 4Q2014

Appendix B To
4Q2014 IMT Report

Sub-Paragraph c

Status Substantial Compliance

Goal 05/23/2014

SC Requirement The VIPD will also continue to provide training to supervisors on leadership and command accountability.

Sub-Paragraph d

Status Partial Compliance

Goal 05/23/2014

SC Requirement The training shall include techniques designed to promote proper police practices.

Sub-Paragraph e

Status Substantial Compliance

SC Requirement This training will be provided w/I 90 days of promotion.

Goal 05/23/2014

Sub-Paragraph f

Status Partial Compliance

SC Requirement And will be made a part of annual in-service training.

Goal 05/23/2014

End Paragraph 081

IMT-courtgoals_statusrptA Detailed discussion of the Court Ordered Goal paragraphs above can be

V1 032415

found in Section IV. Compliance Status: Detail of the base report.

Page 6 of 6

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 1 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
FIRST QUARTERLY REPORT OF 2015 FROM THE
INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT
CHARLES A. GRUBER CONSULTING INC. INDEPENDENT MONITOR www.imt-policemonitor.org (May 24, 2015)

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 2 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
INDEPENDENT MONITORING TEAM
Independent Monitor Chief Charles A. Gruber
Elgin, Illinois Police Department (retired)
Police Practices Experts Superintendent Ann Marie Doherty
Boston, Massachusetts Police Department (retired) Chief Robert L. Stewart
Ormond Beach, Florida Police Department (retired)
CAG Staff & Consultants Jerome A. Needle, Project Manager
Director of Programs & Research, International Association of Chiefs of Police (retired) Palmer D. Wilson, Technical Manager Lieutenant, Commander, Office of Audits & Inspections, Montgomery County, Maryland Department of Police (retired) Leon A. Casey, Sr., Field Coordinator Resident Agent in Charge, U.S. Customs Service (retired)
CHARLES A. GRUBER CONSULTING INC. INDEPENDENT MONITOR www.imt-policemonitor.org

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 3 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 4

I.

RECOMMITMENT & PROMISING ACTIONS .......................................................... 6

II.

COMPLIANCE STATUS: OVERVIEW ................................................................... 13

III.

COMPLIANCE STATUS: DETAIL .......................................................................... 22

IV. VIPD AUDITING PERFORMANCE ........................................................................ 69

V.

CONSET DECREE IMPLEMENTATION; WORKFORCE PERCEPTIONS &

RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 72

APPENDIX A – PARAGRAPHS CURRENTLY IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE OR NA STATUS AS OF END OF FIRST QUARTER .…...…………………………….….....85

APPENDIX B – COURT ORDERED GOALS NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE STATUS REPORT AS OF END OF FIRST QUARTER 2015…………….…………………111

APPENDIX C – IMT ROLL CALL TRAINING DIRECTIVE (10.4) RECOMMENDATIONS (03/16/15)………...…………………………………………………………………………….117

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 4 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
VIPD compliance progress since our last Quarterly Report is characterized by continuing failure to bring paragraphs into Substantial Compliance, offset by modest forward movement in subparagraph achievement and by very promising leadership, culture/climate, and infrastructure advances. Not one paragraph has been brought into Substantial Compliance since August 2014, a nine-month period. Diagnosed and labeled as "Transition Costs" in our previous Quarterly, the VIPD faced a recovery situation this Quarter.
Our previous Quarterly balanced the negative compliance status finding by reporting positive action with regard to compliance organization, staffing, and rededication of compliance effort. We are encouraged to report that during the current reporting Quarter, the movement we witnessed last Quarter continued to build. We wish to note and credit both the new government of the Territory and the VIPD’s new leadership team for infusing new energy into the compliance enterprise and for an impressive number and insightfully chosen actions that simultaneously bode well going forward and declare that failure to move paragraphs to compliance is no longer acceptable. There is a new message!
In addition to the easily recognized turn around in the compliance climate, positives of this reporting period include early signs of a shift toward transformational leadership, compliance staff augmentation, in both numbers and skills acquisition, a robust effort to infuse better/best practice capacity into the agency, a start on rebuilding and professionalizing the training function, and a hard focus on senior command responsibility and accountability. In both direct and indirect ways, each and all of the cultural and operational actions should power better VIPD compliance performance.
The IMT regards First Quarter activity and production, both level/intensity and focus, as favorable indicators of mounting capacity in the VIPD to meet the Court’s expectations. We
4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 5 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
single out for emphasis successful completion of Use of Force reporting templates, the Commissioner’s directive requiring implementation, and actual template implementation training, steps that form a process for goal achievement. Collaborative work by the parties to bring the Force Review Board and Force Investigation Team much closer to becoming a reality is a second example of that movement. As this Quarter ends, twenty-one (21) Court Ordered Goals and Initiatives have earned Completed status while twenty-two (22) remain in Pending status. Table 2, on page 23, displays the status of the paragraph and sub-paragraph specific goals, in which one was evaluated as in Substantial Compliance (Paragraph 32, Sub-Paragraph d) and one was moved to Partial Compliance (Paragraph 37, Sub-Paragraph a) during the reporting quarter. Finally, the IMT believes that steady demonstrable progress toward final Consent Decree compliance is equally as important as a singular focus on paragraph compliance itself. The IMT continues to assist the VIPD where possible in its new efforts toward an organized plan to achieve compliance. The Compliance Detail Section of the Report highlights many additional progressive actions during the Quarter that is now ending.
5

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 6 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
I. RECOMMITMENT & PROMISING ACTIONS
Our last Quarterly Report (March 27, 2015) emphasized the absence of compliance progress: "Not one Court-ordered, VIPD-pledged goal has come into compliance since the Second Quarter, 2014 Report." Since then, a period of almost three months, compliance performance has not advanced at all – again. Not one additional paragraph has achieved substantial Compliance. Some change was exhibited in sub-paragraph status.
We also reported in our last Quarterly that the VIPD, under new leadership, was focusing aggressively and intelligently on compliance organization, staffing, and recommitment. "As a package, early structural moves are promising.” During the current reporting quarter, the movement we witnessed last quarter continued to build. There is fresh energy with regard to compliance activity. We have taken note of specific actions expected to advance compliance and, perhaps more important, a healthier overall compliance climate.
□ Compliance Climate. An unmistakable turn-around is occurring in the Consent Decree - compliance climate. Commitment to Consent Decree compliance, exhibited by recommitment, activity, and VIPD team chemistry is observably on the rise. This has been particularly apparent during monthly VIPD-IMT teleconferences. Consent Decree-compliance operations seem more business-like and progress has been noted toward moving paragraphs into compliance.
□ Changing Leadership Style. While still requiring further observation, the IMT senses the emergence of change in VIPD leadership style, at least in the highest executive ranks. There seems to be more frequent reliance on the attributes and actions of transformational leadership and less emphasis on transactional leadership techniques. Transformational leaders create vision, identify desirable change, and inspire and prepare members of the organization to value and bring forth the vision, 6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 7 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
and challenge followers to take ownership of their work. It is about collective values. Transactional leaders focus more on rules, behavioral compliance, rewards and punishments. While no organization relies or can rely exclusively on one style, one can be dominant.
The renewed energy that the IMT observes is emanating from what we perceive as a buy-in among VIPD compliance stakeholders, predicated on a belief that the new administrations (elected and police) are seriously committed to the goals and values of the Consent Decree. After stalled efforts during late 2014 and early 2015, referred to as transition costs in our last quarterly, this change is most welcome.
□ Compliance Structuring & Staffing. The focus on Consent Decree organization and compliance resourcing is continuing. The newly appointed Deputy Commissioner (the "chief compliance officer") is logging valuable experience every day. The Audit Unit (AIU) has a new commander, a person with Consent Decree compliance experience and strong compliance audit experience and skills. The Audit Unit remains staffed with one full time member (the commander) but can have up to eight part time workers assigned on a temporary basis, to be rotated. This staffing strategy needs to be monitored closely for effectiveness. The IMT position continues to call for additional full time staff, be assigned for continuity and quality control. A new Training Director is in place.
□ Building Better Practice Capacity. There has been a surge in activity to infuse the VIPD operating environment with best practice knowledge and support from external professionals. Three acquisitions stand out, and a fourth is in play. The FBI has delivered leadership training to VIPD supervisors and managers, primarily sergeants and lieutenants. Negotiations are in an advanced stage to add more leadership and supervision training as well as the following offerings: Community Policing; Civil Rights; and Use of Deadly Force. These are highly pertinent to
7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 8 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department

Consent Decree issues. Additional deliveries are scheduled on a range of topics. The nationally respected firm Kirkpatrick Partners trained members of the VIPD on training development and evaluation subjects. T&M Associates of New York City is in the early stages of a comprehensive management study. Their work will focus on many questions and issues which are consequential for Consent Decree compliance, none more significant than the number and availability of supervisors to meet Consent Decree requirements.

The VIPD and the University of the Virgin Islands (UVI) are discussing engagement of university subject matter experts to assist the VIPD with matters of importance. Scope of work is being forged as this report is being written. At an IMT-UVI meeting, subjects considered included training development, research, strategic planning, and police standards (POST).

The cumulative results of the T&M work, the Kirkpatrick modeling, and UVI production, should the relationship eventuate, and progress on the existing IMTproduced portfolio (backlog) of recommendations should position the VIPD to craft a profound transformation of Virgin Islands policing in the immediate future and for years to come.

□ Toward Professionalizing Training. Measured by the paragraph compliance/noncompliance record and progress on audit work, Training is underperforming. Its paragraph compliance/non-compliance ratio lags behind only the Use of Force set. It has persistently remained in need of priority interventions, and still does. Since the turn of this calendar year, actions have been and are being taken that warrant optimism.

˗

The decision to bring the Kirkpatrick group to the VIPD is extraordinary. We

are encouraged that almost all of the command staff participated in the May 15

8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 9 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department

training. The experience will serve the organization far beyond the scope of evaluating VIPD training products. The evaluation concepts imparted during the training should illuminate Consent Decree auditing work as well.

˗

The VIPD is working to bring the FBI National Academy in to conduct the

aforementioned series of training events designed specifically for the VIPD.

˗

The Training Director has taken our suggestion and explored new training

opportunities with the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Brunswick,

Georgia. We have long held that all U.S. Territories should have a working

relationship and partnership with FLETC where Federal Law Enforcement

Standards are developed and certified.

The IMT looks forward to establishing a more productive relationship with the recently appointed Training Director. We have been anxious to work with a partner who is open to suggestion and willing to forge a new, more collaborative relationship with our team.

□ Senior Command Responsibility & Accountability. The IMT is encouraged that responsibility for moving the Working Groups forward now rests with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs. This follows the Commissioner’s designation of the Deputy Commissioner as point person for Consent Decree compliance. We expect to see significant movement in Consent Decree compliance or senior personnel being held accountable for lack of movement. The IMT has consistently identified failure in supervisory/managerial accountability as a persistent impediment to compliance in multiple areas such as EIP, timeliness of investigations and cooperation/collaboration across assignments. Recently, during our May work session, we were taken back by the under-representation of senior management personnel from St. Croix to discuss compliance activity. The Deputy Commissioner
9

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 10 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department

stated that he would determine the cause of the attendance problem and address it internally.

□ Partnership Development. The Police Commissioner has enlisted federal agencies as a force multiplier to address crime in the Territory. Arrangements, still in early stages and still evolving in specifics, are being worked out with ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms), Customs & Border Protection, and the FBI. Partnerships, properly conceived, managed, and conducted operationally, normally feature resource augmentation and leveraging, enhanced production and exchange of intelligence, and advances in coordination of goals and operations, among agencies, leading to better public safety outcomes. Reductions in violence, prevalence of guns, gun-crimes are clear possibilities for this configuration of partnerships, promising at least some level of benefit with regard to correlates of Use of Force, proper and improper. From The Virgin Island Daily News (April 28& 29, 2015):

-

Governor Mapp and U.S. Attorney Sharpe, and the Police

Commissioner "…said that a growing partnership between territory

police and federal law enforcement agencies is intended to be a

long-term answer to address crime of all kinds in the territory."

Examination of the VIPD’s evolving pursuit of partnerships has surfaced evidence of recognition of the potential and essential values of an additional partnership class, community engagement. Also from The Virgin Island Daily News:

-

U.S.A. Sharpe said federal agencies and local authorities will have

to work to convince some people that they can trust people

wearing badges. "There’s a palpable disconnect between law

enforcement, or authority if you will, and your grass-roots folks on

10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 11 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
the streets, he said….He said the federal agencies have been holding community outreach meetings to discuss crime and the widespread availability of guns."
The IMT will research the nature of the community outreach initiating from the VIPD during the next Quarter.
□ Commitment To Transparency. The newly elected and appointed administrations of the Governor and Police Commissioner have declared a commitment to transparency. Example: An assessment of territory policing will be conducted (the T&M study). Governor Mapp urged police officers to be forthright and open if contacted for interviews. "I want our officers to know that they’re going to be approached; they might be invited to interviews or assessments, without their supervisors being present, and we want to encourage them to be very candid and open, of their experiences, and what they believe are the shortcomings or the difficulties for them, being able to improve and professionalize law enforcement in the community," Mapp said. "We want that process to be transparent and we want the truth out of the officers, in terms of their experiences, so that we can put the complete strategy and reclamation, if I may use that term, of our law enforcement community, so we can bring the status and the safety and the security of the territories up to date." (Virgin Islands Daily News, April 28, 2015.)
An invitation to members of the VIPD to express themselves openly promises to contribute to a healthier Consent Decree compliance climate. Challenges are likely to be discussed more fully and solutions suggested more frequently. There has been some defensiveness to date. Transparency is also a principal requirement of the transformational leadership style referenced.
11

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 12 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
□ Carnival Management: Preserving Order. Last year’s celebration is testimony to the potential for mass gatherings to produce violence and demand that the VIPD apply force to preserve order. The key to effective police performance is planning and preparation. This year, the VIPD seemed better prepared. Surely results were better. The IMT applauds this year’s efforts, in the name of constitutional policing.
With regard to limiting the violence at Carnival, the VIPD reports only one stabbing on Thursday morning. Operational plans for a couple of entities (SOB) were provided for review by IMT. Although not appearing in writing, some new initiatives were undertaken to help curb violence, including additional lighting, police command posts within areas, and working relationships with multiple agencies. Multiple internal discussions occurred regarding the need to develop a template for Special Events. The VIPD intends for this process to start shortly – building on after action reports heretofore not being completed by the VIPD. The IMT suggests that the VIPD review the components of the Incident Command System, as developed by FEMA, for operational plan framework suggestions for Special Events. The complete training course and all manuals are available on the FEMA website at
https://www.fema.gov/incident-command-system-resources
12

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 13 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
II. COMPLIANCE STATUS: OVERVIEW
The following 8 charts document Paragraph Status at the end of the First Quarter of 2015. Compared to Quarter Three and Four, 2014, there has been no change at all with regard to Overall Status (Chart 1), and therefore with regard to Overall Compliance by Paragraph Groups (Charts 4-8). Overall Status The VIPD has achieved Substantial Compliance for 31 paragraphs. These 31 paragraphs are detailed in Appendix A to this report. Twenty paragraphs (20) are not yet in Substantial Compliance. Section III, Compliance Status Detail, provides more detail on compliance by these paragraphs. Compliance/Non-Compliance patterns vary among Consent Decree paragraph groupings. Charts 4-8 show that three groupings have a majority of paragraphs in Substantial Compliance: Citizen Complaints, 15 of 17, Management & Supervision, 7 of 12, Training, 5 of 9, two of these reflect a bare majority. The Use of Force group remains at only 4 of 11 paragraphs in Substantial Compliance.
13

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 14 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department

CHART 1

Overall CD Compliance ‐ 1Q2015

35 30 25 20 15 10
5 0 Substantial Compliance Not in Substantial Compliance NA (Not Applicable)

31
20
2
Paragraphs 31 20 2

14

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 15 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department

CHART 2
Substantial Compliance Trend Through 1Q2015

60

50

Paragraphs

40

30

20

10

0 1Q20

13

Substantial Compliance

0

Not in Substantial Compliance 52

NA (Not Applicable)

1

2Q20 13 5
46
2

3Q20 13 11
40
2

4Q20 13 12
39
2

1Q20 14 16
35
2

2Q20 14 19
32
2

3Q20 14 31
20
2

4Q20 14 31
20
2

1Q20 14 31
20
2

15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 16 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department

Paragraphs

CHART 3

Substantial Compliance Trend Through 1Q2015 60

50

40

30

20

10

0 1Q201 2Q201 3Q201 4Q201 1Q201 2Q201 3Q201 4Q201 1Q201

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

Substantial Compliance

0

5 11 12 16 19 31 31 31

Not in Substantial Compliance 52 46 40 39 35 32 20 20 20

NA(Not Applicable)

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

16

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 17 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department

Paragraphs

CHART 4

Overall Compliance for Group 1 Use of Force 1Q2015

8

7

6

4

4

2

0

0

Substantial Not in

NA

Compliance Subtantial

Compliance

Substantial Compliance
Not in Subtantial Compliance NA

CHART 5

Overall Compliance for Group 2 Citizen Complaints 1Q2015

15 15

10

5

2 0

0

Substantial Not in

NA

Compliance Subtantial

Compliance

Substantial Compliance
Not in Subtantial Compliance NA

Paragraphs

17

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 18 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department

CHART 6

Overall Compliance for Group 3 Management & Supervision 1Q2015

8

7

6

5

4

2

2

0

Substantial Not in

NA

Compliance Subtantial

Compliance

Substantial Compliance
Not in Subtantial Compliance NA

Paragraphs

CHART 7

Overall Compliance for Group 4 Training 1Q2015

5

5

4

4

3

2

1

0

0

Substantial Not in

NA

Compliance Subtantial

Compliance

Substantial Compliance
Not in Subtantial Compliance NA

Paragraphss

18

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 19 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department

CHART 8

Overall Compliance for Group 5 Implementation 1Q2015

2 2

1.5

1

0.5

0

0

0

Substantial Not in

NA

Compliance Substantial

Compliance

Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance NA

Paragraphss

IMT Compliance Concerns
Early Intervention Process
As previously reported, for the EIP there has been limited, ineffective supervisory/managerial response to alerts forwarded. This is allowing employees who may be starting to exhibit signs of problematic behavior to continue the same behavior resulting in additional citizen complaints and/or uses of force. During the 4th Quarter 2014, IMT was informed that there were 97 alerts forwarded during 2014. However, the VIPD could not immediately provide a status update other than a statement that very few had been addressed appropriately. This seems to indicate a VIPD supervisory issue which continues in the current quarter. During this quarter (as discussed late under the Paragraph 44 status section), the VIPD has initiated formal charges for lack of appropriate EIP action against 2 supervisors and 1 commander.

19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 20 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
During this quarter, the VIPD completed additional supervisory training on EIP Action Plans and Assessment on STT and STX. The IMT has asked for documentation, including attendance rosters and appropriate curriculum materials. The goal remains Pending receipt of same.
VIPD Policy Review
In the fall of 2014 the IMT determined that a significant number of VIPD policies had not been reviewed in accordance with the schedule posted for and recorded on each policy. Many of these policies cover critical Consent Decree-specific required operating practices. Policy review is mandated by Paragraph 31. Frequency of review (the schedule) is not specific in the Consent Decree. It is guided by the VIPD’s call for review of every policy, every year, which is consistent with policing practices for high risk policies.
When policy review mandate was brought to the attention of the VIPD compliance leaders by the IMT, we were assured that review would begin without delay and we would see results shortly after the VIPD Policy Committee completed its review and recommendation work. The review and recommendation process entails evaluation by both the IMT and DOJ, which add time to final update and publication of policy revisions. In the current instance the process has had to absorb leadership transition interruptions. Further, upon inquiry on progress, in late February 2015, the IMT was told that a special committee had been formed to speed up review. Policies were also reformatted prior to being sent to the Policy Committee. The policies were also under review by the new police administration.
On March 16, 2015, the Deputy Commissioner reinforced the priority of review and incorporated District supervisors into the policy redevelopment process – a technically and culturally positive initiative in our view. "To facilitate an orderly and effective review, Supervisors in each District are required to conduct roll call training or discussions on identified policies." (Memorandum, March 16, 2015.) Ten (10) Use of Force policies were identified for review:
20

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 21 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
● 3.1 Use of Force ● 3.4 Firearms Policy ● 3.5 Impact Weapons ● 3.6 Electronic Control Weapon ● 3.7 OC Spray ● 3.8 Off-Duty Policy ● 3.9 Vehicle Pursuit Policy ● 3.10 Spike Strip ● 3.12 Tactical Operations ● 3.13 Sniper Operations
During the April, 2015 IMT-VIPD Monthly Meeting, it was learned that the Special Committee had essentially completed its review and that the formatting was waiting for location of an editable copy of the documents, because policies were in Adobe PDF format. The IMT provided Technical Assistance and converted all of the policies to Word format the day after the Monthly Meeting and sent them to the VIPD.
During office visits on May 11-12, 2015, the IMT learned that despite conversion assistance to the VIPD, no further formatting or review work had been done on the noted policies by the VIPD staff. This was confirmed during the May 13, 2015 Work Session by both the Policy Review Committee chair and the senior staff person responsible for the review process. The IMT discussed the criticality of this situation and its potential for removing a paragraph from compliance. The Deputy Commissioner assured us that he would locate and detail appropriate staff to complete this process expeditiously. The IMT notes here its concern that the promised review be completed as soon as possible. Further, the VIPD should comply with established schedules and establish appropriate suspense systems to ensure that future reviews and publication of updated policies is responsive to both the demands of the Consent Decree and contemporary standards for policy development and professional policing.
21

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 22 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department

III. COMPLIANCE STATUS: DETAIL
A. Compliance Status as of May 15, 2015 Table 1, below, depicts those paragraphs that were in Substantial Compliance (SC) on May 15, 2015:

Paragraphs in Compliance as of May 15, 2015 – Table 1

31

39

40

41

42

43

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

61

62

63

64

65

66

70

75

76

78

79

80

No additional paragraphs came into compliance during the 1st Quarter 2015 reporting period. Detail of these paragraphs can be found in Appendix A to this report.

B. Court Ordered Compliance Goals During the 1st, 2d, 3rd, 4th, Quarters 2014 and the 1st Quarter 2015, the VIPD proposed compliance with numerous paragraphs. The Court, in its subsequent summary orders (with the exception of the 3rd Quarter where the proposed goals appear to be orally accepted), ordered that the paragraphs listed in Table 2 below come into compliance by the Quarter reporting dates of 5/23/14, 8/15/14, 11/21/14, 2/20/2015, and 5/15/2015. Compliance requirement details for those goal focused sub-paragraphs are shown in Appendix B to this report. The Summary Table displays all goals, regardless of status, across the five court orders. The column to the far right shows the status of each of these paragraph grouped goal sets. It should be noted that in many cases the goals reflect the paragraphs across quarters, many of which remain Not in Substantial Compliance.
Court Ordered Paragraph Related Goals Summary - Table 2
22

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 23 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
23

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 24 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department

In addition to the paragraphs listed above, in its filing for the 3rd and 4th Quarters of 2014 and 1st Quarter of 2015, the VIPD agreed to come into compliance with the several initiatives and or goals. While, for the most part, these initiatives/goals were not associated with a paragraph, the IMT has associated them (if applicable) with a paragraph and reports their status below or within the particular paragraph. There are shown in Table 3, below.

Additional Court Ordered Initiatives or Goals Summary – Table 3

Goal

Text

Status/

Comment

Links VIPD Additional Initiatives or Goals, Not Listed in Table 2 Due 11/29/14

UOF-A Edit and improve new Completed Three templates have been developed by the Use of

force reporting

Force Working Group. These include a Witness

templates

Statement, an Officer Statement (RRR), and a

Supervisory Investigation. They were recently field

tested on St. Croix and some updates were made to

the final versions. IMT has provided technical

assistance to the Working Group throughout the

development of these templates.

UOF-B Issue directive for

Completed The directive has been developed and signed by the

template implementation

Commissioner. Follow-up use of force template

training conducted in the St. Thomas /St. John

District during the week of March 16, 2015. This is

pursuant to Quarterly goals for the use of force work

group for the reporting quarter ending May 15, 2015;

the template directive was provided to the IMT on

May 15, 2015.

UOF-C Training and implement Completed Supervisors and Officers on St. Croix were trained by

templates

Captain Duggan during the period 11/25/14 and

11/26/14, while Supervisors on St. Thomas and St,

John were trained on 12/11/14. St. Croix officers

were trained by the Academy staff on 12/1/14-

12/5/14. The remaining officers on St. Thomas/St.

John and anyone, who missed the previously

scheduled training, are scheduled for that training, conducted by Sergeant Marsh, on March 16th and 18th 2015 on St. Thomas. Still some stragglers

remain and VIPD asserts they will train them during

2Q2015. The IMT will validate the names completing

the training during 2Q 2015. IMT will validate

attendance against staffing table in 2Q2015.

UOF-D Approval of Force

Pending; Same as UOFS-6 page 2; A draft of the proposed

Review Board Policy

III-D-1

policy was sent to DOJ/IMT and the VIPD is

Page 30 reviewing comments made by DOJ/IMT and revising

as necessary. Once completed it will be reviewed by

24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 25 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department

Goal

Text

UOF-E Identify personnel for Force Review Board

UOF-F

Identify training for Force Review Board personnel

UOF-G

Develop Force Investigations Team (FIT) policy

Status/ Links
Completed III-D-1, page 30
Pending; III-D-1, page 30
Pending; III-D-2, page 31

Comment
the IMT staff and returned to the VIPD for approval and publication. This document has been reviewed and exchanged several times between the parties and the IMT. The new leadership of the VIPD has taken it under advisement and will report back to the DOJ and the IMT on what course of action they wish to take. As anticipated, the new VIPD leadership, which came in place in January, took some time to review the direction and procedures being implemented in the VIPD. They produced new policies consistent with their direction and sought approval from both the DOJ and the IMT. There were 2 exchanges of The Force Review Board proposed policies between the parties. Final amendments are being proposed and will be submitted to the commissioner for his final approval during the next quarter Same as UOFS-7 page 2; positions rather than people have been identified in the policy and whoever fills the position will be on the board; This process will be underway once the directive has been approved. IMT will provide assistance as needed with the selection process. IMT has provided technical assistance and materials to aid the VIPD with this process. This document has been reviewed and exchanged between the parties and the IMT. The new leadership of the VIPD has taken under advisement and will report back to the DOJ and the IMT on what course of action they wish to take. Same as UOFS-8; Again, once the directive is
approved, development of the necessary training will
begin. IMT will assist as needed. IMT has provided
technical assistance and materials to aid the VIPD
with this process. Training has been identified and
the training division is undertaking procurement
processes to obtain this training. Training will be
provided by Force Science Institute.
Same as UOFS-9; IMT has provided technical assistance and materials to aid the VIPD with this process, and will assist as needed. This new document has been reviewed and exchanged between the parties and the IMT. The new leadership of the VIPD has taken this policy under advisement and will report back to the DOJ and the IMT on what course of action they wish to take. The

25

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 26 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department

Goal

Text

Status/ Links

Comment
new leadership has subsequently changed its design and the new policies are being redeveloped consistent with their new direction. The IMT believes that the new proposed design is an improvement in oversight from what was previously proposed in that in combines both the criminal and administrative review under one umbrella of investigation. The VIPD is still deciding which practice they are going to implement.

VIPD Additional Initiatives or Goals, Not Listed in Table 2 Due 02/20/15

UOFS1 Approval of Force

Pending; See UOF-G

Investigation Team

III-D2,

Policy

page 31

UOFS2 Identify personnel for

Completed IA personnel have been trained to investigate FIT

Force Investigation

level 1 cases; they conduct parallel investigations;

Team (FIT).

The IMT agrees and acknowledges IA conducts the

Administrative investigation while CID conducts the

Criminal investigation. IAB also reviews the file for

completeness from the CID report. Also that

additional training is scheduled for Forensic

personnel and should be completed during 2Q2015.

UOFS3 Identify training &

Pending; VIPD has identified training from the Force Science

funding for Force

III-D-2,

Institute and scheduled their team members for this

Investigation Team

page 31 training, which should be completed by 2Q2015.

UOFS4 Issue Directive for

Completed Same goal and comment as UOF-B

template implementation

UOFS5 Train and implement

Completed Same goal and comment as UOF-C

templates

UOFS6 Approval of Force

Pending; Same goal and comment as UOF-D

Review Board Policy

III-D-1,

page 30

UOFS7 Identify personnel for

Completed Same goal and comment as UOF-E

Force Review Board

UOFS8 Identify training for

Pending; Same goal and comment as UOF-F

Force Review Board

III-D-1,

Personnel

page 30

UOFS9 Develop Force

Pending; Same goal and comment as UOF-G

Investigation Team

III-D-2,

policy

page 31

VIPD Additional Initiatives or Goals, Not Listed in Table 2 Due 05/15/15

UOF1 Development of a UOF Completed Checklist for VIPD reviewers has been developed

Investigation Reviewer's

and commissioner’s directive for implementation has

Checklist.

been signed and issued. IMT will review full

implementation status in 2Q2015

UOF2 Issue Commissioner's Completed The template directive was provided May 15, 2015 to

Directive for use of

the IMT and signed by the Commissioner. Pending

Reviewer's Checklist

full implementation status review by the IMT in

2Q2015.

26

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 27 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department

Goal UOF3 UOF4
UOF5 UOF6 TRNG22 TRNG23 TRNG24 TRNG25
TRNG26 TRNG27 M&S7

Text
Train Reviewing personnel on use of Checklist
Issue Commissioner's Directive mandating Forensic personnel to comply with work product time limits for Level 1 Force Investigations. Complete training for Forensic CSI staff on creating officer involved shooting sketches and trajectory Continue training for all officers on UOF Reporting templates Reorganize the Training Advisory Committee.; Paragraph 74g Create and implement new protocol for monitoring and evaluating UOF training; Paragraph 73a SOP Development for Advisory Committee; Paragraph 74g Revise and implement Roll Call Policy; Paragraph 74e
Development of the Kirkpatrick method of evaluating training; Paragraph 73a Conduct the first semiannual meeting and analysis by April 20, 2015 Complete Familiarization training on Disciplinary Flow chart to all

Status/ Links Pending; page 34
Completed
Pending
Completed
Pending; page 6364 Pending; page 6364
Pending; page 6364 Pending; page 6364
Pending; page 6162 Completed
Completed

Comment
In training issues IMT requests that attendee roster and curriculum be uploaded into Power DMS. Pending full implementation status review by the IMT in 2Q2015 Directive completed and pending approval; The template directive was provided May 15, 2015 to the IMT and signed by the Commissioner Pending full implementation status review by the IMT in 2Q2015r.
Training schedule for course scheduled for June 2015. Pending full implementation status review by the IMT in 2Q2015.
This is make-up training for those who missed last Fall and March 2015 training; pending completion certification by VIPD Pending review of directive
Pending review of Kirkpatrick training and implications for adoption of components by the VIPD
Drafts in process; pending review.
VIPD says completed directive and sent to the Commissioner for approval; will be sent to DOJ and IMT for review and comment/approval. IMT reviewed the submitted directive and finds it did not follow IMT recommendations and needs further refinement and possible separation into two or more separate. IMT will work with the Training Division Director to expedite the corrections. Initial training completed in this quarter; follow-up development of process and policy in 2Q2015
This relates to Training Advisory Committee and Training Division to supply documentation for meeting in May 2015; pending documentation.
VIPD advises did a flow chart on the disciplinary system; training done in both districts

27

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 28 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department

Goal M&S8
M&S9 M&S10 M&S11 M&S12
M&S13 M&S14

Text
Commanders by March 30, 2015; Paragraph 72 Conduct inspections monthly to ensure compliance with the disciplinary matrix and to ensure non-disciplinary corrective action is recommended consistently when applicable with disciplinary actions. Paragraph 72 Develop a workable database to track OC canisters issued to officers. Conduct monthly inspections to ensure compliance; Paragraph 60c Revisit the implementation of an MOA between the VIPD/VIAG with new administration; Paragraph 60h Finalize MOA with VITEMA on information sharing to facilitate the requirements of Paragraph 60 with the goal of moving it into compliance M&S will with the assistance of 911 create a code for vehicle pursuits and have all vehicles for VIPD listed at 911 so vehicle accidents involving police Vehicles can be track; Paragraph 60i VIPD will retrain supervisors on preparing the EIP action plans and assessment report. Conduct remedial training on the EIP process for

Status/ Links Completed
Completed
Completed page 56 Pending page 57
Pending; page 57
Completed Completed

Comment
Documents received; IMT will provide additional assistance in system expansion.
Technically has reached goal of developing a workable database; will not move sub-paragraph into compliance until IMT sees action or documentation on the inconsistencies
VIPD provided IMT copies of SOPs from VIAG regarding notification to VIPD; while not a formal MOA, this addresses the CD concern. This goal completed 05/15/15.
Continue meetings with VITEMA; VIPD to memorialize results with a MOA; MOA draft due review in 2Q2015.
Had meeting with VITEMA; problem is that software at STX allows for secondary entry of pursuit with a robbery etc; STT does not have a similar software function. While we recognize that VIPD continues to work with VITEMA to address this issue, IMT has not been provided/shown how to access pursuit listings territory-wide Acknowledge that VIPD reports providing vehicle listing to VITEMA Completed on STT and STX;
Need documentation on attendance vetted to staffing lists. Review more inspections for conformance. Again, retraining accomplished; individuals have

28

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 29 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department

Goal
M&S15 M&S16 CC17 CC18 CC19
CC20 CC21

Text
Commanders, thereafter, conduct monthly inspections and hold those accountable for non-compliance with the EIP protocol; Paragraph 64 Revise EIP protocol to incorporate previously issued directives in the policy; Paragraph 60 Finalize the development of additional protocols for the Audit unit; Paragraph 69 Creation of a standardized protocol to ensure proper dissemination of Directives and other protocols Territory Wide; Paragraph 44 Timeliness of Cases Create email policy to ensure officers and supervisors monitor email notifications on Complaints/UOF/training or other relevant information; Paragraph 44 Revised the Investigative Report format to capture Commanders recommendations to be used Territory Wide; Paragraph 58 Unit Commanders Responsibilities Submit the directive to the Policy Committee to revise policy 7.3 and incorporate directive in the policy; Paragraph 58 Unit Commanders Responsibilities Implement Citizen

Status/ Links
Pending; page 55 Pending page 58 Pending; page 5152
Completed
Pending; page 53
Pending; page 53
Completed

Comment been/in process of discipline. Does not move subparagraph or paragraph into compliance; VIPD currently considering hiring individual to assist with assessments and action plans
On May 13th, VIPD submitted another draft policy for review and IMT received draft 5/20/15 for review Draft Audit protocols and SOP pending VIPD review. IMT has not received SOP. Completed 05/12/15.
Draft in process of finalization by VIPD.
Directive completed prior to end of quarter; subsequently received policy.
IMT needs documentation
Main policy has not been updated although the directive was submitted to the Policy Committee for inclusion during the review process
VIPD recently revised and implemented Citizen

29

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 30 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department

Goal

Text
Complaint Checklist for use by investigators and reviewers to ensure all investigations are within standard.; Paragraph 58 Unit Commanders Responsibilities

Status/ Links

Comment
Complaint Checklist. Directive was completed 05/05/15.

Some of these initiatives are discussed in subsequent sections of this report, as noted.

C. Compliance Detail
The VIPD has achieved Substantial Compliance for 31 paragraphs. Twenty (20) remain in Not in Substantial Compliance status, with little or no activity during the current quarter.

● Paragraphs in Substantial Compliance at the end of the 1st Quarter, 2015 are: 31, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 , 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 70, 75, 76, 78, 79 and 80.
(NOTE: Bolded/underlined paragraphs have training evaluated under paragraph 75 and implementation under paragraph 100)
 Paragraphs that attained Substantial Compliance at the end of Quarter One, 2015: None.
● Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance: 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 44, 58, 59, 60, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 81, 100, 101.
The IMT issued a memorandum on November 13, 2014 that displays the linkage between paragraph 100 sub-paragraph compliance requirements or items (a-w) and their original location in another paragraph of the Consent Decree. This was included as Appendix A to the Interim Update On The Status Of Compliance By The Virgin Islands Police Department From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department November 20, 2014
D. Court Goals – Further Discussion
1. The Force Review Board
As of March 6th 2015 the VIPD has provided several versions of the policy pertaining to the Review Board to the DOJ and the IMT. Those versions have been exchanged
30

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 31 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
between the parties and are in the final stages of completion. The delay since December 2014 resulted from the VIPD not wanting to proceed with policy completion given the pending change in VIPD leadership in January and February, 2015, as that new leadership could or would change the direction of the policy and VIPD would have wasted its resources on designing policy, training, and protocols for a project which would only have to be changed again. As this board is a new experience for the VIPD, it made more sense to wait for the new leadership’s input.
As anticipated the new VIPD leadership which came in place in January took some time to review the direction and procedure being implemented in the VIPD. They produced new policies consistent with their direction and sought approval from both the DOJ and the IMT. There were two exchanges of The Force Review Board proposed policies between the parties. Final amendments are being proposed and will be submitted to the commissioner for his final approval. It is anticipated that the final policy will be completed and signed during the next reporting quarter. Development of training, a schedule for that training, and a vetting process for membership selection all take place in the next quarter also.
2. The Force Investigation Team As of March 6th 2015 the VIPD has provided to the DOJ and the IMT several versions of the policy pertaining to the FIT /Review Board. Those versions have been exchanged between the parties and are in the final stages of completion. The VIPD had the same reservations with moving this policy forward as with the Force Review Board.
As anticipated the new VIPD leadership which came in place in January took some time to review the direction and procedure for the Force Investigation Team being implemented in the VIPD. They produced new policies consistent with their vision and direction and decided to change the design of their Force Investigation Team. New approval from both the DOJ and the IMT became necessary. There have been exchanges
31

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 32 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
of the proposed policies between the parties and final amendments are being reviewed and updated and then will be submitted to the commissioner for his final approval. It is anticipated that the final policy should be completed and signed during the next reporting quarter.
E. Paragraph and Goal Detail Review
The IMT reports on all paragraphs and sub-paragraphs proposed by the VIPD and accepted by the Court as quarterly goals. In addition, the IMT also reports on other paragraphs and sub-paragraphs that are Not in Substantial Compliance or Partial Compliance (sub-paragraphs only) as we feel they are important to progress toward Consent Decree compliance. The following section reflects that reporting.
Paragraph 32, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD will require all uses of force to be documented in writing. The use of force report form will indicate each and every type of force that was used, and require the evaluation of each type of force. Use of force reports will include a narrative description of the events preceding the use of force, written by a supervisor or by the designated investigative unit. Use of force reports also will include the officer(s)’ narrative description of events and the officer(s)’ statement. Except in cases of use of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, the officer’s statement shall be audio- or videotaped.
Activity During this reporting period the VIPD has continued its’ aggressive approach at revamping its internal review system to respond to known lapses in the force reporting, investigation and review process. They had previously (4th Quarter 2014) developed a 1) revised Officer Responding to Resistance template, 2) new Witness Officer Force template, 3) revised Supervisor Investigating Force template, and a directive from the commissioner implementing the templates. The force group leader Capt. Duggan executed training and tested the methodology for the implementation of the training and the validity of the templates. Additional tweaks to the products were detected and modifications resulted. Supervisors and Officers on St. Croix were trained by Captain Duggan, while Supervisors on St., Thomas and St., John and officers on St Croix, were trained in early December 2014. Most stragglers were trained during March, however VIPD reported during the 5/13/15 work
32

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 33 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
session that some small number remain untrained and will be addressed during the next reporting quarter.
Continued training on the templates for officers and supervisors was provided by the VIPD during the quarter. Forthcoming audits in 2Q 2015 and beyond will dictate if the templates have been successful. As an example during the past 5 Quarters Para: 32 c has seen the compliance numbers hover around 65 to 70 percent of all supervisors’ reviews. This was built upon continuous improvements but still stagnated and fell well short of compliance approval. The templates were designed to attack this issue and others. Close observation of these numbers in future quarters will attest to the wisdom of providing this ongoing training.
Impediments to Compliance With regard to the template’s previously mentioned training and curriculum development, the close coordination between the Use of Force Working Group and the Training Division was deemed critical for the development of effective training and delivery to the public. It appears that this did not occur as completely as desired by the IMT. In addition, the development of the training protocols, outcome measures and evaluation for the template training was not been completed and it does not appear that the Training Division was fully involved in the development of this training. The IMT is concerned that future training delivery may be impacted unless these critical training components are institutionalized and monitored by Training. This must be done to ensure that training is repeated evenly throughout the department and into future sessions going forward. Given the renewed interest in training evaluation as seen in the scheduled Kirkpatrick courses, the new leadership in the training division seems to have taken the lead and intends on closing the gap in this area. It is essential that the VIPD support and encourage this effort for it to be successful.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Coordination between the Audit and Inspection Unit with the Training Division to ensure that all necessary documentation and curriculum components to ensure all members are trained consistently and provided the same outcome measures.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Partial Compliance =>95% of RRRs indicate each and every type of force that was used.
Activity This has been a particularly troublesome spot for the reporting process. Officers fail to identify all the force used and by each officer, each time, however the new reporting form is designed to capture this element. During this quarter both the VIPD and the IMT review found consistent improvement in reporting in this subparagraph throughout the cases. Close assessment by the supervisors of all force applied has moved the VIPD to a compliance rating for this quarter of 43%. However, when viewed in conjunction with the previous 2 Q’s of 2014 the compliance rating is at 66%. We will continue to
33

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 34 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
aggregate the data as we move forward and can confirm reliability. While this still leaves room for improvement, it is an indicator that the supervisor’s role in moving the mandates of the consent decree forward cannot be under estimated.
Impediments to Compliance Supervisors continue to fail to identify all force used each and every time force is executed. Supervisors and management must review force cases more specifically for the failure to identify each and every specific type of force used during an event. The recently developed supervisor Review Checklist is expected to help eliminate this occurrence and its use should be emphasized by VIPD leadership.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Train supervisors to evaluate each and every force application employed by department personnel and place close attention to the completion of the checklist by supervisors, reviewers, and other investigators as a quality control device.
Prepare example guideline templates to assist in investigation completion. These would be in the form of inserts directly related to the specific investigation being detailed. While introduction of the templates and associated instruction for completion appeared to center on the form, the IMT is suggesting that further detailed examples be developed and made available via computer access to assist officers in completing the templates.
Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>95% of RRRs contain an evaluation of each type of force used by a supervisor.
Activity Beginning with the August 2014 Summit, deficiencies were being identified through audits and corrective action was being applied by the agency. However, at the November, 2014 Summit no change was found in the status of this sub-paragraph and errors continued to surface. The department, with IMT encouragement, decided to produce a series of checklist templates to be used to evaluate completeness of use of force reporting. The templates were electronically produced and were tested by a diverse group of VIPD managers. Several adjustments were noted by the managers and IMT review and those adjustments to the templates were implemented in the final copies by the working group. Training was developed and delivered by the Use of Force Working Group point person during the last part of November and early December 2014. Personnel that missed this initial training attended make-up classes taught by SGT Marsh in March 2015.
The IMT has noted repeatedly that the evaluation of force is a major weakness in the reviews of force by the VIPD. It has not gone unnoticed by the VIPD either. VIPD audits and reviews as well as the IMT’s reviews have disclosed that the supervisors fail to properly “evaluate each and every type of force used” During this reporting period,
34

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 35 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
of the 7 cases which were evaluated, only 2 cases met the requirements and 5 cases did not. This is a compliance rating of 29%. When viewed more in the aggregate with the previous 2 Quarters the compliance rating is 38% in 3Q2014 and 40% in the 4Q 2014. The opportunities for VIPD’s supervisors to evaluate force, occurs infrequently, thus achieving the requirements of the consent decree require them to be diligent in the performance of force reviews. This is a primary responsibility of all police supervisors and the community has a right to believe that the VIPD is managing the force being applied by their peace officers constitutionally.
Impediments to Compliance Continued failure to meet deadlines and content requirements in UOF reporting.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Emphasis on use of the recently implemented templates as quality control devices and retraining on them as needed. Follow–up with individual supervisors who fail to complete force reports properly.
Sub-Paragraph d, Status - Substantial Compliance =>95% of RRRs contain a narrative description of the events preceding the use of force written by the supervisor or assigned investigator.
Activity The new template forms were designed to capture this information and reinforce the supervisor’s role in learning what the events that preceded the force use were. The IMT believes that this sub paragraph should be moved into compliance as the past 3 Q’s has disclosed that in all cases the supervisors reviews of force are including written narrative description of the events “immediately preceding the use of force”.
Impediments to Compliance Absence of descriptions of the events leading up to the use of force and lack of investigation by supervisors will continue to impact this sub-paragraph.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued focus by mid-level and senior management on use of the templates as quality control devices will improve the compliance levels for this sub-paragraph.
Sub-Paragraph f, Status = Partial Compliance =>95% of the reports will include an audio or videotaped statement, unless the level of force used is at the lowest level as described by DOJ approved VIPD policy.
Activity IMT has continued to review case files to determine if audio and video taping is being conducted and if those files are attached to reports. IMT notes that several of the
35

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 36 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
respondents in the surveys conducted during December 2014 and Jan 2015 indicated, anecdotally, that the department had not previously provided such recording equipment and had purchased their own. Both the VIPD and the IMT reviews disclose that this issue is being addressed, in terms of enclosure with the reports and noted in the supervisors report. Evaluation of content of the recordings is still under review by the IMT.
Impediments to Compliance Comments held pending completion of case reviews referenced above.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance IMT continues to urge the VIPD to install in car video cameras. Review the distribution and availability of department owned audio and/or video equipment need to comply with this requirement, and purchase as needed to overcome shortcomings. This might be an appropriate audit for the Audit and Inspection Unit (AIU) to complete to validate both the survey comments and VIPD efforts to ensure availability of the required equipment.
Paragraph 33, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording
Officers shall notify their supervisors following any use of force or upon the receipt of an allegation of excessive force. Except in uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, supervisors will respond to the scene, examine the subject for injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain, and ensure that the subject received needed medical attention.
Activity IMT met frequently with the Force Working Group chair and members through conference calls, mini summits and IMT monitoring activities.
Impediments to Compliance Sufficient supervisors are neither available nor assigned to the areas most needed to ensure proper oversight or arrival at use of force events and proper investigation, documentation, review and evaluation of these events.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Promote and assign supervisors where experience shows that supervisors are needed to review, analyze, and evaluate force incidents occurring on their watches. IMT has been unable to determine if any positive action was accomplished on this issue, as while the IMT has been advised there were some promotions made in January 2015, we have no direct knowledge or documentation to indicate where they have been assigned (e.g., a staffing
36

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 37 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
table or personnel assignment orders; The IMT was updated by the VIPD on supervisors who participated in supervisory leadership training delivered by the FBI Training Division. The IMT believes this training was critical, valuable, and well received by the VIPD supervisors who attended.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Partial Compliance In =>95% of the identified use of force incidents, the officer using force notified his/her supervisor immediately as required by VIPD policy.
Activity VIPD has identified persons to be promoted for supervision which should help ensure that they are available to conduct Use of Force reviews. The IMT has found consistent with the VIPD audits that officers fail to promptly and properly notify supervisors when they use force. The VIPD and IMT have also found that supervisors fail to respond to the scene to conduct their inquiry and evaluation or fail to report the reasons for not responding. Consistent with this finding during the past 3 Quarters the VIPD has a compliance rating hovering at a compliance rate of 1 proper response in every 3 cases for a 33 % rating for this requirement.
Impediments to Compliance VIPD must train the new supervisors on force review, investigation and the required reporting process. The VIPD scheduled training for newly promoted supervisors during 1Q2015 (late Feb 2015).
VIPD should continue to work with VITEMA to ensure that the records associated with all force events calls for service and radio traffic between officers and supervisors are available for VIPD use in both investigating failures as well as auditing the entire system.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Ensure that any promotions and assignments of new supervisors are complimented with appropriate training and management
Sub-Paragraph e, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of the incidents where the Supervisors responded to the scene, he/she ensured that subjects received any necessary medical attention.
Activity VIPD has worked to complete the templates to both capture and evaluate the tenets contained in this item of the consent decree. During this quarter the VIPD and the IMT found that consistent with past quarters that supervisors only inquire about the medical condition of the person upon whom force was used in about half of the cases that they should have. In the 1st Quarter 2015 supervisors did not examine subjects for injury in
37

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 38 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
57% of audited cases. Additionally, they did not interview subjects for complaints of pain in 57% of audited cases. Parallel results for the 3rd and 4th Quarters of 2014 were 75% and 100% (did not examine) and 75% and 100% (did not interview). It should be noted that the audited sample is very small, 25 cases for all three quarters. In the 3rd and 4th Quarters of 2014 the failure numbers were much higher which may be an indication that the recent decrease is consistent with the template introduction and or management oversight.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to institutionalize template training by the Training Division, as well lack of command emphasis on using the templates to quality control completeness of the use of force investigation.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Ensure that the Training Division, in conjunction with the template designers, provides for coordinated training and management of the curriculums necessary to properly retrain and train new employees in the same process. Increase command emphasis on using the templates as quality control devices.
Paragraph 34, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, will review, evaluate, and document each use of force, and will complete the narrative description section of the use of force report. The narrative description will include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer's conduct. As part of this review, the supervisor or designated investigating officer/unit will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officer's actions were within VIPD policy. An officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized conduct leading to the use of force or allegation of excessive force, or who was present during the incident, will not be eligible to review or investigate the incident.
Activity IMT met frequently with the Force Working Group chair and members through conference calls, mini summits and IMT monitoring activities.
Sub-paragraphs f and g are in compliance.
Impediments to Compliance Management review of the completed force cases has been intermittent and incomplete. Both the VIPD audits and IMT reviews have disclosed untimely cases, incomplete analysis that failed to properly identify inadequate officer or supervisor reporting, missing collection of evidence, witness identification missing and case analysis was not supported by evidence.
38

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 39 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Recommendations to Gain Compliance
VIPD efforts to implement both a Force Review Board and a Serious Force Investigation team will greatly assist in the ongoing force analysis issues. Properly trained and motivated managers who follow reporting procedure themselves will also result in furthering compliance. IMT completed review of supporting directives and policy for this area in 4Q2014 and forwarded to DOJ for additional review and comments. It was anticipated that finalization and implementation will occur in 1Q2015, but because of changes directed by the new VI government and VIPD leadership the policies are being redeveloped. They should be approved during the 2nd Quarter 2015.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Partial Compliance In =>95% of the reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he/she was not involved in the use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize or participate in conduct leading to the use of force incident), will review, evaluate, and document each use of force.
IMT and VIPD reported in the past quarter that supervisors consistently noted that they had no involvement in the use of force, and could therefore properly inquire about the circumstances surrounding the event. Moving forward, this sub-paragraph could be ready for compliance by the end of 2Q 2015.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completes the supervisor's narrative description of the RRR in a manner that comports with the requirements of paragraph 34 of the Consent Decree.
During this reporting period there was a slight increase in the number of cases that would qualify as being properly handled. A narrative cannot be considered complete if key information and evidence is missing from the narrative or the document. The VIPD has had a compliance rating hovering around 25% of its cases as being correctly written during previous quarters. The recent findings by both the VIPD and confirmed by the IMT show a compliance rating just slightly better at 29%. We expected to see a somewhat better application of the templates and training, but are reserving judgment to give the forms, supervisors and training more opportunities to prove themselves.
Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completed his/her review and evaluation according to VIPD's use of force policies and all other requirements of 31 of the Consent Decree and include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer/s conduct.
39

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 40 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
No change in activity, impediments, or recommendations from prior reports. No progress was made. During this reporting period there was a slight decrease in the number of cases that would qualify as compliant. Supervisors did not include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer’s use of force. The VIPD has had a compliance rating hovering around 39% of its cases as being correctly written during previous quarters. The recent findings by both the VIPD and confirmed by the IMT show a compliance rating just slightly better at 29%. We would have expected to see a somewhat better application of the templates and training but are reserving judgment to give the forms, supervisors and training more opportunities to prove them as contributing to compliance.
Sub-Paragraph d, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completed his/her review and evaluation according to VIPD's use of force policies and all other requirements of 31 of the Consent Decree and will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officers actions were within VIPD policy.
Similarly, as above, the supervisors do not support findings with facts, evidence, circumstances, or information that is descriptive enough to support their findings. The VIPD has had a compliance rating hovering around 39% of its cases as being correctly written during previous quarters. Recent findings by both the VIPD and confirmed by the IMT show a compliance rating just slightly better at 29%. We expected to see a somewhat better application of the templates and training but are reserving judgment to give the forms, supervisors and training more opportunities to prove themselves.
Sub-Paragraph e, Status = Partial Compliance In =>95% of the reportable use of force incidents, the investigating officer had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he/she was not involved in the use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize or participate in conduct leading to the use of force incident), in order to be able to investigate each use of force.
No change in activity, impediments, or recommendations from prior reports.
General Discussion and/Meetings
Activity The new VIPD leadership must continue its current focus has been focused on assuring accountability to CD compliance.
Impediments
40

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 41 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Absence of accountability throughout the Use of Force reporting continuum directly impacts compliance.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance The VIPD must engage mid-level and senior management in supporting the highest levels of accountability for completing CD requirements. Continued use of and support for use of the recently implemented templates should result in a higher level of compliance with the Consent Decree requirements.
Paragraph 35, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The parties agree that it is improper interview procedure during use of force investigations to ask officers or other witnesses’ leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer's conduct when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. In each review/investigation, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. The VIPD will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. The VIPD will train all of its supervisors and officers assigned to conduct use of force investigations in conducting use of force investigations, including in the factors to consider when evaluating credibility.
Activity IMT met with the Force working Group, had two mini summits and conducted monitoring and evaluations of force cases.
Impediments to Compliance Use of Force review does not adequately address cases that suggest supervisors are asking leading questions. Templates were developed and implemented to document and train supervisors to be alert and prohibit leading questions from being used. A supervisor’s force checklist is also being developed to ensure supervisors don’t miss required elements of the consent decree during their reviews. A similar checklist is being developed for the Citizen Complaint process.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued focus of use of the templates as quality control devices.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of the interviews conducted during use of force reviews, leading questions were avoided.
Progress has been made some areas for the IMT to consider this sub-paragraph for compliance in the next quarter.
41

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 42 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of the use of force reviews, all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence is documented and appropriately considered, and credibility determinations made, if feasible.
This sub-paragraph is in need of additional work by the VIPD. Both the IMT and the VIPD have found that the supervisors fail to include relevant evidence (circumstantial, direct and physical) in their narratives which must be considered when credibility determinations are being made. An example is where a Taser camera and download information is available yet the supervisors do not include it in reports to either support the officer’s statement or the citizen’s statement of the force event. (UOFT2014-0051)
Impediments to Compliance Failure to include all required information, supporting documents, and evidence as part of the use of force investigative report.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued focus on use of the templates as quality control device at all levels of the use of force reporting and investigative process.
Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of investigations where material inconsistencies are present between witness statements, reasonable efforts are made to resolve the inconsistencies.
When evaluating witness credibility, appropriate factors are considered and documented.
Activity No change in activity, impediments, or recommendations from prior reports. No progress was made.
Impediments to Compliance Where witness information is known and supervisors do not address material inconsistencies in the investigation, the supervisor failed to follow through as did the reviewers. If the reviewers had caught this lapse and corrected it would not have been found by the audit and the IMT. The parties and the IMT should discuss whether some other designation (other than metrics) might be preferable for sub-paragraphs where few events occur during a reporting period. UOFT2014-0075
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued focus on use of the templates as quality control device at all levels of the use of force reporting and investigative process.
42

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 43 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Sub-Paragraph d, Status = Substantial Compliance =>95% of supervisors are trained on how to conduct, review, and evaluate use of force incidents, including but not limited to, what factors to consider when evaluating witness credibility.
Activity This sub paragraph is considered in compliance. It is however one of those paragraphs that can easily fall out of compliance. The VIPD must be vigilant in their oversight of case analysis for insuring that supervisors are carefully considering all factors when evaluating credibility. Reinforcing on daily case oversight when factors might be considered important for such purpose.
Impediments to Compliance Proper case review and use of the templates as a quality control device by supervisors
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued use of the templates as a quality control device by supervisors. Implement the Use of Force Review Board.
Paragraph 36, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall conduct an investigation of all uses of force or injury resulting from a use of force by any officer under their command. This requirement does not apply to uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ. In an investigation, supervisors or designated investigating officers or units, shall interview all witnesses to a use of force or an injury resulting from a use of force. Consistent with the requirements of the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable law, VIPD supervisors or designated investigating officers or units shall ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all use of force reports for all levels of force identify all officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports for all levels of force indicate whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided, and whether the subject refused medical treatment. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports include contemporaneous photographs or videotapes taken of all injuries at the earliest practicable opportunity, both before and after any treatment, including cleansing of wounds.
Activity Meetings with VIPD leadership and Use of Force Working Group. IMT monitoring and case review.
43

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 44 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Impediments to Compliance As noted last quarter, management review and accountability has been spotty and inconsistent.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Leadership to hold themselves and VIPD managers accountable for incomplete investigations. Continued focus and use of the templates as a quality control device by supervisors
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Partial Compliance =>90% of the Use of Force reports, the supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, who supervised the officer using the force, conducted the investigation of all uses of force or injury resulting from the use of force by that officer. This requirement does not apply to the lowest level use of force as defined in DOJ approved VIPD policy.
Activity All force cases reported to the VIPD are now being investigated. The IMT will work with the VIPD to determine if this sub-paragraph is ready for compliance. The most recent 3 quarters have shown a compliance level worthy of that review.
Impediments to Compliance Continued focus on accountability by the correct investigating officer is needed.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Use of the templates as quality control device should go far towards compliance of this sub-paragraph.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, all witnesses, to the extent practicable, are interviewed in the investigating supervisor's reports.
The VIPD has been unsuccessful in getting its supervisors to obtain credible witness information and collecting that data for their force investigations. Where witness information is available the VIPD often fails to include their statements in the file. In the last 3 Quarters (1) out of (3) cases in which a witness was identified in the reviewed files a supervisor failed to follow through on complying with the subparagraph.
Sub-Paragraph d, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of Use of Force reports, Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all use of force reports for all levels of force identify all officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred.
44

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 45 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
IMT and VIPD observe that in the past three quarters supervisors consistently noted that they identified all involved police personnel on the scene and their involvement in the use of force and the parties could therefore properly inquire about the circumstances surrounding the event. Moving forward this sub-paragraph should be ready for compliance by the end of 2Q 2015.
Impediments to Compliance Continued focus on accountability by the investigating officer to identify and evaluate use of force by all officers involved or on the scene of a use of force incident.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Use of the templates as quality control device, coupled with close attention to the facts of the incident, should go far towards compliance of this sub-paragraph.
Paragraph 37, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording All investigations into use of force shall be reviewed by the Officer's Commander and/or Director, or by a Commander and/or Director in the designated investigative unit, who shall identify any deficiencies in those reviews, and shall require supervisors, or designated investigative officers or units, to correct any and all deficiencies. Supervisors, and designated investigative officers or units, will be held accountable for the quality of their reviews. Appropriate non-disciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary action will be taken when a supervisor, or designated investigative officer or unit, fails to conduct a timely and thorough review, or neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action, or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action. As provided by VIPD policy and approved by DOJ, designated command staff shall further review the Commander and/or Director's reviews according to the level of force involved.
Activity Recent implementation of the templates should have some impact on compliance here, if used correctly and are subsequent corrective actions are supported by management.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to affect accountability throughout the management chain of the investigation directly impacts this paragraph.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued use of the templates, supported by management follow-up and accountability should increase compliance with this paragraph.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Partial Compliance
45

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 46 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
=>90% of the completed use of force case files contained signed documentation from the Chief and/or Deputy Chief indicating that he/she reviewed the completed investigation and the date of such review. In these cases, were all appropriate deficiencies noted and was corrective action directed or imposed?
Activity The IMT is pleased that force cases are now being reviewed by the VIPD Command officers from the respective districts. IMT is granting entertain Partial Compliance while we make an assessment of the reviewers’ ability to capture the values sought within the consent decree in his/her reviews.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to affect accountability at senior levels of the investigation directly impacts this paragraph.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued focus on management review and follow-up, coupled with subsequent accountability should increase compliance with this paragraph.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, supervisors are held accountable for the quality of their reviews, and documented non-disciplinary and/or disciplinary action has been taken when a supervisor or manager: fails to conduct a timely and thorough review; neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action; or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action. In those cases where discipline was imposed, did the officials imposing the discipline follow the departmental disciplinary matrix?
Activity The VIPD and the IMT have found significant deficiencies in reviews. The compliance rate for most of these sub-paragraphs hovers between 45% and 75%. Some are still totally at zero compliance. Clearly the department has to visualize a solution for this total paragraph. The IMT would suggest that a meeting be convened by the Police Commissioner to review the substance of the VIPD audits and the IMT’s reviews.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to affect accountability at senior levels of the investigation directly impacts this paragraph.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued focus on management review and follow-up, coupled with subsequent accountability should increase compliance with this paragraph.
Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
46

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 47 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, the Chief and/or Deputy Chief provided a written, signed and dated finding on whether the use of force was justified under VIPD's DOJ approved use of force policies and all other requirements of 31(a)-(g) of the Consent Decree.
The VIPD and the IMT have found significant deficiencies in reviews. The compliance rate for most of these sub-paragraphs hovers between 45% and 75%. Some are still totally at zero compliance. Clearly the department has to visualize a solution for this total paragraph. The IMT would suggest that a meeting be convened by the Police Commissioner to review the substance of the VIPD audits and the IMT’s reviews.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to affect accountability at senior levels of the investigation directly impacts this paragraph.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued focus on management review and follow-up, coupled with subsequent accountability should increase compliance with this paragraph.
Sub- Paragraph d, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, supervisors are held accountable for the quality of their investigations, reviews, and documented non-disciplinary and/or disciplinary action has been taken when a supervisor or manager: fails to conduct a timely and thorough review; neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action; or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action.-
Activity
The VIPD and the IMT have found significant deficiencies in reviews. The compliance rate for most of these sub-paragraphs hovers between 45% and 75%. Some are still totally at zero compliance. Clearly the department has to visualize a solution for this total paragraph. The IMT would suggest that a meeting be convened by the police commissioner to review the substance of the VIPD audits and the IMT’s reviews.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to affect accountability at senior levels of the investigation directly impacts this paragraph.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued focus on management review and follow-up, coupled with subsequent accountability should increase compliance with this paragraph.
Sub-Paragraph e, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
47

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 48 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
In =>95% of the use of force incidents where the Commander's/Director's review and evaluation concluded that improper tactics were used, there is evidence that the involved sworn personnel received and successfully completed remedial training, and, if appropriate, were disciplined.
The VIPD and the IMT have found significant deficiencies in reviews. The compliance rate for most of these sub-paragraphs hovers between 45% and 75%. Some are still totally at zero compliance. Clearly the department has to visualize a solution for this total paragraph. The IMT would suggest that a meeting be convened by the Police Commissioner to review the substance of the VIPD audits and the IMT’s reviews.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to affect accountability concerning remedial training compliance and documentation, as well as any appropriate discipline, directly impacts this paragraph.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance VIPD should develop some system for ensuring that remedial training is both accomplished and documented when it is used as a corrective action for improper use of force. Any and all appropriate discipline associated with the findings should also be implemented and documented.
Sub-Paragraph f, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>95% of the use of force incidents deemed unjustified by the Commander's/Director's review and evaluation, the involved sworn personnel were disciplined, including separation from service with the VIPD when appropriate, and, if separation from service was not appropriate, received remedial training.
The VIPD and the IMT have found significant deficiencies in reviews. The compliance rate for most of these sub-paragraphs hovers between 45% and 75%. Some are still totally at zero compliance. Clearly the department has to visualize a solution for this total paragraph. The IMT would suggest that a meeting be convened by the police commissioner to review the substance of the VIPD audits and the IMT’s reviews.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to implement and document appropriate discipline, directly impacts this paragraph.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance VIPD leadership needs to ensure that any and all appropriate discipline associated with the findings should is applied and carried out and subsequently documented and associated with the case.
Paragraph 38, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
48

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 49 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD will investigate all critical firearm discharges. The VIPD will ensure that the investigation accounts for all shots and locations of all officers who discharged their firearms. The VIPD will conduct all ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate.
Activity VIPD confirmed no change in status during the November and December 2014 meetings. While the VIPD has initiated plans to implement a Force Review Board and a Force Investigation Team to comply with the provisions of these paragraphs, both of these initiatives remain under development and revision and it is anticipated that they will be implemented during 2Q 2015.
Impediments to Compliance See sub-paragraphs.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance See sub-paragraphs.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>99% of all critical firearm discharges are investigated and documented.
The VIPD has initiated plans to incorporate a Force Review Board and a Force Investigation Team to comply with the provisions of these paragraphs. Those functions are currently under revision and will be updated during 2Q 2015.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to thoroughly investigate and account for use of force incidents. Failure to implement a Force Review Board and Force Investigation Team contributes to the noncompliance of this sub-paragraph.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Implement a Force Investigation Team and Force Review Board to improve the quality of use of force investigations and subsequent evaluation of justification for the use of force.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>95% of all investigations or reviews of critical firearm discharges accounted for all shots.
49

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 50 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
The VIPD has initiated plans to incorporate a Force Review Board and a Force Investigation Team to comply with the provisions of these paragraphs. Those functions are currently under revision and will be updated during 2Q 2015.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to thoroughly investigate and account for use of force incidents. Failure to implement a Force Review Board and Force Investigation Team contributes to the noncompliance of this sub-paragraph. Failure to account for all shots fired in use of force investigations. Failure to use the templates as quality control devices to ensure all shots fired are accounted for whenever appropriate.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Implement a Force Investigation Team and Force Review Board to improve the quality of use of force investigations and subsequent evaluation of justification for the use of force.
Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>95% of all supervisors (or other personnel) have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training on ballistic and crime scene analyses and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or (b) if supervisors (or other personnel) have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the supervisors (or other personnel) have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s); or Where supervisors (or other personnel) have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel.
VIPD confirmed no change in status during the November and the December 2014 meetings. The VIPD has initiated plans to incorporate a Force Review Board and a Force Investigation Team to comply with the provisions of these paragraphs. Those initiatives are currently under development and it is anticipated that they will be implemented during 2Q 2015. While these directives and initiatives do not directly respond to the issue of supervisors being trained in use of force investigations, if implemented as currently proposed, the number of investigations by supervisors will greatly decline, with the FIT taking over responsibility
Impediments to Compliance Failure to ensure all supervisors are trained in use of force investigations as well a failure to implement the FIT and FRB functions, will impact compliance with this subparagraph.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance
50

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 51 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Implement controls to ensure all supervisors are trained on use of force investigations and/or implement the FIT and FRB.
Paragraph 44, Status = Partial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording Complaints may be filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile or electronic mail. The duty officer at the front desk of each district station will be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints, which persons may file at any district station. Complaint intake officers may describe facts that bear upon a complainant's demeanor and physical condition but May not express opinions regarding his/her mental competency or veracity. Each complaint will be resolved in writing. Upon receipt, each complaint will be assigned a unique identifier, which will be provided to the complainant. Each complaint will be tracked according to the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, improper search, etc.).
Activity VIPD is in compliance with all paragraphs of this paragraph with the exception of paragraph “I” where timeliness continues to be the issue.
Impediments to Compliance See sub-paragraphs.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance See sub-paragraphs.
Sub-Paragraph i, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>90% of complaints are documented and resolved in writing and completed investigations into complaints comport with the provisions of the Consent Decree.
Activity Timeliness continues to be the issue on this paragraph; as previously stated in VIPD’s 3rd own Quarterly reports, “The IMT has determined that the VIPD is in compliance with various components of the paragraph 44, but lacks substantial compliance due to the lack of timeliness of complaint investigations. The VIPD however, is not contesting IMT’s assessment as it relates to timeliness of complaint investigations, as reported previously the VIPD has attempted to resolve the timeliness issue through the issuance of commissioner’s directives in both Districts, which mandated the completion of all outstanding 2013 and 2014 investigations. As a result of these directives the number of outstanding cases for both Districts was reduced significantly. Additionally, through internal processes/mechanisms, which included weekly and monthly dissemination of case listings to the chain of command, and at commanders call sessions, the VIPD will continue to identify outstanding investigations and implement actions, disciplinary as
51

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 52 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
well as commissioner’s directives to ensure that timeliness is no longer an issue as it relates to complaint investigations.“ This quote focuses on zone investigations. IMT concurs with this VIPD assessment.
According to the VIPD, during this quarter, 4 administrative cases for infractions of the policy as regards the timeliness issue were opened. Additionally, 3 administrative cases have been forwarded to IAB as regards lack of timeliness, etc within the EIP policy. Furthermore, a new standardized waiver form (for extensions) was completed – hard copy and electronic versions; and this has been disseminated and discussed with commanders. Dozens of such requests received this quarter can has been be located in the Deputy Chief (STT) office, within a folder with requests for “stays” for investigations. The VIPD intends to set up different record keeping for both issues. Based on VIPD Citizen Complaint working group bi-weekly report for March 15-31, 2015, “Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs in each district have received the updated listing of cases for 2015. Based on the audit results 40 cases were audited Territory wide and it was found that 13 cases were submitted timely and 27 untimely.” IMT has not received the audits for 3rd and 4th quarters for 2014, reporting results from VIPD and will assess once audits received. (See further comments under paragraph 69)
While timeliness within IAB as regards citizen complaints has improved during the CD, IMT continues to have concerns with a number of the more serious investigations. Many of these involve officer-involved shootings (IAB and CID) and can linger for protracted periods of time (sometimes for years).
Additional issues identified by VIPD impeding the issue of timeliness was the uncertainty of who, within the VIPD, was responsible for dissemination of Directives and other protocols; and the fact that supervisors were not reading their emails in a timely fashion. To address these issues, former chair of Citizen Complaint working group initiated an email to Director of Planning and Research inquiring whether a policy regarding dissemination of Directives and other protocols currently exists and VIPD issued Directive 002-2015 detailing the requirements for “Accessing and Reading VIPD Emails”.
Impediments to Compliance Promotions occurred in January 2015. IMT believes that the increased numbers could eventually help in decreasing the number of cases which are not timely. Unfortunately due to competing concerns, of the 7 individuals promoted to sergeant on STT, only 3 are currently assigned to patrol (2-HIDA; 1-back to training and 1-traffic).
As previously stated, lack of accountability as regards supervisors continues to be an issue– although we have seen that improve with disciplinary actions taken. IMT will continue to review progress.
52

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 53 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Recommendations to Gain Compliance As VIPD moves forward with additional promotions (unsure when this may occur), IMT strongly recommends, again, that priority be given to assignment to patrol
As previously reported, if disciplinary action is not effective; demotion from rank will be the next step – this confirmed by the VIPD.
VIPD should finalize the specific process identified for issuance of Directives and other protocols and should monitor Supervisors/managers appropriate access/response to email. Supervisors should be required to periodically check to see if subordinates have all required and updated versions of department policy and procedure.
Paragraph 58, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording Unit commanders will evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command to identify underlying problems and training needs. Any such problems or need will be relayed in the form of a recommendation to the appropriate VIPD entity.
Activity During the last quarter, the VIPD issued a Directive to address the process of forwarding information relative to training needs. This Directive was issued in December, 2015.Along with VIPD, IMT will monitor effectiveness of same.
During this quarter, VIPD reviewed/updated their Complaint Investigation Review Form to ensure that the Commanders’ responsibility to identify any underlying problems and/or training needs is done. According to the VIPD biweekly report for March 15-31, 2015, VIPD included this section in their audits for the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2014. “There 9 instances for the 3rd qtr that training needs were not identified, there 31 times that recommendations were not required…”Also according to the biweekly report, “There were 3 times recommendations were made for problems in the 3rd and 4th qtr.” . IMT has not received the audits for 3rd and 4th quarters for 2014; reporting results from VIPD; will assess once audits received. See additional information under Activity in paragraph 69) During this quarter, VIPD has drafted a Directive relative to these required evaluations/recommendations reference problems and/or training. At this time, it is pending PC approval and signature.
Impediments to Compliance The December Directive (2014-0005) addressed how to forward training concerns identified through investigations. As mentioned in earlier IMT Quarterly Reports, limiting 'problems and training' to merely training is not sufficient. As stated above, during this quarter, VIPD has drafted a Directive relative to these required evaluations/recommendations reference problems and/or training. At this time, it is pending PC approval and signature.
53

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 54 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Recommendations to Gain Compliance As stated in earlier IMT reports, The new directive addressing issues re paragraph 58 should be monitored; further direction is needed re the identification of ‘problems’ beyond training. As stated above, During this quarter, VIPD has drafted a Directive relative to these required evaluations/recommendations re problems and/or training. At this time, it is pending PC approval and signature. Once this is accomplished VIPD should audit to ensure compliance with Directive; IMT to follow implementation.
Paragraph 59, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording
The VIPD will develop and implement a risk management system to include a new computerized relational database or paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for supervision and management of the VIPD. Priority will be given to the VIPD obtaining any established program and system. The VIPD will regularly use this data to promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts.
Activity See sub-paragraphs.
Impediments See sub-paragraphs.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance See sub-paragraphs.
Sub-paragraph b, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance The VIPD will, in =>95% of the cases, use this data to promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts.
Activity The IMT continues to emphasize the fact that unless supervisors and management personnel are held accountable for their responsibilities, the VIPD will have a challenging time maintaining CD compliance. Regarding this particular paragraph, the IMT anticipated that by holding managers accountable, the VIPD will move closer to initial compliance.
Additionally, the IMT anticipates that resolving IT issues, considered a priority by the VIPD, will move initial compliance forward. This paragraph is contingent on other paragraphs coming into compliance regarding EIP.
54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 55 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Impediments to Compliance VIPD needs to reinforce accountability throughout the ranks.
Recommendations Continue to develop a sense of accountability throughout the command structure through training and senior leadership mentoring.
Paragraph 60, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The new risk management system will collect and record the following information:
a. all uses of force; b. canine bite ratios; c. the number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers; d. all injuries to prisoners; e. all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with "resisting
arrest," "assault on a police officer," "disorderly conduct," or "obstruction of official business;" f. all critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty; g. all complaints (and their dispositions); h. all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the Territory and its officers, or agents, resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel; i. all vehicle pursuits; j. all incidents involving the pointing of a firearm (if any such reporting is required); and k. all disciplinary action taken against officers.
Activity See sub-paragraphs.
Impediments See sub-paragraphs.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance See sub-paragraphs.
Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>95% of the canisters of chemical spray issued to officers will be entered into RMS, including the date of issuance and date of expirations of the chemical spray, with a
55

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 56 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
reasonable level of accuracy and completeness and the VIPD has developed a process to track the amount of OC Spray used by Officers.
Activity VIPD provided a listing of all personnel who were issued an OC Spray with a weight of the canister. An audit will be conducted and a report will be provided. VIPD has established a database to track OC canisters issued to officers (including weight); this was forwarded to IMT April 23, 2015. At the recent monthly meeting, VIPD reported that it was anticipated that a monthly inspection to ensure compliance will be completed in early May. IMT requested that a copy be forwarded once completed. VIPD provided IMT copy of inspection. IMT further requested information regarding inconsistencies identified in the inspection.
Impediments to Compliance See recommendations.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance VIPD should audit, identify deficiencies and address same.
Sub-Paragraph d, Status = Partial Compliance =>95% of all injuries to prisoners will be entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
Activity According to VIPD, The Injury to Prisoners posters are completed and have been posted throughout the various zones. This directive has been incorporated into the arrest policy.
Impediments to Compliance See recommendations – IAB addressing impediments.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance VIPD should audit, identify deficiencies and address same.
Sub-Paragraph h, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>95% of criminal proceedings initiated, civil or administrative claims filed, and civil lawsuits served against the Territory, the VIPD, and its Officers resulting from VIPD operations will be entered in RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
Activity VIPD, during this quarter, revisited the issue of an MOA between the VIPD and VIAG to address this sub paragraph At this time, instead of an MOA, VIAG forwarded copies of a proposed internal policy/procedure to address these concerns.(April 14, 2015) IMT received copies of these. VIPD to seek this information in a format that reflects a formal adoption of said process. Once formalized/finalized, IMT requests copies of same.
56

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 57 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Impediments to Compliance IMT will continue to monitor the submission of materials from VIAG to VIPD to ensure that the time periods represented in the SOP are met.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued close attention to activity covered by this SOP by VIPD staff in IAB.
Sub-paragraph i; Status = Substantial Compliance =>95% of vehicle pursuits are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
Activity According to the VIPD, VIPD personnel were able to meet with 911 personnel on 1/13/15 to develop a code for vehicle pursuits. A screen print out of the close-out code displaying 911 capabilities to track vehicle pursuit was provided. A current limitation of this is that the vehicle pursuit code can be pre empted by a higher code (such as vehicle pursuit due to a robbery – robbery code would supersede pursuit). Group is unsure how VITEMA can address same; to continue to work on this with VITEMA. VIPD to continue to access IAPro for information.
The group was able on 1/13/15 to have VITEMA create a code for tracking vehicle accidents involving VIPD personnel. A listing of all VIPD marked vehicles that were involved in an accident was generated.
VITEMA/911 informed the group that the system was not able to provide a listing of the unmarked police vehicle because they were not provided with that listing. According to the co-chair of the Management and Supervision work group, a listing of the unmarked vehicles was provided to 911 so an identical report can be generated for the audit.
IMT recognizes VIPD efforts in this area; however, there still needs to be work with VITEMA to be able, not only to store, but to easily access pursuit information. IMT is not moving VIPD out of compliance at this time, but will provide additional time to correct deficiency
Impediments to Compliance VIPD and VITEMA need to further link the 911/CAD data with the IAPro system to increase capture of all pursuits.
Recommendations While the sub-paragraph has been deemed in compliance due to VIPD’s efforts to ensure accurate capture of the pursuit data, IMT recommends continued meetings with VITEMA to insure more seamless integration with the coding. IMT recognizes VIPD efforts in this area;
57

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 58 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
however, there still needs to be work with VITEMA to be able, not only to store, but to easily access pursuit information. IMT is not moving VIPD out of compliance at this time, but will provide additional time to correct deficiency.
Paragraph 69, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD will develop a protocol for conducting audits. The protocol will be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol will establish a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all VIPD zones.
Activity The Police Commissioner has identified the Audit and Inspection unit commander (full time). The unit commander, on April 23, 2015, submitted a memo requesting that 8 individuals “be relieved of all Consent Decree Workgroup duties and transferred on an ‘as needed’ basis to the Audit Unit”. These individuals had been auditing their own working groups previously; and now, they will be auditing across all groups. This removes a potential conflict of interest as well improves the capacity of the unit.
VIPD has completed their audits for the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2014. At this time, these audits have not been formally submitted to IMT. Prior to submission to IMT, VIPD intends to have a senior level review; once completed, senior personnel will review with supervisors to identify where, as an agency, they are falling short.
Although these additional steps in the audit process are delaying IMT’s receipt of the 3rd and 4th quarter audits, IMT appreciates the potential value of these reviews. IMT looks forward to the results of these reviews.
Additionally, IMT has been informed that the VIPD is already well into the Audit for the 1st quarter of 2015. If this pace continues, VIPD Audit reports will be issued in a more timely fashion. However, according to the April 2015 monthly meeting, the Audit Unit commander intends to review and update CD related audit objectives.
As previously noted in IMT quarterly reports, the IMT strongly recommends that, long term, VIPD have a full time staff (minimum 3-4 persons) assigned to the Audit Unit.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to fully staff the unit and prepare annual audit plans, unit policy, and appropriate SOPs.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance
58

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 59 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Fully staff the unit, prepare unit policy, SOPs, and an annual audit plan.
Paragraph 71, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording VIPD policy will identify clear time periods by which the various steps of a complaint adjudication process should be completed, from complaint receipt to the imposition of discipline, if any. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions will not be granted without the Police Commissioner's written approval and notice to the complainant. In the limited circumstances when an extension is necessary, appropriate tolling provisions will be outlined in the policy.
Activity (b). A directive (001-2015) was issued on Jan 6, 2015, that provides for extensions to reporting times, when justified and requested, by investigating personnel.
Impediments to Compliance See other sub-paragraphs.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance See sub-paragraphs.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>90% of the time, these established time periods are not violated except for in exigent circumstances and with the Police Commissioner's written approval for tolling and notice to the complainant.
Activity As reported above in reference to paragraph 44, based on VIPD Citizen Complaint working group bi-weekly report for March 15-31, 2015, “Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs in each district have received the updated listing of cases for 2015. Based on the audit results 40 cases were audited Territory wide 13 cases submitted timely and 27 untimely.”* {*IMT has not received the audits for 3rd and 4th quarters for 2014; reporting results from VIPD; will assess once audits received.} Please see further comments under paragraph 69.
According to the VIPD, during this quarter, 4 administrative cases for infractions of the policy as regards the timeliness issue were opened. Additionally, 3 administrative cases have been forwarded to IAB as regards lack of timeliness, etc within the EIP policy. Furthermore, a new standardized waiver form (for extensions) was completed – hard copy and electronic versions; this was disseminated and discussed with commanders. Dozens of such requests received this quarter can be located in the Deputy Chief (STT) office. Currently such requests are in a folder with requests for “stays” for investigations. Intent is to set up different record keeping for both issues.
59

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 60 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Additional issues identified by VIPD impeding the issue of timeliness was the uncertainty of who, within the VIPD, was responsible for dissemination of Directives and other protocols; and the fact that supervisors were not reading their emails in a timely fashion. To address these issues, former chair of Citizen Complaint working group initiated an email to Director of Planning and Research inquiring whether a policy regarding dissemination of Directives and other protocols currently exists and VIPD issued Directive 002-2015 detailing the requirements for “Accessing and Reading VIPD Emails”.
Impediments to Compliance VIPD to implement above mentioned steps.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance See above
Paragraph 72, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD will not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix indicates the imposition of discipline. The VIPD will not fail to consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action is required in a case because discipline has been imposed on the officer.
Activity As previously stated, according to the VIPD, “As it relates to subsection (a) of paragraph 72, going forward the management and supervision work group will initiate monthly inspections to gauge compliance “with the disciplinary matrix. “The management and supervision work group will also conduct monthly inspections with respect to subsection (b) for adherence specific to ensuring that “non-disciplinary corrective action is recommended consistently when applicable with disciplinary actions.”
As noted elsewhere in this report, the recent (December 2014 and January 2015) IMT survey of supervisors and commanders seems to indicate continued dissatisfaction by VIPD personnel with the matrix.
According to the VIPD, The Discipline Procedure posters were completed during the previous quarter and are currently posted throughout the zones. During this current quarter, VIPD provided familiarization training on Disciplinary Flow Chart for all commanders territory-wide.
During the April 2015 monthly meeting, the Audit Unit commander suggested that the Audit Unit complete the inspections (referenced above) rather than the working group.
The IMT notes that the VIPD currently has a committee reviewing the Disciplinary Matrix, which appears to include appropriate membership, such as the police union, etc. The IMT looks
60

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 61 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
forward to the review of the work products of this committee (e.g., the revised matrix) during the next reporting quarter.
Impediments to Compliance Lack of understanding/adherence to VIPD policy.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance As stated repeatedly by the IMT, VIPD needs to identify deficiencies, also need to identify whether it is due to lack of understanding or intentional policy violation – once identified, additional training or discipline needs to occur.
IMT continues to recommend that VIPD continue to assess both the process and the matrix with a goal towards making it more objective and fair in construct and application.
Completion of the current review of the Disciplinary Matrix.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status =Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of the cases where the matrix calls for discipline, discipline is imposed.
All activity, impediments, and recommendations shown above for sub-paragraph a.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status =Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of the cases where discipline is imposed, there is evidence that the VIPD has also considered non-disciplinary corrective action.
All activity, impediments, and recommendations shown above for sub-paragraph b.
Paragraph 73, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD will continue to coordinate and review all use of force policy and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy. The VIPD will conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually.
Activity A draft Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the Training Advisory Committee (TAC) was forwarded to Det. Alcendor on March 23, 2015 to send to the IMT for review and comment.
Impediments to Compliance As noted previously by the IMT, the Training Committee:
a. Still does not have a protocol for the conduct and expected outcomes from the meetings, which inhibits its focus and effectiveness;
61

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 62 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
b. Their agenda tends to focus on review of equipment issues; c. Fails to review training and training materials from an analytical basis based upon developed criteria. Areas addressed in the meeting seemed to range more on equipment issues. No Use of Force activity as to type and effectiveness was discussed, apparently based upon reports from IAPro (which were attached), but the notes did not adequately reflect the content or decisions that emanated from those discussions. Without a well-developed protocol, no meaningful evaluation can take place.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Throughout the conduct of this consent decree, VIPD has struggled with understanding exactly what is required by this paragraph. VIPD must conduct a semi-annual review of the quality, consistency of their use of force training. They must also review the use of force training’s compliance with both law and VIPD policy. This amounts to four (4) inquiries into VIPD training activity. There is also a requirement that VIPD use of force policy be reviewed on the same schedule using the same criteria for the review. This amounts to eight (8) inquiries to be conducted by VIPD semi-annually.
The IMT, based on our experience, would think that the semi-annual review of use of force policy and the semi-annual review of use of force training would be conducted jointly or, at a minimum, conducted collaboratively. To date, we’ve not seen this kind of agency-wide review. We’ve also not seen a meaningful, analytical review of use of force training. The IMT has proposed the creation of a Training Advisory Committee that might serve as a platform for conducting a more comprehensive semi-annual review of use of force training.
VIPD has proposed this committee and begun to develop procedures for the mission and function of the committee. We are extremely pleased that the recently appointed Training Director followed our suggestions and has made provisions for training to be conducted by the Kirkpatrick Group which specialized in the evaluation of training. This will be a great help toward satisfying the requirements of this paragraph.
Our recommendations for the conduct of the semi-annual review and the makeup and functionality of the Training Advisory Committee have been enumerated in our reports for much of the past year.
Paragraph 74, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The Director of Training, either directly or through his/her designee(s), consistent with applicable law and VIPD policy will:
a. ensure the quality of all use of force training; b. develop and implement use of force training curricula; c. select and train VIPD officer trainers; d. develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service training;
62

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 63 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
e. in conjunction with the Chiefs, develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures;
f. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and g. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to
the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
Activity
a. ensure the quality of all use of force training;
This was discussed during a meeting with the IMT (Mr. Wilson and Mr. Stewart). Once the TAC is formed it will address the quality of training that is provided to the officers during training also an evaluation process will assist with a an assessment of the training that was provided (Kirkpatrick Levels of Evaluations.
b. develop and implement use of force training curricula;
Sub-paragraph is in Substantial Compliance
c. select and train VIPD officer trainers;
The Instructor Selection Process (ISP) was revised and signed by Commissioner Designee Delroy Richards, Sr. on March 8, 2015.
d. develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service training;
e. in conjunction with the Chiefs, develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures;
IMT has received the signed policy and believes it does not conform to the review provided previously by the IMT, as copy of which can be found at Appendix C to this report. Further the IMT believes that the current version still contains material which more closely related with a separate policy or policies on Conducting Roll Calls and one related to Line inspections. The IMT will work with the VIPD to correct these deficiencies.
f. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and
See sub-paragraph g below.
g. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
Presently in discussion with Jim Kirkpatrick for the development of the Kirkpatrick’s “Four Levels of Evaluations”. VIPD plans on bringing the training to the territory to have personnel trained on
63

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 64 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
same. Individuals that will be trained are management and supervisors. Training was conducted in May 2015.
Impediments to Compliance Absence of a comprehensive and analytical review of training outcomes.
Lack of coordinated training priorities and agenda with Chiefs and other command officers.
No comprehensive plan for roll call training.
Questions raised by the IMT memorandum of 9/18/14 are serious and any further compliance with this sub-paragraph and paragraph should be held in abeyance
Each of the sub-paragraphs details impediments to compliance.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Several of the sub-paragraphs in this paragraph share common resolutions with the tasks associated with Paragraph 73.
a. ensure the quality of all use of force training. f. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures, and g. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
The IMT has recommended for some time that there is so much similarity to the resolutions to these paragraphs that they ought to be resolved jointly.
The Training Advisory Committee seemed to us to be the best place to establish appropriate protocols for the requirements of these sub-paragraphs and Paragraph 73 and coordinate VIPD’s efforts to reach compliance. We also believe that sub-paragraph e:
”e. in conjunction with the Chiefs, develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures.” lends itself to the kinds of issues that would be appropriate for the regular review, discussion and advice from the Training Advisory Committee.”
Similarly, sub-paragraph d:
“d. …develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service training,” should be reviewed by the Training Advisory Committee.
64

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 65 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
We repeat our recommendation that compliance with these sub-paragraphs and Paragraph 73 be at the cornerstone of the duties and responsibilities of the Training Advisory Committee.
The one sub-paragraph that would likely remain outside of the direct focus of the Training Advisory Committee would be:
“c….select and train VIPD officer trainers.”
The IMT has long since held that this definition would include all classes of academy and in-service trainers and all Field Training Officers. VIPD, after more than a year of development, recently published a directive outlining the policies and procedures for the selection of instructors. We have recommended for some time that a similar policy be established for FTO’s
The VIPD should conduct a review of all current staff and field instructors, vetting them against the requirements of VIPD Policy 003-2014 Instructor Selection, and provide documentation to the IMT with the results of that review.
Paragraph 77, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD shall continue to maintain training records regarding every VIPD officer that reliably indicate the training each officer has received. The training records shall, at a minimum, include the course description and duration, curriculum, and instructor for each officer.
Sub-paragraphs a,c,e are in Substantial Compliance, while b,d,f remain in Partial Compliance.
Activity Currently all training records are maintained by the administrative secretaries in both districts. Those records are located in each respective office in STT and STX. The hard copies of records are placed in binders that are labeled and stored in a file cabinet or on a shelf (Bookcase) in a central area in both locations. The training bureau also has a training database (PowerDMS) that tracks all trainings officers receive. The information on PowerDMS can be accessed remotely from any location and are in discussion with a vendor who will assist in the upload of officer’s files and historical data into PowerDMS.
Impediments to Compliance In August 2014 IMT identified need for loading data into Power DMS. In September 2014 IMT identified the need for a plan and design for data entry into Power DMS. Continued
65

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 66 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
failure to accelerate the loading of curricula into the Power DMS system will impact compliance.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Substantial Compliance in this paragraph has been particularly troublesome for VIPD. At the heart of this issue is the establishment of an automated capability to produce records which reliably provide:
the course description, the duration of the course, a copy or reference to the curriculum used at the time of the training, and the instructor(s) for each officer.
The IMT has maintained that it is our experience that police departments the size and makeup similar to VIPD have, as a standard practice, this kind of automated capability in total or in-part.
While maintaining that it has the capacity to produce the information required in Paragraph 77, VIPD has produced one report almost two years ago that only included the participants in St. Thomas/S. John District. IMT deems these reports critical to both compliance as well as proper supervision of the training function.
We continue to recommend with great import that making the inclusion of the kinds of records required to be maintained by this paragraph be made a priority. Extraordinary steps must be taken to streamline the process by which complete, accurate historical training records should be entered into PowerDMS and audited as quickly as possible.
Paragraph 81, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD will provide training on appropriate burdens of proof to all supervisors, as well as the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility (to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform, and legally appropriate). The VIPD will also continue to provide training to supervisors on leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training will be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities, and will be made part of annual in-service training.
Activity Sub-paragraphs a,c,e are in Substantial Compliance, while b,d,f remain in Partial Compliance.
66

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 67 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Impediments to Compliance After the August 2014 Summit the IMT provided this analysis of the compliance level of the paragraph, specifically geared toward supervisory training on leadership and command accountability.
While most of the requirements for compliance in this paragraph have been met, there is the clear need for more training in leadership and command accountability for supervisory, management and command personnel. While the training for command personnel may come in the form of "executive development," the IMT believes that command staff could benefit from participating in the supervisory and management training conducted within VIPD as well as attending developmental training conducted by any number of professional organizations and educational institutions.
We have urged command staff to attend part or all of the various supervisory courses taught by outside contractors. At a minimum, they should obtain briefings from these "visiting instructors," who are typically very well versed in their subject areas so that they have a sense of what is being taught to their subordinates but also to get information from subject matter experts on how their command issues are being addressed in other police agencies.
During the November and December 2014 summit and December 2014 court hearing, the VIPD indicated that no progress had been made on this paragraph. The VIPD concurred that no progress had been made during the May 2015 work sessions, with the exception that the FBI had conducted some leadership and supervisory training, in which many senior leaders participated, during the 1st Quarter of 2015. The IMT remains encouraged with this initiative but is withholding long term judgment pending a continuation and broadening of the effort, especially in terms of our previous suggestions that the leadership of the agency also participated in some lower level instruction in support of both exposure to the concepts and team building.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Substantial Compliance in this particular paragraph poses several distinct and complex challenges. The paragraph first requires the Training Bureau to train supervisors on how to apply appropriate burdens of proof, evaluate witness credibility.
While we know that the requisite training has been conducted, we have not seen an objective evaluation of how those supervisors are performing those tasks in the field. We’ve only seen participant performance on the quiz conducted immediately following training. This is certainly another one of the areas that we have pointed out and that the Kirkpatrick Training addresses. There remains the challenge of evaluating the outcomes and/or effect that training has had on participants.
This also points out again how substantial compliance was comparatively easy when the requirements of a paragraph were able to be achieved within a single office, unit or bureau.
67

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 68 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
This kind of evaluation requires the active participation and collaboration between the Training Bureau and the Districts so that Training is receiving enough feedback on supervisor performance in the Districts for them to be able to determine whether their training products were “successful.”
We believe that VIPD will benefit immensely by having the Kirkpatrick Group in for training. It’s important that as many command officers as well as supervisors and managers attend this training.
The second requirement of this paragraph mandates that VIPD provide this training for new supervisory promotees within 90 days of their elevation to their new rank. In addition to the testing that might take place at the time of training, this training should be a part of any probationary evaluation conducted at the end of the probationary period.
The third requirement is that this training be a part of in-service training. When the systems are in place, the focus of the in-service training should be based on the results of evaluations of how the allied functions are being performed in the field. Shortcomings among supervisors in areas of the Consent Decree, as well as other practices in need of improvement, should be well documented and highlighted during in-service, roll call and commander’s call training.
The final requirement and possibly the most important within this paragraph is a responsibility to provide training to supervisors on leadership and command accountability. VIPD has just recently begun to include commanders above the rank of captain in this kind of training even that delivered within the Territory. Command Staff and certain sworn administrative personnel were not included in in-service training. When questioned about the practice, VIPD offered no responses.
There is much to be learned from responsible, modern supervisory training and VIPD has contracted with very reputable and professional trainers. These instructors are generally well versed in many of the standard practices required by this consent decree. They can bring helpful advice to command staff in their work as well as their subordinates. Systematic improvement in a policy or practice can only come when command knows and understands the training that their subordinate commanders and supervisors are receiving so that they can support it.
68

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 69 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
IV. VIPD AUDITING PERFORMANCE
A yet to be released copy of the 2014 Third and Fourth Quarter Compliance Audit Report is in the hands of the IMT. It presents results for two quarters to bring the VIPD to what it calls a "current point of information." (As this quarterly is being written, the VIPD is completing its compliance audit report for the First Quarter of 2015, and due to the limited value of delayed audits, VIPD intends to focus more energy on the audit of the first quarter of 2015.)
Current Utility. The VIPD has been auditing and turning out Compliance Audit Reports since the fall of 2013. Evolving from a construct (format) developed, we believe, during a Training Session conducted by an independent contractor in the fall of 2013, and modified continuously by innovations developed internally (in the VIPD) and recommended by the IMT, the audit reports have become more useful, but have yet to reach their potential. Simultaneously, in the view of the IMT, progressive evolution of the auditing process has stalled overall. The strengths and flaws of the VIPD’s Third and Fourth Quarter Compliance Audit Report mirror those of several previous reports. The IMT’s Review & Recommendations Report (January 6, 2014), our response to the VIPD’s 2014 Compliance Audit Report and the IMT’s Fourth Quarterly Report for 2014 (March 27. 2015), summarized the condition of audit reports.
□ Advancements notwithstanding, this Audit…, primarily a collection of separate components, conducted by four less than fully integrated Work Groups is observably uneven. Uneven includes variations in methodologies and report construction, and apparent diligence of effort, which frustrate comprehension of the nature and accomplishment of audit work.
The Solution: Metrics-Centered Auditing. The VIPD is already positioned to not only re-start and upgrade the audit process, it has the assets – the knowledge and the resources, to materially advance both the audit process, methodologically, and produce better informational outcomes
69

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 70 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
essential to the Consent Decree analytics and to data-informed decision-making. Referred to as Metrics-Centered Auditing and Reporting in the IMT’s Second Quarter Audit Review & Recommendations document, the basics of the prescribed auditing process and outcome documentation and presentation, we urged the VIPD to require all Work Groups to adopt the model.
Section IV of the aforementioned IMT Review & Recommendations Report, Audit Process & Reporting: A Compliance Measurement Foundation noted:
To facilitate as seamless a transition to (the IMT’s outcome measurement phase of compliance work) as can be achieved…the audit methodology and presentation format of the Use of Force Work Group can and should serve as a model for all groups. (p. 27)
Our report detailed this recommendation by highlighting the desired core characteristics of the model. The most current Audit Compliance Report, for the Third and Fourth Quarter of 2014, indicates that the VIPD has not moved to adopt the model further. Only the Use of Force Work Group is using it. The other three turned in the traditional and still "uneven" mix.
Recommendation. The path to implementation of Metrics-Centered auditing is quite clear. It must include an instructional process for all Work Groups, focused on structuring audits of Citizen Complaint, Management and Supervision, and Training paragraphs to produce and report measurements the way that the Use of Force audit does. This process should be led by the new commander of the Audits & Inspections Units, fortuitously the leader of the Force Work Group, until just recently.
The moment is also at hand to revisit content and format of audit reports. Understandably, some of the elements originally selected may be considered for elimination – the Objectives portion for example. Audit reports suffer from strained attempts to cross-walk objectives and paragraphs,
70

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 71 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
generally adding confusion to presentations and, most likely, consuming Work Group resources for no observable value added. Reducing requirements to essentials and thereby reducing resource consumption is possible. In this regard, simple information technology applications can also enhance productivity.
71

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 72 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
V. CONSENT DECREE IMPLEMENTATION: WORKFORCE PERCEPTIONS, IMPLICATIONS, & RECOMMENDATIONS
Transforming the culture of the VIPD (the organization) and the behavior of VIPD officers with respect to matters of constitutional policing are original overarching goals of the Consent Decree. Among the correlates of successful transformation are the degree to which VIPD commanders and supervisors properly lead, motivate, inform, train, supervise, evaluate, and hold officers accountable in regard to constitutional policing behaviors. These correlates can and should be examined in a number of ways, one being organizational culture analysis. A range of correlates (conditions and factors) have been examined qualitatively by the IMT throughout the course of the monitoring effort. The VIPD audit process has featured quantitative protocols. Still, a number of culture-driven correlates have not been measured or measured routinely up to the current point in time. As a lead-up to a future organizational culture analysis, designed and administered with methodological rigor, the IMT conducted a series of preliminary interviews during the Fourth Quarter of 2014 to test a series of considerations of significance to compliance success and sustainability. We chose to concentrate primarily on first-line/field sergeants and lieutenants because of their pivotal significance in the Consent Decree process, especially unnecessary use-of-force considerations. The work confirmed a range of IMT beliefs and revealed new insights.
The Approach
During December 2014 and January 2015, the IMT interviewed VIPD supervisors and commanders, a total of 23, 9 on St. Thomas and 14 on St. Croix. Scheduling constrained the number of interviews conducted on St. Thomas/St. Johns. Interviews were conducted one-onone. Confidentiality was pledged to respondents, except for aggregate reporting. A 63-item interview instrument was used. The questions covered eight general areas:
72

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 73 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department

Category Title

Number of Questions

Consent Decree

3

Citizen Complaints

15

IA Pro and Blue Team

5

Use of Force Investigations

12

Training

10

Early Intervention Program (EIP)

11

Disciplinary Process

4

Promotions

3

The interview instrument concentrated on processes of core value to the goals of the CD and issues that have proven to be constantly troublesome to compliance. All questions sought the interviewee’s opinion or analysis of the current and past situation that a question focused on. Some also asked the respondent to rate the quality or usefulness of a broader area under review. In other cases, such as training delivery, respondents were asked to rate training on a scale of 1 to 5. Most questions were open-ended and respondents were encouraged to elaborate or expand on answers as needed. Some questions were restricted to commanders or managers. A total of 1447 responses are in our database. This data can be sorted and reports tailored to selected criteria of users.
Patterns emerged as the interviews were conducted and validated after. These range from generalized impacts of the new procedures directly related to the Consent Decree to very specific issues such as consistent evaluation of training failing to meet its support requirements. Trends and issues are reported next.

73

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 74 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
The Consent Decree. Respondents were asked if they had read the Consent Decree document, what impact they thought the provisions had, and did they have any questions about it. Most stated they had read some portions of it (generally associated with training or a policy). Some have not read it at all. Few had any questions about it and most did not associate Consent Decree provisions and activities and improvements to VIPD operations. What was expressed somewhat consistently is that the Consent Decree is adding workload to what they consider to be an already overloaded day. This was in the context of the Use of Force reporting and Citizen Complaint requirements. They also feel that the Consent Decree has resulted in confusion among officers and a reluctance to take action, fearing that they will be unduly criticized by both citizens (complaints) and the department (IA investigations). Some feel that management uses the Consent Decree against officers selectively.
Responses to this set of questions suggest that the Consent Decree has not been championed by management as a driver of positive change, but perhaps as a necessary obligation. We did not find hostility toward the Consent Decree nor overt opposition at a level that presents difficult challenges to compliance. There is frustration with regard to workload demands and, to a degree, fairness perceptions (absence of fairness). We suggest that the new VIPD administration, led visibly by Commissioner Richards, engage supervisors and commanders to refresh, explain, and recommit field managers to the values and benefits of the Consent Decree. At the same time, the workload/fairness concerns have to be addressed. Some respondents do view the Consent Decree effort as a positive for the future. These officers in particular have to be viewed and employed as "transformational" change agents. The VIPD employs command and control/transactional management and leadership styles and protocols. This being the case, the transformational leadership activities just recommended may not "come easy" for the VIPD.
Citizen Complaints. The Citizen Complaint interviews yielded consistent criticism about the time it takes to process every complaint and the requirement that many complaints that could be resolved at the district level must be forwarded to IAB. Many respondents noted that there are repeat complainers, many who suffer from mental issues, yet each case must be processed. Each
74

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 75 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
of these complaints creates a "flag" on officers involved, even if unfounded, a theme to be detailed further in the EIP section.
For both the Citizen Complaint and Use of Force interview sets, there is at least on St. Thomas, a constant complaint that no audio and/or video recording equipment is available to officers and supervisors. Many showed the IMT the equipment that sergeants and others bought in order to comply with policy. While there were similar comments on St. Croix, many stated the equipment had just been issued or the Forensic Unit was used to handle recording. Investigators on St. Croix stated they have equipment (laptops) set up in the interview rooms, while St. Thomas investigators said they did not and none was observed by the interviewers. This is an issue that management needs to address if it seeks compliance with the policy by VIPD personnel.
In discussing zone-level handling of cases, many explained that this was the practice/policy (IMT is not sure which as comments varied prior to the Consent Decree implementation as well as a policy of many other departments. Because most complaints fall into the loosely defined category of "rudeness" and other lower level complaints, most respondents feel they should be coordinated with IAB, but investigated and disposed at the district level. This would continue to create a case number, but would streamline the investigation and clear complaints quicker. They would still be subject to audit and individual approval of the resolution by IAB. The VIPD should at least consider research on this issue as it is a consistent complaint among officers.
Many respondents feel that while initial citizen complaint training was not up to par (lack of practical work and predominately lecture), subsequent training has improved (trainers appear to know more about the process than before), although it still lacks practice of the skills to be learned. They also noted that policy seems to keep changing and they need to comply with new ways of doing business. It is encouraging that some noted that the process has been for the better overall for citizens and that more are now complaining, a sign that they have faith in the VIPD
75

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 76 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
process. Some even went so far as to note this as a big change in the VIPD culture, long overdue.
Interviewees expressed dissatisfaction about the alert system as it relates to citizen complaints. They point out that many complaints are on one officer, but there may be two in a vehicle or more than one officer in the area. All names go into the case however and regardless of end resolution (even if it is unfounded), all officers earn a flag in the alert system. Feeling is unanimous that it is unfair to link all together and that the alert process does not discriminate enough. Numerous respondents noted that officers feel reluctant to take action because it is too easy for a citizen to complain. One related as an example that an officer issued a traffic citation and another member of the family would file a complaint. This is complicated because many officers are well known on the Islands.
On transfers, many supervisors note they do not get an alert status report with the transfer and thus they have to research themselves. This information should be a normal part of the transfer package that is sent to the new supervisor. The IAB has told the IMT that it does not have up to date lists of personnel and their assignments and supervisors are not notified when someone is transferred. This seems to indicate a need for the VIPD to review its human resources policies and ensure that up to date staffing charts are maintained and distributed to units that require them. The IMT has been frustrated in its inability to get either an up to date and comprehensive organizational chart or a staffing chart for the VIPD. The new VIPD administration has moved to address this situation.
The interviews surfaced several frustrations that the new leadership of the VIPD might want to discuss with appropriate members of the workforce. Several seem easy to fix, such as the audio/visual equipment issue and the transfer information gap. The investigation-level practice and the Alert System protocol are much more complex and their significance for Consent Decree goals are more profound. Still, we recommend a review. It is important to emphasize that the Citizen Complaint paragraph grouping stands out, comparatively, for successful compliance
76

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 77 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
status. Fifteen (15) of seventeen (17) are in Substantial Compliance. The two (2) Not in Compliance are 49i, the "timeliness" subparagraph, and 58, the "underlying problem evaluation" paragraph. The two major concerns expressed by supervisors are pertinent to compliance/absence of compliance.
IAPro. Achieving and monitoring compliance with the Risk Management and Supervision paragraphs of the Consent Decree (59-68) is predicated upon comprehensive and up-to-date entry of all required IAPRO data elements. Our interviews did not reveal major impediments. The IAPro questions generally produced positive comments regarding access, where appropriate (commanders generally). When the system is up no one seems to have a problem gaining access. Some stated issues with lost passwords. In a reduced number of instances, newly promoted personnel did not have access and had to call IT to get one. This points to the need to review the promotional and assignment process to ensure these issues are dealt with. In one case, a newly promoted sergeant did not have a laptop assigned to him, so he had no access. In STX, for the most part, they do not upload case files via Blue Team. Rather, they walk them across the street to the IA office. Authorizing a member of the IAB to reset passwords may be a simple solution.
Use of Force. Use of Force questions produced a very broad mix of responses ranging from "things have improved" to complaints that the system "has overloaded the sergeants" and "basic supervisory actions are not getting done." Comments that the process is positive as it now requires that the VIPD do a better job of reporting use of force were common. We also heard a constant litany of observations that officers are reluctant to do their jobs because the Consent Decree and the IA "pounce on them" for every error. Some indications are that cases do not get investigated properly because witnesses change their minds or suspects disappear after arrest and release. Many feel the process is too lengthy and thus resolution is far after the regular case is completed. Some reviewers think the quality of the investigations and paperwork (documentation) has improved over the last year or two. Others mention that supervisors are still failing to respond to the scene in a timely manner or at all. When asked, respondents did not identify any issues with evidence collection or processing. Cases reviewed by commanders do
77

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 78 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
not indicate problems with medical attention or documentation. Issues with statements and the quality of the reports were noted. Both the Use of Force and Citizen Complaint interviews produced comments that policies for processing are different on each of the Islands and should be consistent. This, obviously, should not be the case.
Substantial Compliance with the Use of Force paragraph grouping stands at only four (4) of eleven (11). The interviews confirm a host of issues that have lingered for some time, pointed out repetitively by VIPD Audits and IMT Monitoring Reports. These include failure of supervisors to respond to use-of-force incidents in the field, inadequate/unacceptable RRR and related case documentation, and inconsistent procedures (the Two-Districts issue). To us, clarifying and resolving the "not enough sergeants," if indeed there is a work overflow problem for supervisors, is the key to clearing away many of the issues that stand in the way of Use of Force compliance. With sufficient time, supervisors should be able to achieve their Consent Decree responsibilities more effectively. A recently initiated management study, by an independent contractor, may be addressing this issue.
Training. Many interviews produced very negative comments about the initial (basic) training delivered on Use of Force, Citizen Complaints, and EIP. Additional negatives spanned Consent Decree and other training subjects. Rating scores provide information about how well training is directly supportive of the Consent Decree, judged by those trained. The comments also clearly display the crux of the problem. Training classes with physical dimensions and with a high degree of student participation, such as Firearms Simulator and Firearms Qualification and training related to self-defense subjects, were generally rated as 5, with a sprinkling of 4s. Subjects that are more classroom oriented where it appears that a great deal of lecture is used were rated lower, generally 3s, but with a significant number of 2s.
Comments indicate that instructors read from lesson plans and admitted they knew little about the subject being taught. Courses provide little or no opportunities for the student to practice what he/she was just taught, and that follow-on trainings, while showing some signs of
78

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 79 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
improvement, still demonstrate a lack of understanding of the adult learning process and do little to support understanding or compliance with the Consent Decree. While not in response to a specific question, comments were made that the VIPD command staff did not appear to be actively championing the Consent Decree, either through the training venue or day to day actions. This all speaks volumes for the need to comprehensively re-assess the content, construction, and delivery of training relative to the Consent Decree, at the same time suggesting a review and renewal would most probably be needed for VIPD training across the board. The results of this area of inquiry produced few surprises. The issues have been catalogued by the IMT repeatedly as principal impediments to compliance.
Remedial Training. Many of the respondents noted that they have used remedial training to correct behavior and resolve complaints. While they have received correspondence that an officer involved did attend, and in some cases a notation that he/she completed the training successfully, there was little further discussion about officer conduct during the training or specific observations of behavior during that training by the training staff. Supervisors would like a little more observational feedback from the training staff to help them continue with officer counseling or training at the unit level. This should contribute to better outcomes with regard to a number of paragraph compliance intents and requirements, no more important than64f (currently In Compliance). The response to this set of questions also suggests the presence of supervisory commitment and desire to assist and coach staff more productively. This needs to be recognized and built on by VIPD command and management.
EIP. Some of the issues noted during the Early Intervention Program interview portion are continuations from other survey categories, but above all the alert system and its impact on officers was the subject of many comments. While most feel the system is operating to the department’s advantage and helps supervisors to manage employees, they also feel it needs corrections to make it more fair. The major complaint is described as arbitrary inclusion of all instances when an officer’s name appears in a case report as a flag. This triggers alerts for officers when the number of flags increases, yet in most cases the officers being "alerted" have
79

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 80 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
not been the subject of the complaint, or if they were, the complaint is resolved as unfounded or the officer’s action justified. Example: Two officers are in a car and one gives traffic citation, while the other has no interaction with the citizen. A citizen complains about the behavior of one officer yet both officers get included in the case and both end up getting flagged. Almost all respondents feel this is unfair and that the system should be modified.
While they are concerned with the way alerts are handled, the system is generally good and an improvement in VIPD operations. Some feel part of the problem is due to upper management that has done little to champion the system and, from the respondents’ perspectives, use it against officers. This management behavior appears in other categories also and seems to further indicate at least a need for the more active involvement of management with officers, at roll calls and training, for example, to talk about the Consent Decree, how it works, and how it can improve the VIPD in the long term. Increased engagement, honestly and professionally conducted, should help. The issue of organizational fairness, part of the legitimacy discussion, is very current in policing today. Its potential for Consent Decree success are worth pursuing. If officers believe the EIP Program is fair and management is professionally even-handed, buy-in may be enhanced. Accordingly, we recommend a VIPD dialogue to discuss the Alert System protocols.
Disciplinary Matrix. Also displaying consistency across the interviewee base is a strong dislike for the construction of the current disciplinary matrix and how it is used. Comments range from "throw it out and start over" to "it makes no sense when a serious offense gets a lesser penalty than a less serious offense." Consistently, interviewers feel it is "too harsh." Participants think that management does not administer discipline fairly. They tend to "issue lower penalties or avoid discipline all together" for certain members of the force. They are not opposed they say to fair and impartial discipline based upon a rational matrix. This suggests that the VIPD needs to return to the disciplinary matrix and rethink it from the ground up. The IMT has, in the past, supplied some sample matrixes for VIPD review and can do so again if requested. For the
80

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 81 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
record, Paragraph 70 of the Consent Decree, the Disciplinary Matrix, has been given Substantial Compliance status.
Promotional Process. The recent promotional process is another area that receives common criticism, which ranges from the content of the exam to the final announcement of the scores and subsequent promotions from the list. From the comments it appears that the process may not have been sufficiently thought out, may not have followed question development based on VIPD operations and policy, did not seem to indicate a validation process that centered on both construct and content validity. It was often described as a "standard, off the shelf test from the mainland." Other issues raised included limited availability of study material (one set of books for a district for 60 days before the test), inability of officers to review the test and their scores (not allowed by VIPD management), the length of time it took to release the scores, over six months. Some stated they knew for sure that the scores had been sent by the mainland contractor to VIPD HR within two weeks. Some feel that the promotions made from the list reflected inside preference. Finally, many feel the test does not select out the best candidates for promotion but rather "the ones who do well on test." In summary, the process is considered a failure (one subject rated it a "zero") that has done little to either instill confidence among supervisory or mid-management personnel in process or in the command staff. While promotions are not directly keyed to the Consent Decree, they do impact morale and professional development, both of which have a direct impact on compliance with the Consent Decree.
Preponderance of Evidence. There is wide spread disparity in respondents’ ability to articulate a definition for "preponderance of evidence" as used in administrative (civil) hearings and case investigation. When prompted, many were able to respond with "50+1" but were, in many cases, unable to describe its application. A similar disparity of understanding or identification of legal concepts surfaced from questions regarding the classroom training on the decision to utilize deadly force compared to the simulator training environment. This possible disconnect between the two, as well as with the concept, is at the heart of an IMT request last fall for the department to investigate whether such a disconnect does exist or has existed. To date, the IMT has not
81

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 82 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
received the results of that inquiry. The comments from the survey respondents suggest that such an inquiry should be conducted by the VIPD Audit and Inspection Unit.
Implications & Recommendations.
The degree to which the perceptions of those interviewed represent factual and objectively provable realities in the VIPD environment and which they do not is important. Equally important are the perceptions themselves. They have consequences for how the VIPD’s supervisory cadre commits to and conducts Consent Decree values and operations. Management reaction to the perceptions is critical going forward. It would be most wise for the new leadership of the VIPD to consider the perceptions as realities to those who hold them and to react appropriately and dispassionately where and when to do so is likely to accelerate compliance and construct a cultural/organizational environment for compliance sustainability in the future. Reacting litigiously would be self-defeating, culturally.
IMT culture analysis efforts have only just begun. While still preliminary, we were not surprised by anything encountered during our first set of interviews, but did come away with better insight in several areas. We feel very pleased to have engaged this pivotal cadre of stakeholders and give them a voice in the measurement and assessment process. We appreciate their candor.
Several observations stand out. We did not sense fundamental hostility toward the Consent Decree purposes and requirements. There are, to be sure, a range of frustrations and irritations and a cluster of what we call "cultural dissatisfiers," perceptions/realities that absolutely must be addressed is some manner. These include fairness considerations including the Disciplinary Matrix construction and application and the Alert System protocols. Beyond fairness, results of discipline efforts and number of alerts are measures of VIPD performance and behavior, including quality of policing delivered to the community. Absence of immediate alterations to these dissatisfies would constitute an opportunity lost for Consent Decree compliance.
82

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 83 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
Absolutely central to compliance progress and sustainability are the resource issues – the workload and "we don’t have enough sergeants" concerns of supervisors. These questions have to be answered. We are encouraged that the Territory is contracting with a consulting firm to get the answers. Having said this much, the IMT urges the Commissioner and his staff to consider the following actions for priority attention:
■ Engage supervisors in an examination of their primary concerns. ■ Concentrate mutual attention on the primary dissatisfiers, the disciplinary
process, including the Matrix, the Alert System, and citizen complaint "repeaters." ■ Get the answers to the "how many sergeants" question. ■ Continue to professionalize training practices.
83

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 84 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
APPENDICES
84

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 85 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
85

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 86 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
86

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 87 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
87

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 88 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
88

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 89 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
89

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 90 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
90

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 91 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
91

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 92 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
92

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 93 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
93

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 94 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
94

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 95 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
95

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 96 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
96

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 97 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
97

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 98 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
98

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 99 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
99

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 100 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
100

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 101 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
101

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 102 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
102

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 103 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
103

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 104 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
104

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 105 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
105

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 106 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
106

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 107 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
107

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 108 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
108

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 109 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
109

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 110 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
110

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 111 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
111

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 112 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
112

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 113 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
113

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 114 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
114

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 115 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
115

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 116 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
116

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 117 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
117

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 118 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
118

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 150 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 119 of 119
First Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Island Police Department
119

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 1 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
SECOND QUARTERLY REPORT OF 2015 FROM THE
INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT
CHARLES A. GRUBER CONSULTING INC. INDEPENDENT MONITOR www.imt-policemonitor.org (August 24, 2015)
1

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 2 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
INDEPENDENT MONITORING TEAM
Independent Monitor Chief Charles A. Gruber
Elgin, Illinois Police Department (retired)
Police Practices Experts Superintendent Ann Marie Doherty
Boston, Massachusetts Police Department (retired) Chief Robert L. Stewart
Ormond Beach, Florida Police Department (retired)
CAG Staff & Consultants Jerome A. Needle, Project Manager
Director of Programs & Research, International Association of Chiefs of Police (retired) Palmer D. Wilson, Technical Manager Lieutenant, Commander, Office of Audits & Inspections, Montgomery County, Maryland Department of Police (retired) Leon A. Casey, Sr., Field Coordinator Resident Agent in Charge, U.S. Customs Service (retired)
CHARLES A. GRUBER CONSULTING INC. INDEPENDENT MONITOR www.imt-policemonitor.org
2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 3 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………………………4 I. THE SECOND QUARTER: INCREMENTAL PROGRESS …...………………..…….6 II. COMPLIANCE STATUS: OVERVIEW ..……………………………………….….…9 III. COMPLIANCE STATUS: DETAIL ……………………………………………….....19 IV. VIPD AUDITING PERFORMANCE……………………………………………..…...69 V. IMT USE OF FORCE CASE REVIEW…………………………………………….…79 VI. IMT TRAINING AUDITS.……………….…………………………………………...85 VII. IMT COMPLIANCE SUPPORT – SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS…………………93 VIII. REINFORCING VIPD GOAL AND PARAGRAPH
DOCUMENTATION LINKING……………………………………………………..99 IX. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………………………..100 APPENDIX A – PARAGRAPHS CURRENTLY IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE OR NA STATUS AS OF END OF SECOND QUARTER 2015,,,…………………………...103 APPENDIX B – COURT ORDERED GOALS NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE STATUS REPORT AS OF END OF SECOND QUARTER 2015………….………………..130 APPENDIX C – VIPD POLICIES OVERDUE FOR REVIEW CHECKLIST………………136 APPENDIX D – PARAGRAPH 100 SUB-PARAGRAPH LINKAGE TO ORIGINAL PARAGRAPHS………………………………………………………………….142
3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 4 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
"Not one paragraph has been brought into Substantial Compliance since August, 2014, a nine month period," was the principal finding reported in the IMT’s First Quarterly Report, 2015, submission. Second Quarter efforts by the VIPD have not altered the compliance bottom-line materially. Once again, not one Consent Decree paragraph has been brought to Substantial Compliance status. The VIPD has been more successful than in previous quarters in complying with Court-approved initiatives, meeting nine of them this Quarter. However, none of these were of sufficient impact to change compliance status. We regard compliance progress as incremental, simply inching forward.
On the positive side, the VIPD continues to strengthen the compliance programming infrastructure. In addition to the data analysts hired in recent months, a Compliance Manager and a new Compliance Coordinator are now in place. The IMT will be working with both on orientation and technical matters prior to the end of this Quarter. We have evidence of renewed/reemphasized accountability for the Consent Decree-specific performance requirements by the St. Thomas Acting Deputy Chief. Also, the Deputy Commissioner has declared his intent to initiate several moves which should upgrade the training function, both recruit and in-service.
Compliance Status
The VIPD has achieved Substantial Compliance for 31 paragraphs, 61% of substantive paragraphs. Twenty (20) paragraphs, 39% are not in Substantial Compliance. The Citizen Complaint Group is closest to completion with only two (2) paragraphs unmet. Training has a shortfall of four (4) Consent Decree paragraphs. The Management & Supervision Group has five (5) unmet goals and Use-of-Force continues to be the leading problem area with seven (7) paragraphs not yet in compliance (of a total of eleven [11]).
Overall, the VIPD has proposed to meet 91 compliance goals and initiatives – the Court-Ordered Goals. These are a combination of Consent Decree paragraph goals and initiatives (steps toward paragraph goals). As this Quarter closes, 29, (31%), of the original 91 have been met. Sixty-two
4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 5 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
(62) remain to be met, (69%). Many of the goals have promised completion dates in the future, a very substantial number in December, 2015, and a handful in June, 2016.
VIPD Accomplishments
It is noted that as of the date of this report, the IMT has not received the VIPD 2Q2015 Audit Report for comparison purposes. The 2Q2015 Status Report was received on August 18th just after publication of the draft of this report.
IMT Monitoring & Compliance Support
The IMT was able to accelerate monitoring and compliance support (technical assistance) activity measurably in the Second Quarter, due in large part to the more settled VIPD organizational climate, following several transition quarters. Consent Decree-specific use-offorce practices were heavily monitored, as were training operations and the Early Intervention process. Policy review and update work, a collaboration among all Parties, was extensive. The IMT tailored and donated two special software applications, the VIPD Written Directive System and the Court Goals Monitoring System. These technologies can and should contribute positively to future compliance performance. Last, we worked with the VIPD Audit Unit to advance Metrics-Centered Auditing and comprehensive use-of-force baseline description and measurement.
Priority Recommendation
While this report itemizes a broad range of recommendations, many reinforcing those made repetitively in recent quarters, we single out for attention here, one with special significance for VIPD compliance operations and performance. The IMT strongly suggests that the Parties revisit, with the Court, the calendar proposed earlier which presented a process for collaborating on goals setting--language, compliance criteria, and target dates, immediately at the start of each new Quarter.
5

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 6 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
I. THE SECOND QUARTER: INCREMENTAL PROGRESS
Our last Quarterly, filed on May 24, 2015, stated that, "Not one paragraph has been brought into Substantial Compliance since August 2014, a nine months period." The Report noted the presence of a series of positive indicators including a shift in leadership style, compliance staff augmentation, a harder focus on senior command responsibility and accountability. Our expectations for subsequent quarters were summarized as follows: "The IMT regards First Quarter activity and production, both level/intensity and focus, as favorable indicators of mounting capacity in the VIPD to meet the Court’s expectations." During the past three months, the Second Quarter, VIPD progress is regarded by the IMT as "incremental." They have not, , brought one Consent Decree paragraph or subparagraph into Substantial Compliance. They have been marginally more successful than in previous Quarters in complying with Court Ordered Goals, nine of them in the judgment of the IMT, however 62 remain non-compliant. The VIPD compliance effort is "simply inching forward." However, the IMT is pleased to report we are comfortable with internal focus and priority on Consent Decree compliance, activity levels, and the VIPD-IMT collaboration climate. Not without concerns, these aspects of the compliance environment are much improved compared to a year ago and continue to bode well for the future. We acknowledge the commitment of the VIPD’s top leadership and thank them for their hard work this quarter.
A. IMT Monitoring & Technical Assistance Overview
With several VIPD transition Quarters now behind, and a more settled VIPD organizational environment established, the IMT was able to materially accelerate monitoring and technical assistance work during Quarter Two. We conducted three onsite visits, in addition to on-going on-site monitoring work by our VI-resident professional. These entailed focused audits and technical assistance considerations referenced next and later in this Report.
6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 7 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
The IMT worked with the VIPD and the DOJ on evaluation, updating, and finalizing the Force Investigation Team Policy (3.15); Reporting, Investigation, & Review of Force (3.2); the Use of Force Review Board (3.3). Considerable work was also done on the draft EIP Risk Management Protocol with several exchanges between the VIPD, DOJ and the IMT. It is expected that the EIP protocol would be completed and training on these policies will be conducted during the next quarter.
The IMT, in response to a request from the VIPD, sourced information on Special Event Planning from the U.S. Park Police (which as an organization handles more special events than any other police department in the U.S.), as well as manual from COPS, FEMA, and the District of Columbia Government that cover all aspects of the special event planning process and operational control.
We examined and evaluated three (3) Compliance Audits, for the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2014 and the First Quarter of 2015. This was followed up, on-site, with the VIPD’s Interim Audit Unit Commander to gain agreement and common understanding on how to move future audits forward, methodologically, one of the IMT’s top priorities, Metrics-Centered Auditing and, similarly, to ignite VIPD executive level attention to annual Response to Resistance Analysis Report (STX Only) (“RRR”) which should be the platform for Use of Force Outcome Measurement. Related, we initiated, separately, a data request to construct a 5-year longitudinal, baseline to examine force and related complaints. We will report more on that effort in the upcoming quarter.
IMT other audits and monitoring work focused on Blue Team practices; use of force review practices by and capacity of the Chief and Deputy of Police on St. Croix; training quality, most notably learning objectives, instructional designs, and lingering Power DMS issues; and policy update control practices.
The IMT designed, demonstrated on-site and then donated for VIPD use, two special software applications, one to monitor and control mandatory scheduled review of VIPD
7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 8 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
written policies and the second to enable the VIPD to define the document steps required to achieve goal and paragraph compliance. This compliance work positions the VIPD to work toward compliance in a more organized and cost-effective fashion utilizing the provided software. The protocols employed to conduct the foregoing activities, as well as findings and recommendations are reported on below, in separate treatments and/or within the Status Compliance sections. Finally, we wish to report and acknowledge most gratefully the VIPD’s expressed willingness to work with us to address areas of importance, upgrading training curriculum and instructional design practices and developing a better system to connect forwarded documentation to Consent Decree paragraphs. Each of these intents was discussed during our July Monthly conference call (August 7, 2015). B. VIPD Progress The IMT had not received the VIPD Status Report at the time of filing this quarter’s report.
8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 9 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
II. COMPLIANCE STATUS: OVERVIEW The following 8 charts document Paragraph Status at the end of the Second Quarter of 2015. Compared to Quarter One, 2015, and Quarters Three and Four, 2014, there has been no change at all with regard to Overall Status (Chart 1), and therefore with regard to Overall Compliance by Paragraph Groups (Charts 4-8). Overall Status The VIPD has achieved Substantial Compliance for 31 paragraphs. These 31 paragraphs are detailed in Appendix A to this report. Twenty paragraphs (20) are not yet in Substantial Compliance. Section III, Compliance Status Detail, provides more detail on compliance by these paragraphs. Compliance/Non-Compliance patterns vary among Consent Decree paragraph groupings. Charts 4-8 show that three groupings have a majority of paragraphs in Substantial Compliance: Citizen Complaints, 15 of 17, Management & Supervision, 7 of 12, Training, 5 of 9, two of these reflect a bare majority. The Use of Force group remains at only 4 of 11 paragraphs in Substantial Compliance.
9

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 10 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
CHART 1
10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 11 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
CHART 2
CHART 3
11

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 12 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
CHART 4
CHART 5
12

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 13 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
CHART 6
CHART 7
13

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 14 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
CHART 8
IMT Compliance Concerns Early Intervention Process As IMT has previously reported for the past several quarters, for the EIP there has been limited, ineffective supervisory/managerial response to alerts forwarded. This is allowing employees who may be starting to exhibit signs of problematic behavior to continue the same behavior resulting in additional citizen complaints and/or uses of force. During the 4th Quarter 2014, IMT was informed that there were 97 alerts forwarded during 2014. However, the VIPD could not immediately provide a status update other than a statement that very few had been addressed appropriately. This seems to indicate a VIPD supervisory issue which continues in the current quarter. During this quarter (as discussed later under the Paragraph 44 status section), the VIPD has initiated formal charges for lack of appropriate EIP action against 2 supervisors and 1 commander.
14

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 15 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
During the last quarter, the VIPD completed additional supervisory training on EIP Action Plans and Assessment on STT and STX. During this quarter, a revised EIP policy was developed by the VIPD and reviewed by DOJ and the IMT. That policy is currently in the final stages and the IMT is holding the goal for a new policy as pending while the VIPD continues to have the policy signed, published and distributed, and then officers retrained on the revised policy, during the upcoming quarter.
VIPD Policy Review
As noted last quarter, in the fall of 2014 the IMT determined that a significant number of VIPD policies had not been reviewed in accordance with the schedule posted for and recorded on each policy. Many of these policies cover critical Consent Decree specific required operating practices. Policy review is mandated by Paragraph 31. Frequency of review (the schedule) is not specific in the Consent Decree; however it is guided by the VIPD’s policy which calls for review of every high risk policy, every year, which is consistent with policing practices for such policies.
When policy review mandate was brought to the attention of the VIPD compliance leaders by the IMT, we were assured that review would begin without delay and we would see results shortly after the VIPD Policy Committee completed its review and recommendation work. The review and recommendation process entails evaluation by both the IMT and DOJ, which add time to final update and publication of policy revisions. With the change in leadership, it was expected that some delays would have occurred in moving these reviews forward by the VIPD, however during the current reporting period; this progress has churned to a halt, with several explanations being given. Depending on the source of the explanations, one either hears that the Policy Committee never has its full complement attend the meetings to conduct business” or at the other extreme that “there are not resources available to get the revised policies typed.” Whatever the case may be, the review process appears stagnated and the IMT has not been able to get reliable information as to where the process stands. When asked about specific policies, the response is
15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 16 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
usually “we will have to check on that” and there has been no formal reporting back to the IMT on the status of all policies. Upon IMT inquiry on progress made, in late February 2015, the IMT was told that a special committee had been formed to speed up review. Policies were also reformatted prior to being sent to the Policy Committee. The policies were also under review by the new police administration.
On March 16, 2015, the Deputy Commissioner reinforced the priority of review and incorporated District supervisors into the policy redevelopment process – a technically and culturally positive initiative in our view. "To facilitate an orderly and effective review, Supervisors in each District are required to conduct roll call training or discussions on identified policies." (Memorandum, March 16, 2015.) Ten (10) Use of Force policies were identified for review:
● 3.1 Use of Force ● 3.4 Firearms Policy ● 3.5 Impact Weapons ● 3.6 Electronic Control Weapon ● 3.7 OC Spray ● 3.8 Off-Duty Policy ● 3.9 Vehicle Pursuit Policy ● 3.10 Spike Strip ● 3.12 Tactical Operations ● 3.13 Sniper Operations
Documentation received from the VIPD for this review consisted of attendance rosters from some type of group review done in unit roll call settings. There were limited comments noted, but some leaders indicated the time allocated to accomplish this task “diminished the response.” Further the documentation provided did not indicate what was to be or was done with these limited suggestions. A March 24, 2015 summary document, apparently prepared by a supervisor, listed suggestions from their personnel. Other documents suggested that this review was possibly
16

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 17 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
perceived as training and a review of the policies was conducted. In summary, field personnel were provided an opportunity to comment on the Consent Decree policies, but in a somewhat reduced time frame. More importantly, the documentation does not indicate an organized and documented headquarters level review of these important policies. During the April, 2015 IMTVIPD Monthly Meeting, it was learned that the Special Committee had essentially completed its review and that the formatting was waiting for location of an editable copy of the documents, because policies were in Adobe PDF format. The IMT provided Technical Assistance and converted all of the policies to Word format the day after the Monthly Meeting and sent them to the VIPD.
During office visits on May 11-12, 2015, the IMT learned that despite conversion assistance to the VIPD, no further formatting or review work had been done on the noted policies by the VIPD staff. This was confirmed during the May 13, 2015 Work Session by both the Policy Review Committee chair and the senior staff person responsible for the review process. The IMT discussed the criticality of this situation and its potential for removing a paragraph from compliance. The Deputy Commissioner assured us that he would locate and detail appropriate staff to complete this process expeditiously.
Despite inquires and the offer of free software to manage the review and development of written directive process (which was turned down in favor of the Power DMS options [see discussion in Section VII for more detail on this]). The IMT monitors status of all VIPD policies, directives, and SOPs within its data system and based on a printout dated 08/12/15, a total of 20 policies remain overdue for review some as much as 1232 days overdue. This printout can be viewed as Appendix C to this report. Policies that show an overdue day period in excess of 132 days result from no copy of the policy being on file with the IMT. The IMT notes here its concern that the promised review be completed as soon as possible and that VIPD management take whatever steps are necessary to expedite the review (if that remains an issue) and the distribution for review by the IMT and DOJ, of all remaining out of date policies, directives, and SOPs. The IMT further expresses its concern that while directives are an important tool for quickly
17

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 18 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
implementing an improvement to a policy, once that policy has been approved and implemented, those associated directives should be canceled and removed from circulation. Further, the VIPD should comply with all established schedules and establish appropriate suspense systems to ensure that future reviews and publication of updated policies is responsive to both the demands of the Consent Decree and contemporary standards for policy development and professional policing. In addition the recommendations noted in Section VII, to this report, should also be strongly considered by the VIPD in order to improve its management of the entire written directive system. The IMT stands ready to assist in any way with this urgent need.
On August 18, 2015, a day after the draft IMT report was provided to the parties for comment, the VIPD provided to the IMT and DOJ five force-related policies (as noted below) that had been revised as a result of annual reviews.
3.1 Use of Force 3.4 Firearms 3.5 Impact Weapons 3.6 Electronic Control Weapons 3.8 Off Duty Official Action The IMT has scheduled reviews of these policies during the first week of September.
18

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 19 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

III. COMPLIANCE STATUS: DETAIL

A. Compliance Status as of August 21, 2015
Table 1, below, depicts those paragraphs that were in Substantial Compliance (SC) on August 21, 2015:

Paragraphs in Compliance as of August 21, 2015 – Table 1

31

39

40

41

42

43

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

61

62

63

64

65

66

70

75

76

78

79

80

No additional paragraphs came into compliance during the 2nd Quarter 2015 reporting period. Detail of these paragraphs can be found in Appendix A to this report.

B. Court Ordered Compliance Goals

Nine court ordered goals came into compliance during 2Q2015. These goals were:

Due July 22, 2015; filed 07/23/15

Goal

IMT Number IMT Response

1. Identify training for Force Investigation Team.

UOFS-3

Completed

2. Creation of a standardize(d) protocol to ensure proper CC17

Pending

dissemination of Directives and other protocols Territory

Wide; Timeliness of cases.

3. Submit directive to the Policy Committee to review

CC20

Completed

policy 7.3 and incorporate directive into policy.

Note: The IMT Goal Number is used by the IMT to further identify the VIPD goals, many

of which either repeat themselves or are similar in wording.

Due August 1, 2015; filed 08/04/15 Goal 1. Approval of Force Review Board Policy. 2. Development of Force Investigation Team (FIT) Policy
19

IMT Number IMT Response UOF-D, UOFS6 Completed UOF-G, UOFS9 Completed

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 20 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

3. Approval of Force Investigation Team Policy

UOFS1

Completed

4. Train Reviewing personnel on use of Checklist UOF3

Completed

5. Complete training for Forensic CSI Staff on creating officer involved shooting sketches and trajectory. 6. Review EIP protocol to incorporate previously issued directive in policy. 7. SOP Development for Advisory Committee

UOF5
M&S 15 TRNG 22

Completed
Completed (1) Completed (1)

(1) With reservations

Additional information regarding the status of these initiatives is found in Section III, Table

3. A total of 62 court ordered goals remain non-compliant

During the 1st, 2d, 3rd, 4th, Quarters 2014 and the 1st and 2nd Quarters 2015, the VIPD proposed compliance with numerous paragraphs. The Court, in its subsequent summary orders (with the exception of the 3rd Quarter where the proposed goals appear to be orally accepted), ordered that the paragraphs listed in Table 2 below come into compliance by the Quarter reporting dates of 5/23/14, 8/15/14, 11/21/14, 2/20/2015, 5/15/2015, and 08/21/15. Compliance requirement details for those goal focused sub-paragraphs are shown in Appendix B to this report. The Summary Table displays all goals, regardless of status, across the five court orders. The column to the far right shows the status of each of these paragraph grouped goal sets. It should be noted that in many cases the goals reflect the paragraphs across quarters, many of which remain Not in Substantial Compliance.

20

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 21 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Court Ordered Paragraph Related Goals Summary - Table 2
21

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 22 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
In an order dated 06/09/15, issued subsequent to the 1Q2015 Evidentiary Hearing, the Court directed the VIPD to “submit its schedule for achieving its long‐term goals related to full compliance with the Consent Decree; provided that such submission shall include, but not be limited to, the deadlines by which the Virgin Islands intends to achieve substantial compliance with respect to the following general areas of the Consent Decree: use of force; training; management and supervision; and citizen complaints “ and further ordered “for each quarter in which it failed, or in which it fails to meet its quarterly goals (i.e., where there is a quarterly deficiency) the Virgin Islands shall submit a new deadline by which it intends to accomplish those previously set quarterly goals no later than seven (7) days after the entry of this order for any quarterly deficiencies that pre‐date this order; and not later than seven (7) days after the end of a given quarter for any quarterly deficiencies that arise after the entry date of this order; provided that, in any event, such new deadlines shall not coincide with, nor delay, any prospective deadlines set for completion of future quarterly goals.” The VIPD responded with a plan for the non‐compliant goals and those dates are reflected in Table 3, below. It should be noted that both Table 2 and Table 3 reflect some goals not addressed by the VIPD, yet remain unmet in the IMT records.
In addition to the referenced filings, and the paragraphs listed above, in its filing of quarterly goals for the 3rd and 4th Quarters of 2014 and 1st and 2nd Quarters of 2015, the VIPD agreed to come into compliance with the several initiatives and or goals. While, for the most part, these initiatives/goals were not associated with a paragraph, the IMT has associated them (if applicable) with a paragraph and reports their status below or within the particular paragraph. In addition, after 1Q2015 Evidentiary Hearing, the VIPD was ordered to establish a completion date for each of the outstanding and non-completed initiatives or goals. These dates have been inserted in the chart under the Goal/Revised Date” column. In the VIPD’s filing, dated 06/16/15, where a new completion date was not addressed the words “None Listed” appears instead of a date. A detail table of these initiatives/goals is shown in Table 3, below.
22

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 23 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

Additional Court Ordered Initiatives or Goals Summary – Table 3

Goal/ Text Revised Date

Status/ Links

Comment

VIPD Additional Initiatives or Goals, Not Listed in Table 2 Due 11/29/14

UOF-A Edit and improve new Completed Three templates have been developed by the Use of

force reporting

1Q2015

Force Working Group. These include a Witness

templates

Statement, an Officer Statement (RRR), and a

Supervisory Investigation. They were recently field

tested on St. Croix and some updates were made to

the final versions. IMT has provided technical

assistance to the Working Group throughout the

development of these templates.

UOF-B Issue directive for

Completed The directive has been developed and signed by the

template implementation 1Q2015

Commissioner. Follow-up use of force template

training conducted in the St. Thomas /St. John

District during the week of March 16, 2015. This is

pursuant to Quarterly goals for the use of force work

group for the reporting quarter ending May 15, 2015;

the template directive was provided to the IMT on

May 15, 2015.

UOF-C Training and implement Completed Supervisors and Officers on St. Croix were trained by

templates

1Q2015

Captain Duggan during the period 11/25/14 and

11/26/14, while Supervisors on St. Thomas and St,

John were trained on 12/11/14. St. Croix officers

were trained by the Academy staff on 12/1/14-

12/5/14. The remaining officers on St. Thomas/St.

John and anyone, who missed the previously

scheduled training, are scheduled for that training, conducted by Sergeant Marsh, on March 16th and 18th 2015 on St. Thomas. Still some stragglers

remain and VIPD asserts they will train them during

2Q2015. The stragglers were trained during

2Q2015..

UOF-D Approval of Force

Completed Policy was reviewed, commented on by DOJ and

08/01/15 Review Board Policy

08/04/15 IMT, and final version signed by the Commissioner

on 08/01/15.

UOF-E Identify personnel for

Completed Same as UOFS-7 page 2; positions rather than

Force Review Board

1Q2015

people have been identified in the policy and

whoever fills the position will be on the board; This

process will be underway IMT has provided technical

assistance and materials to aid the VIPD with this

process. Referenced policy has been approved and

signed by the VIPD.

UOF-F Identify training for

Pending; Same as UOFS-8; Again, the policy has been

07/22/15 Force Review Board

approved with a September 1, 2015 effective date.

personnel

IMT has provided technical assistance and materials

to aid the VIPD with this process. Some training has

been provided by Northwestern University (FIT

related) and additional training was scheduled to be

23

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 24 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

Goal/ Text

Status/ Comment

Revised Date

Links

delivered by a FBINA sourced team for the first week

of 3Q2015, however impending weather conditions

required a reschedule. The IMT has requested

curriculum materials but not yet received what was

requested and is holding this goal pending receipt

and resulting review of those materials.

UOF-G Develop Force

Completed Same as UOFS-9; . Policy was reviewed,

08/01/15 Investigations Team

08/04/15 commented on by DOJ and IMT, and final version

(FIT) policy

signed by the Commissioner on 08/01/15.

VIPD Additional Initiatives or Goals, Not Listed in Table 2 Due 02/20/15

UOFS1 Approval of Force

Completed See UOF-G

08/01/15 Investigation Team

08/04/15 Policy was reviewed, commented on by DOJ and

Policy

IMT, and final version signed by the Commissioner

on 08/01/15.

UOFS2 Identify personnel for

Completed IA personnel have been trained to investigate FIT

Force Investigation

1Q2015

level 1 cases (see UOF-F); they conduct parallel

Team (FIT).

investigations; IAB also reviews the file for

completeness from the CID report. Additional training

wais completed for Forensic personnel at

Northwestern University and was completed during

this quarter

UOFS3 Identify training &

Completed Training was scheduled to be delivered by a FBINA

07/22/15 funding for Force

07/23/15 sourced team for the first week of 3Q2015, however

Investigation Team

impending weather conditions required a reschedule.

The IMT has requested curriculum materials but not

yet received what was requested and is holding this

goal pending receipt and resulting review of those

materials..IMT had some concerns with the proposed

training and will work with the VPD to ensure

adequate and responsive training to the needs of the

Force Review Board is delivered.

UOFS4 Issue Directive for

Completed Same goal and comment as UOF-B

template implementation 1Q2015

UOFS5 Train and implement

Completed Same goal and comment as UOF-C

templates

1Q2015

UOFS6 Approval of Force

Completed Same goal and comment as UOF-D

08/01/15 Review Board Policy

08/04/15 Policy was reviewed, commented on by DOJ and

IMT, and final version signed by the Commissioner

on 08/01/15.

UOFS7 Identify personnel for

Completed Same goal and comment as UOF-E

Force Review Board

1Q2015

UOFS8 Identify training for

Pending Same goal and comment as UOF-F

12/18/15 Force Review Board

Personnel

UOFS9 Develop Force

Completed Same goal and comment as UOF-G

08/01/15 Investigation Team

08/04/15 Policy was reviewed, commented on by DOJ and

policy

IMT, and final version signed by the Commissioner

on 08/01/15.

24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 25 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

Goal/ Text

Status/ Comment

Revised Date

Links

VIPD Additional Initiatives or Goals, Not Listed in Table 2 Due 05/15/15

UOF1 Development of a UOF Completed Checklist for VIPD reviewers has been developed

Investigation Reviewer's 1Q2015

and commissioner’s directive for implementation has

Checklist.

been signed and issued. Training was accomplished

during 2Q2015

UOF2 Issue Commissioner's Completed The template directive was provided May 15, 2015 to

Directive for use of

1Q2015

the IMT and signed by the Commissioner. IMT

Reviewer's Checklist

continues to monitor impact of the checklist.

UOF3 Train Reviewing

Completed Supervisory personnel have received training and

08/01/15 personnel on use of

08/04/15 VIPD attests that 98% of all supervisory personnel

Checklist

have been trained. The IMT will test compliance in

the next quarter by testing supervisors for

compliance with the aforementioned training.

UOF4 Issue Commissioner's Completed Directive completed and pending approval; The

Directive mandating

1Q2015

template directive was provided May 15, 2015 to the

Forensic personnel to

IMT and signed by the Commissioner Pending full

comply with work

implementation status review by the IMT in 3Q2015.

product time limits for

Level 1 Force

Investigations.

UOF5 Complete training for

Completed Officers attended training at Northwestern Traffic

08/01/15 Forensic CSI staff on

08/04/15 Institute and received certificates. IMT will assess

creating officer involved

during compliance review of serious use of force

shooting sketches and

investigations the quality of their reports. Through

trajectory

end of 2Q2015 no incidents arose that required

investigation. IMT will review any such cases as they

arise and determine impact of the training.

UOF6 Continue training for all Completed This is make-up training for those who missed last

officers on UOF

1Q2015

Fall and March 2015 training; Training on the

Reporting templates

templates was completed during 2Q2015.

TRNG22 Reorganize the Training Pending Pending review of directive

Advisory Committee.;

Paragraph 74g

TRNG23 Create and implement Pending Pending review of Kirkpatrick training and

12/18/15 new protocol for

implications for adoption of components by the VIPD

monitoring and

evaluating UOF training;

Paragraph 73a

TRNG24 SOP Development for Completed 2Q2014 While the VIPD has in fact published a

08/01/15 Advisory Committee;

07/23/15 revised version of this SOP, the IMT continues to

Paragraph 74g

have concerns regarding its content and impact on

the committee’s activities, which are discussed in this

report’s body at referenced paragraph.

TRNG25 Revise and implement Pending IMT reviewed the submitted directive and finds it did

12/18/15 Roll Call Policy;

not follow IMT recommendations and needs further

Paragraph 74e

refinement and possible separation into two or more

separate directives. IMT will work with the Training

Division Director to expedite the corrections.

25

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 26 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

Goal/ Revised Date TRNG26 12/18/15 TRNG27 M&S7 M&S8
M&S9
M&S10 M&S11

Text
Development of the Kirkpatrick method of evaluating training; Paragraph 73a Conduct the first semiannual meeting and analysis by April 20, 2015 Complete Familiarization training on Disciplinary Flow chart to all Commanders by March 30, 2015; Paragraph 72 Conduct inspections monthly to ensure compliance with the disciplinary matrix and to ensure non-disciplinary corrective action is recommended consistently when applicable with disciplinary actions. Paragraph 72 Develop a workable database to track OC canisters issued to officers. Conduct monthly inspections to ensure compliance; Paragraph 60c
Revisit the implementation of an MOA between the VIPD/VIAG with new administration; Paragraph 60h Finalize MOA with VITEMA on information sharing to facilitate the requirements of Paragraph 60 with the goal of moving it into compliance

Status/ Links Pending; Completed 1Q2015 Completed 1Q2015 Completed 1Q2015
Completed 1Q2015
Completed 1Q2015
Pending

Comment
Initial training completed in 1Q2015r; deadline for completion extended by VIPD to 12/18/15 by the VIPD through court filing
This relates to Training Advisory Committee and Training Division to supply documentation for meeting in May 2015; Documentation was received.
VIPD advises did a flow chart on the disciplinary system; training done in both districts
The IMT receives monthly reports of audits performed regarding the matrix use compliance, which contain clear and cogent recommendations for improvement and corrections when errors or noncompliance is found. IMT recommends that VIPD management and VIPD Audit and Inspection Unit review and follow-up with the recommendations and issues reported in these reports.
Technically has reached goal of developing a workable database; but will not move sub-paragraph into compliance until IMT sees action or documentation on the inconsistencies. Inspection reports received monthly by IMT indicating monthly inspection compliance with the goal, however the VIPD should look toward a unified system that collects this data, now reported in multiple separate reports, in one document agency-wide. The recent report done to establish variance levels for the weight check provides an excellent format in listing STX personnel. VIPD provided IMT copies of SOPs from VIAG regarding notification to VIPD; while not a formal MOA, this addresses the CD concern. This goal completed 05/15/15.
MOA was completed 05/30/15, however the problem with pursuit activity recordation remains an IT issue and the VIPD continues to work with VITEMA to resolve it. The INT has established a cut-off date of end of 3Q2015 to resolves this issue prior to placing the VIPD in non-compliance with the associated paragraph. Completion of the required IT fixes to the

26

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 27 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

Goal/ Revised Date M&S12
M&S13 M&S14
M&S15 08/01/15 M&S16 CC17 07/22/15

Text
M&S will with the assistance of 911 create a code for vehicle pursuits and have all vehicles for VIPD listed at 911 so vehicle accidents involving police Vehicles can be track; Paragraph 60i VIPD will retrain supervisors on preparing the EIP action plans and assessment report. Conduct remedial training on the EIP process for Commanders, thereafter, conduct monthly inspections and hold those accountable for non-compliance with the EIP protocol; Paragraph 64
Revise EIP protocol to incorporate previously issued directives in the policy; Paragraph 60
Finalize the development of additional protocols for the Audit unit; Paragraph 69 Creation of a standardized protocol to ensure proper dissemination of Directives and other protocols Territory Wide; Paragraph 44 Timeliness of Cases

Status/ Links Pending
Completed 1Q2015 Completed 1Q2015
Completed 08/04/15. Pending
Pending

Comment
VITEMA software will bring this goal into compliance MOA completed during 2Q2015. Had meeting with VITEMA; problem is that software at STX allows for secondary entry of pursuit with a robbery etc; STT does not have a similar software function. While we recognize that VIPD continues to work with VITEMA to address this issue, IMT has not been provided/shown how to access pursuit listings territory-wide Acknowledge that VIPD reports providing vehicle listing to VITEMA See also M&S 11 above Completed on STT and STX;
Need documentation on attendance vetted to staffing lists. Review more inspections for conformance. Again, retraining accomplished; individuals have been/in process of discipline. Does not move subparagraph or paragraph into compliance; VIPD has hired two data analysts who can assist with this function. currently considering hiring individual to assist with assessments and action plans/ IMT receives periodic notification of such remedial training accomplished and continues to monitor during cases review where such was the determined remedial action. Draft received on 7/21/15 in which directive was incorporated. However, more changes need to be made; expect completion in 3Q2015, with subsequent approval, publication, and distribution effected to fully meet spirit of the goal. Draft Audit protocols and SOP pending VIPD review. IMT has not received SOP. Completed 05/12/15.
The protocol submitted to IMT is electronic or digital based (storage of the documents and signatures on receipt) responds to those officers with assigned laptops or office computers, thus facilitating operational access, it does not ensure proper dissemination of directives and protocols for personnel without assigned computers (laptops); further the current bound format of the policy manual (as referenced in VIPD Policy 1.3, Written Directive System (07/20/15) does not lend itself to inserting paper copies which would be required for maintenance of paper directives for personnel

27

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 28 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

Goal/ Text Revised Date

Status/ Links

Comment

without permanent access to assigned laptops upon

which electronic storage, distribution and on-line

operational referencing is based upon. IMT will work

with the VIPD to address this issue during 3Q2015.

CC18

Create email policy to

Completed Directive completed.

ensure officers and

1Q2015

supervisors monitor

email notifications on

Complaints/UOF/training

or other relevant

information; Paragraph

44

CC19

Revised the

Pending IMT needs documentation

None

Investigative Report

listed

format to capture

Commanders

recommendations to be

used Territory Wide;

Paragraph 58 Unit

Commanders

Responsibilities

CC20

Submit the directive to Completed Policy was updated with inclusion of the directive

07/22/15 the Policy Committee to 07/23/15 during the 2Q2015 reporting period.

revise policy 7.3 and

incorporate directive in

the policy; Paragraph 58

Unit Commanders

Responsibilities

CC21

Implement Citizen

Completed VIPD recently revised and implemented Citizen

Complaint Checklist for 1Q2015

Complaint Checklist. Directive was completed

use by investigators and

05/05/15.

reviewers to ensure all

investigations are within

standard.; Paragraph 58

Unit Commanders

Responsibilities

VIPD Additional Initiatives or Goals, Not Listed in Table 2 Due 08/21/15

2Q15-1 Authorize and contract Pending IMT is awaiting copies of the training schedule,

training for the Force

curriculum materials (including lesson plans, Power

Review Board

Points, handouts, etc), Course of Instruction with

performance objectives, and other training materials

for the course scheduled for late August 2015 IMT

notes progress by VIPD but not completed.

2Q15-2 Conduct training for the Pending Same as 2Q15-1

Force Investigation

Team

2Q15-3 Develop OC Spray

Pending The IMT has not been presented with this chart. We

Chart

have reviewed an audit by the VIPD and note that it

28

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 29 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

Goal/ Text Revised Date

Status/ Links

2Q15-4 IAPro Application Training

Pending

2Q15-5

Train investigators and reviewers on the Citizen Complaint Checklist

Pending

2Q15-6

Train investigators and reviewers on the Summary Investigation Report

Pending

Comment
accomplishes the objectives set forth in monitoring OC controls. The IMT notes that the audit did not include the whole territory. It was however a good first effort. On 8/11, VIPD provided IMT and DOJ with a roster of individuals that attended IAPro training on July 27. However, IMT is awaiting copies of the training schedule, curriculum materials (including lesson plans, Power Points, handouts, etc), Course of Instruction with performance objectives, and other training materials for the course delivered in July 2015. IMT needs such materials to help assess the quality of the instruction. Where possible. IMT will have VI resident team members attend VIPD scheduled training courses. IMT is awaiting copies of the training schedule, curriculum materials (including lesson plans, Power Points, handouts, etc.), Course of Instruction with performance objectives, and other training materials, including attendee rosters, for this course.. IMT is awaiting copies of the training schedule, curriculum materials (including lesson plans, Power Points, handouts, etc), Course of Instruction with performance objectives, and other training materials, including attendee rosters, for this course

The codes used in the first column (Goal/Revised Date) are those used by the IMT to track VIPD compliance with these goals within the MT data system. These codes were instituted as many of the goals had similar wording or were duplicative of others. See our discussion of the goal identification system in Section VII. Additionally, some of these initiatives are discussed in subsequent sections of this report, as noted.

C. Compliance Detail
The VIPD has achieved Substantial Compliance for 31 paragraphs. Twenty (20) remain in Not in Substantial Compliance status, with little or no activity during the current quarter.

● Paragraphs in Substantial Compliance at the end of the 2nd Quarter, 2015 are: 31, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 , 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 70, 75, 76, 78, 79 and 80.

29

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 30 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
(NOTE: Bolded/underlined paragraphs have training evaluated under paragraph 75 and implementation under paragraph 100)
 Paragraphs that attained Substantial Compliance at the end of Quarter Two, 2015: None.
● Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance: 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 44, 58, 59, 60, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 81, 100, 101.
The IMT issued a memorandum on November 13, 2014 that displays the linkage between paragraph 100 sub-paragraph compliance requirements or items (a-w) and their original location in another paragraph of the Consent Decree. This is included as Appendix D to this report.
D. Court Goals – Further Discussion
1. The Force Review Board
The Force Review Board, Policy 3.3 (Use of Force Review Board) was finalized, approved by DOJ and signed by the VIPD Commissioner with an effective date of 09/01/15. The selection of Board members is contained within the above policy and the VIPD is currently working on obtaining training for the members during the 3Q2015 reporting period. Development of training, a schedule for that training, and a vetting process for membership selection is expected during the 3Q2015.
2. The Force Investigation Team
The Force Investigation Team, Policy 3.15, was finalized and approved by DOJ and IMT during the 2Q2015 reporting period. The policy was signed by the Commissioner and has an effective date of 09/01/15. Training for the Force Investigation Team was split into components as there are a number of training programs that are required. One focusing on the forensic side (Forensic Reconstruction) was accomplished by sending existing members of the IAB to training conducted by Northwestern University during the period June 22-24, 2015/ Another, covering the operations of the FIT, is scheduled for the period August 24-28, 2015 and will be reported on during the 3Q2015 reporting period.
30

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 31 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
E. Paragraph and Goal Detail Review
The IMT reports on all paragraphs and sub-paragraphs proposed by the VIPD and accepted by the Court as quarterly goals. In addition, the IMT also reports on other paragraphs and sub-paragraphs that are Not in Substantial Compliance or Partial Compliance (sub-paragraphs only) as we feel they are important to progress toward Consent Decree compliance.
During the 2Q2015 reporting period there was no additional compliance activity by the VIPD over that reported for the 1Q2015 reporting period and thus no compliance status changes were made to either paragraphs or sub-paragraphs. The following section reflects that unchanged status. The Activity, Impediments and Recommendations for each of the paragraphs and related sub-paragraphs Not in Substantial Compliance remain the same for the 2Q2015 reporting period, and the below text is largely taken verbatim from the last report.
It is also noted that as of the date of this report, the IMT has not received the VIPD 2Q2015 Audit Report for comparison purposes. The 2Q2015 Status Report was received on August 18th just after publication of the draft of this report.
Paragraph 32, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD will require all uses of force to be documented in writing. The use of force report form will indicate each and every type of force that was used, and require the evaluation of each type of force. Use of force reports will include a narrative description of the events preceding the use of force, written by a supervisor or by the designated investigative unit. Use of force reports also will include the officer(s)’ narrative description of events and the officer(s)’ statement. Except in cases of use of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, the officer’s statement shall be audio- or videotaped.
Activity
31

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 32 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
During this reporting period the VIPD has continued its’ aggressive approach at revamping its internal review system to respond to known lapses in the force reporting, investigation and review process. They had previously (4th Quarter 2014) developed a 1) revised Officer Responding to Resistance template, 2) new Witness Officer Force template, 3) revised Supervisor Investigating Force template, and a directive from the commissioner implementing the templates. The force group leader Capt. Duggan executed training and tested the methodology for the implementation of the training and the validity of the templates. Additional tweaks to the products were detected and modifications resulted. Supervisors and Officers on both island have been trained on the templates, with any stragglers training in both the last and current reporting quarters. Capt. Duggan has been moved to the Audit unit and during this quarter an Audit Manager has been hired to assist with auditing process.
Continued training on the templates for officers and supervisors was to be scheduled for the VIPD during the quarter. Future audits in succeeding quarters will dictate if the templates have been successful. As an example during the past 5 Quarters Paragraph 32 c has seen the compliance numbers hover around 65 to 70 percent of all supervisors’ reviews. This trend continued through the 2Q2015 reporting period. This was built upon continuous improvements but still stagnated and fell well short of compliance approval. The templates were designed to attack this issue and others. Close observation of these numbers in future quarters will attest to the wisdom of providing this ongoing training.
Impediments to Compliance With regard to the template’s previously mentioned training and curriculum development, the close coordination between the Use of Force Working Group and the Training Division was deemed critical for the development of effective training and delivery to the public. It appears that this did not occur as completely as desired by the IMT. In addition, the development of the training protocols, outcome measures and evaluation for the template training was not been completed and it does not appear that the Training Division was fully involved in the development of this training. The IMT did not receive or review the associated lesson plans prior to delivery of the training.
The IMT remains concerned that future training delivery may be impacted unless these critical training components are institutionalized and monitored by Training. This must be done to ensure that training is repeated evenly throughout the department and into future sessions going forward. Given the renewed interest in training evaluation as seen in the recent Kirkpatrick courses, the new leadership in the training division seems to have taken the lead and intends on closing the gap in this area. It is essential that the VIPD support and encourage this effort for it to be successful.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance
32

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 33 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Coordination between the Audit and Inspection Unit with the Training Division to ensure that all necessary documentation and curriculum components to ensure all members are trained consistently and provided the same outcome measures.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Partial Compliance =>95% of RRRs indicate each and every type of force that was used.
Activity This has been a particularly troublesome spot for the reporting process. Officers fail to identify all the force used and by each officer, each time, however the new reporting form is designed to capture this element. Last quarter (1Q2015) it was reported that both the VIPD and the IMT review continued to find consistent improvement in reporting in this subparagraph throughout the cases. Close assessment by the supervisors of all force applied moved the VIPD to a compliance rating for the last quarter (1Q2015) of 43%. However, the compliance rating was well below an acceptable level The IMT intends to revisit these numbers in more detail during the next quarter. We will continue to aggregate the data as we move forward and can confirm reliability. While this still leaves room for improvement, it is an indicator that the supervisor’s role in moving the mandates of the consent decree forward cannot be under estimated.
Impediments to Compliance OK Supervisors’ failure to properly identify all uses of force continues in some cases. Supervisors and management must review force cases more specifically for the failure to identify each and every specific type of force used during an event. We continue to monitor the impact of the supervisor Review Checklist and will expand that through a larger sample of cases under review. Aggressive follow-up of failure to review at all levels of the VIPD should be a command priority.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Train supervisors to evaluate each and every force application employed by department personnel and place close attention to the completion of the checklist by supervisors, reviewers, and other investigators as a quality control device.
Prepare templates to assist in investigation completion. These would be in the form of inserts directly related to the specific investigation being detailed. While introduction of the templates and associated instruction for completion appeared to center on the form, the IMT is suggesting that further detailed examples be developed and made available via computer access to assist officers in completing the templates.
VIPD leadership must insist on objective and consistent review of all reporting packages to ensure they are complete and follow the requirements of the VIPD policies that govern their completion.
33

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 34 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>95% of RRRs contain an evaluation of each type of force used by a supervisor.
Activity Beginning with the August 2014 Summit, deficiencies were being identified through audits and corrective action was being applied by the agency. However, at the November, 2014 Summit no change was found in the status of this sub-paragraph and errors continued to surface. The department, with IMT encouragement, decided to produce a series of checklist templates to be used to evaluate completeness of use of force reporting. The templates were electronically produced and were tested by a diverse group of VIPD managers. Several adjustments were noted by the managers and IMT review and those adjustments to the templates were implemented in the final copies by the working group. Training was developed and delivered by the Use of Force Working Group point person during the last part of November and early December 2014. Personnel that missed this initial training attended make-up classes taught by SGT Marsh in March 2015.
The IMT has noted repeatedly that the evaluation of force is a major weakness in the reviews of force by the VIPD. It has not gone unnoticed by the VIPD either. VIPD audits and reviews as well as the IMT’s reviews have disclosed that the supervisors fail to properly “evaluate each and every type of force used” Last reporting period (1Q2015), of the 7 cases which were evaluated, only 2 cases met the requirements and 5 cases did not. This is a compliance rating of 29%. When viewed more in the aggregate with the previous 2 Quarters the compliance rating is 38% in 3Q2014 and 40% in the 4Q 2014. The opportunities for VIPD’s supervisors to evaluate force, occurs infrequently, thus achieving the requirements of the consent decree require them to be diligent in the performance of force reviews. This is a primary responsibility of all police supervisors and the community has a right to believe that the VIPD is managing the force being applied by their peace officers constitutionally. These failures continued to be observed during the 2Q2015 reporting period.
Impediments to Compliance Continued failure to meet deadlines and content requirements in UOF reporting.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Emphasis on use of the recently implemented templates as quality control devices and retraining on them as needed. Follow–up with individual supervisors who fail to complete force reports properly.
Sub-Paragraph f, Status = Partial Compliance =>95% of the reports will include an audio or videotaped statement, unless the level of force used is at the lowest level as described by DOJ approved VIPD policy.
34

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 35 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Activity IMT has continued to review case files to determine if audio and video taping is being conducted and if those files are attached to reports. IMT notes that several of the respondents in the surveys conducted during December 2014 and Jan 2015 indicated, anecdotally, that the department had not previously provided such recording equipment and had purchased their own. Both the VIPD and the IMT reviews disclose that this issue is being addressed, in terms of enclosure with the reports and noted in the supervisors report. Evaluation of content of the recordings is still under review by the IMT.
Impediments to Compliance The IMT intends to complete its expanded case reviews and submit a report by September 30, 2015. During 2Q2015 IMT reviewed a series of cases, which followed the same trends as noted above, but will complete a larger sampling during 3Q2015. .
Recommendations to Gain Compliance IMT continues to urge the VIPD to install in car video cameras. Review the distribution and availability of department owned audio and/or video equipment need to comply with this requirement, and purchase as needed to overcome shortcomings. This might be an appropriate audit for the Audit and Inspection Unit (AIU) to complete to validate both the survey comments and VIPD efforts to ensure availability of the required equipment.
Paragraph 33, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording
Officers shall notify their supervisors following any use of force or upon the receipt of an allegation of excessive force. Except in uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, supervisors will respond to the scene, examine the subject for injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain, and ensure that the subject received needed medical attention.
Activity IMT met frequently with the Force Working Group chair and members through conference calls, mini summits and IMT monitoring activities. The IMT requested department organization and staffing materials during the quarter, but received only a listing or department members from within the IAPro system, which proved to be outdated and incomplete. No position staffing information was provided and organizational charts do not appear to reach down to the squad level to ascertain if appropriate staffing is in place.
Impediments to Compliance
35

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 36 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
The VIPD claims that sufficient supervisors are neither available nor assigned to the areas most needed to ensure proper oversight or arrival at use of force events and proper investigation, documentation, review and evaluation of these events. The IMT has no documentation such as position staffing tables or allocation plans, and/or detailed organizational charts with line-item position coding, to determine if this situation description is accurate.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Promote and assign supervisors where experience shows that supervisors are needed to review, analyze, and evaluate force incidents occurring on their watches. IMT has been unable to determine if any positive action was accomplished on this issue, as while the IMT has been advised there were some promotions made in January 2015, we have no direct knowledge or documentation to indicate where they have been assigned (e.g., a staffing table or personnel assignment orders).; The IMT was updated by the VIPD on supervisors who participated in supervisory leadership training delivered by the FBI Training Division. The IMT believes this training was critical, valuable, and well received by the VIPD supervisors who attended.
Develop detailed position allocation tables with authorized and filled position coding and provide same to the IMT for review of supervisory coverage issues.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Partial Compliance In =>95% of the identified use of force incidents, the officer using force notified his/her supervisor immediately as required by VIPD policy.
See Paragraph 33 above
Activity VIPD has identified persons to be promoted for supervision which should help ensure that they are available to conduct Use of Force reviews. The IMT has found consistent with the VIPD audits that officers fail to promptly and properly notify supervisors when they use force. The VIPD and IMT have also found that supervisors fail to respond to the scene to conduct their inquiry and evaluation or fail to report the reasons for not responding. Consistent with this finding during the past 4 Quarters the VIPD has a compliance rating hovering at a compliance rate of 1 proper response in every 3 cases for a 33 % rating for this requirement.
Impediments to Compliance VIPD must train the new supervisors on force review, investigation and the required reporting process. The VIPD and completed training for newly promoted supervisors during 1Q2015 (late Feb 2015).
36

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 37 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
VIPD should continue to work with VITEMA to ensure that the records associated with all force events calls for service and radio traffic between officers and supervisors are available for VIPD use in both investigating failures as well as auditing the entire system.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Ensure that any promotions and assignments of new supervisors are complimented with appropriate training and management
Sub-Paragraph e, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of the incidents where the Supervisors responded to the scene, he/she ensured that subjects received any necessary medical attention.
Activity VIPD has worked to complete the templates to both capture and evaluate the tenets contained in this item of the consent decree. During this quarter the VIPD and the IMT found that consistent with past quarters that supervisors only inquire about the medical condition of the person upon whom force was used in about half of the cases that they should have. In the 1st Quarter 2015 supervisors did not examine subjects for injury in 57% of audited cases. Additionally, they did not interview subjects for complaints of pain in 57% of audited cases. Parallel results for the 3rd and 4th Quarters of 2014 were 75% and 100% (did not examine) and 75% and 100% (did not interview). It should be noted that the audited sample is very small, 25 cases for all three quarters. In the 3rd and 4th Quarters of 2014 the failure numbers were much higher which may be an indication that the recent decrease is consistent with the template introduction and or management oversight.
Results of the 1Q2015 Audit Report show little change. Supervisors did not meet the injury/examination requirements in 57% of the cases, nor were interviews conducted in 57% of cases.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to institutionalize template training by the Training Division, as well lack of command emphasis on using the templates to quality control completeness of the use of force investigation.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Ensure that the Training Division, in conjunction with the template designers, provides for coordinated training and management of the curriculums necessary to properly retrain and train new employees in the same process. Increase command emphasis on using the templates as quality control devices.
Paragraph 34, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
37

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 38 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, will review, evaluate, and document each use of force, and will complete the narrative description section of the use of force report. The narrative description will include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer's conduct. As part of this review, the supervisor or designated investigating officer/unit will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officer's actions were within VIPD policy. An officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized conduct leading to the use of force or allegation of excessive force, or who was present during the incident, will not be eligible to review or investigate the incident.
Activity IMT met frequently with the Force Working Group chair and members through conference calls, mini summits and IMT monitoring activities.
Impediments to Compliance Management review of the completed force cases has been intermittent and incomplete. Both the VIPD audits and IMT reviews have disclosed untimely cases, incomplete analysis that failed to properly identify inadequate officer or supervisor reporting, missing collection of evidence, witness identification missing and case analysis was not supported by evidence. IMT continues to find closed cases with missing documentation which seems to support VIPD audit findings of a similar nature.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance
VIPD efforts to implement both a Force Review Board and a Force Investigation Team will greatly assist in the ongoing force analysis issues. Properly trained and motivated managers who follow reporting procedure themselves will also result in furthering compliance. The Force Review Board and FIT team policies were finalized and approved by DOJ and IMT during this quarter.
VIPD audits and IMT case review seem to indicate the need for review of all cases in file, using a case content checklist, by the newly hired IAB analysts to ensure completeness of the case files.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Partial Compliance In =>95% of the reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he/she was not involved in the use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize or participate in conduct leading to the use of force incident), will review, evaluate, and document each use of force.
38

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 39 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
IMT continues to see problems in this area in cases reviewed and is expanding the number of cases for review in 3Q2015 to determine if a more positive trend has occurred. We continue to believe that there are insufficient supervisors available to properly respond to and complete UOF investigations and this appears to bear out through the more recent Blue Team spot checking in comments made by the personnel (although a small sampling due to availability) who were interviewed by IMT team members. IMT has not received any VIPD staffing reports for comparison in staffing trends over the last year. IMT will be asking for updated staffing reports during 3Q2015.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completes the supervisor's narrative description of the RRR in a manner that comports with the requirements of paragraph 34 of the Consent Decree.
During the prior reporting period there was a slight increase in the number of cases that would qualify as being properly handled. A narrative cannot be considered complete if key information and evidence is missing from the narrative or the document. The VIPD has had a compliance rating hovering around 25% of its cases as being correctly written during previous quarters. The findings by both the VIPD and confirmed by the IMT, as discussed in IMT’s previous report, show a compliance rating just slightly better at 29%. We expected to see a somewhat better application of the templates and training, but are reserving judgment to give the forms, supervisors and training more opportunities to prove themselves.
Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completed his/her review and evaluation according to VIPD's use of force policies and all other requirements of 31 of the Consent Decree and include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer/s conduct.
No change in activity, impediments, or recommendations from prior reports. No progress was made. Last quarter (1Q2015) IMT reported there was a slight decrease in the number of cases that would qualify as compliant. Supervisors did not include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer’s use of force. The VIPD has had a compliance rating hovering around 39% of its cases as being correctly written during previous quarters. The recent findings by both the VIPD and confirmed by the IMT show a compliance rating just slightly better at 29%. We would have expected to see a somewhat better application of the templates and training but are reserving judgment to give the forms, supervisors and training more opportunities to prove them as contributing to compliance.
Sub-Paragraph d, Status = Partial Compliance
39

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 40 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completed his/her review and evaluation according to VIPD's use of force policies and all other requirements of 31 of the Consent Decree and will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officers actions were within VIPD policy.
Similarly, as above, the supervisors do not support findings with facts, evidence, circumstances, or information that is descriptive enough to support their findings. The VIPD has had a compliance rating hovering around 39% of its cases as being correctly written during previous quarters. Recent findings by both the VIPD and confirmed by the IMT show a compliance rating just slightly better at 29%. We expected to see a somewhat better application of the templates and training but are reserving judgment to give the forms, supervisors and training more opportunities to prove themselves.
The failure to comply pattern remained unacceptable in the 2Q2015, at 29%.
Sub-Paragraph e, Status = Partial Compliance In =>95% of the reportable use of force incidents, the investigating officer had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he/she was not involved in the use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize or participate in conduct leading to the use of force incident), in order to be able to investigate each use of force.
No change in activity, impediments, or recommendations from prior reports.
General Discussion and/Meetings
Activity The new VIPD leadership must continue its current focus on assuring accountability to CD compliance.
Impediments Absence of accountability throughout the Use of Force reporting continuum directly impacts compliance.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance The VIPD must engage mid-level and senior management in supporting the highest levels of accountability for completing CD requirements. Continued use of and support for use of the recently implemented templates should result in a higher level of compliance with the Consent Decree requirements.
Paragraph 35, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording
40

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 41 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
The parties agree that it is improper interview procedure during use of force investigations to ask officers or other witnesses’ leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer's conduct when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. In each review/investigation, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. The VIPD will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. The VIPD will train all of its supervisors and officers assigned to conduct use of force investigations in conducting use of force investigations, including in the factors to consider when evaluating credibility.
Activity IMT met with the Force working Group, had two mini summits and conducted monitoring and continued evaluations of force cases.
Impediments to Compliance Use of Force review does not adequately address cases that suggest supervisors are asking leading questions. Templates were developed and implemented to document and train supervisors to be alert and prohibit leading questions from being used. A supervisor’s force checklist was developed to ensure supervisors don’t miss required elements of the consent decree during their reviews. A similar checklist was developed for the Citizen Complaint process.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued focus of use of the templates as quality control devices.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of the interviews conducted during use of force reviews, leading questions were avoided.
IMT has not seen any improvement in the cases reviewed during the 2Q2015 but has plans to increase the size of the review during 3Q2015 as the current sample is too small to qualify for any change in status.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of the use of force reviews, all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence is documented and appropriately considered, and credibility determinations made, if feasible.
This sub-paragraph is in need of additional work by the VIPD. Both the IMT and the VIPD have found that the supervisors fail to include relevant evidence (circumstantial, direct and physical) in their narratives which must be considered when credibility determinations are being made. An example is where Taser camera and download
41

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 42 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
information is available yet the supervisors do not include it in reports to either support the officer’s statement or the citizen’s statement of the force event. (UOFT2014-0051)
Impediments to Compliance Failure to include all required information, supporting documents, and evidence as part of the use of force investigative report.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued focus on use of the templates as quality control device at all levels of the use of force reporting and investigative process.
Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of investigations where material inconsistencies are present between witness statements, reasonable efforts are made to resolve the inconsistencies.
When evaluating witness credibility, appropriate factors are considered and documented.
Activity No change in activity, impediments, or recommendations from prior reports. No progress was made.
Impediments to Compliance Where witness information is known and supervisors do not address material inconsistencies in the investigation, the supervisor failed to follow through as did the reviewers. If the reviewers had caught this lapse and corrected it would not have been found by the audit and the IMT. The parties and the IMT should discuss whether some other designation (other than metrics) might be preferable for sub-paragraphs where few events occur during a reporting period. UOFT2014-0075
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued focus on use of the templates as quality control device at all levels of the use of force reporting and investigative process.
Paragraph 36, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall conduct an investigation of all uses of force or injury resulting from a use of force by any officer under their command. This requirement does not apply to uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ. In an investigation, supervisors or designated investigating officers or units, shall interview all witnesses to a use of force or an injury
42

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 43 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
resulting from a use of force. Consistent with the requirements of the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable law, VIPD supervisors or designated investigating officers or units shall ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all use of force reports for all levels of force identify all officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports for all levels of force indicate whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided, and whether the subject refused medical treatment. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports include contemporaneous photographs or videotapes taken of all injuries at the earliest practicable opportunity, both before and after any treatment, including cleansing of wounds.
Activity Meetings with VIPD leadership and Use of Force Working Group. IMT monitoring and case review.
Impediments to Compliance As noted last quarter, management review and accountability has been spotty and inconsistent.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Leadership must hold themselves and VIPD managers accountable for incomplete investigations. Continued focus and use of the templates as a quality control device by supervisors
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Partial Compliance =>90% of the Use of Force reports, the supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, who supervised the officer using the force, conducted the investigation of all uses of force or injury resulting from the use of force by that officer. This requirement does not apply to the lowest level use of force as defined in DOJ approved VIPD policy.
Activity All force cases reported to the VIPD are now being investigated. The IMT will work with the VIPD to determine if this sub-paragraph is ready for compliance. The most recent 3 quarters have shown increased compliance and IMT will conduct a review during the 3Q2015 reporting period to determine status.
Impediments to Compliance Continued focus on accountability by the correct investigating officer is needed.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance
43

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 44 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Use of the templates as quality control device should go far towards compliance of this sub-paragraph.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, all witnesses, to the extent practicable, are interviewed in the investigating supervisor's reports.
The VIPD has been unsuccessful in getting its supervisors to obtain credible witness information and collecting that data for their force investigations. Where witness information is available the VIPD often fails to include their statements in the file. In the last 4 Quarters (1) out of every (3) cases in which a witness was identified in the reviewed files a supervisor failed to follow through on complying with the witness reporting requirements of the subparagraph.
Sub-Paragraph d, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of Use of Force reports, Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all use of force reports for all levels of force identify all officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred.
IMT and VIPD observe that in the past three quarters supervisors consistently noted that they identified all involved police personnel on the scene and their involvement in the use of force and the parties could therefore properly inquire about the circumstances surrounding the event. Moving forward this sub-paragraph should be ready for a detailed compliance review during the 3Q2015.
Impediments to Compliance Continued focus on accountability by the investigating officer to identify and evaluate use of force by all officers involved or on the scene of a use of force incident.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Use of the templates as quality control device, coupled with close attention to the facts of the incident, should go far towards compliance of this sub-paragraph.
Paragraph 37, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording All investigations into use of force shall be reviewed by the Officer's Commander and/or Director, or by a Commander and/or Director in the designated investigative unit, who shall identify any deficiencies in those reviews, and shall require supervisors, or designated investigative officers or units, to correct any and all deficiencies. Supervisors, and designated investigative officers or units, will be held accountable for the quality of their reviews. Appropriate non-disciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary action will be taken when a supervisor, or designated investigative officer or unit, fails to conduct a timely
44

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 45 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
and thorough review, or neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action, or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action. As provided by VIPD policy and approved by DOJ, designated command staff shall further review the Commander and/or Director's reviews according to the level of force involved.
Activity Recent implementation of the templates should have some impact on compliance here, if used correctly and are subsequent corrective actions are supported by management.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to affect accountability throughout the management chain of the investigation directly impacts this paragraph.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued use of the templates, supported by management follow-up and accountability should increase compliance with this paragraph.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Partial Compliance =>90% of the completed use of force case files contained signed documentation from the Chief and/or Deputy Chief indicating that he/she reviewed the completed investigation and the date of such review. In these cases, were all appropriate deficiencies noted and was corrective action directed or imposed?
Activity The IMT is pleased that force cases are now being reviewed by the VIPD Command officers from the respective districts. IMT granted Partial Compliance during 1Q2015, while we continue to make an assessment of the reviewers’ ability to capture the values sought within the consent decree in his/her reviews.
A limited review conducted during the 2Q2015 (reported on in Section V,a) determined that command review of cases needs to be conducted more diligently.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to affect accountability at senior levels of the investigation directly impacts this paragraph.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued focus on management review and follow-up, coupled with subsequent accountability should increase compliance with this paragraph.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, supervisors are held accountable for the quality of their reviews, and documented non-disciplinary and/or disciplinary action
45

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 46 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
has been taken when a supervisor or manager: fails to conduct a timely and thorough review; neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action; or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action. In those cases where discipline was imposed, did the officials imposing the discipline follow the departmental disciplinary matrix?
Activity The VIPD and the IMT have found significant deficiencies in reviews. The compliance rate for most of these sub-paragraphs hovers between 45% and 75%. Some are still totally at zero compliance. Clearly the department has to visualize a solution for this total paragraph. The IMT would suggest that a meeting be convened by the Police Commissioner to review the substance of the VIPD audits and the IMT’s reviews and strategize a plan of action to correct the deficiencies. Use of the IMT supplied Goal worksheets and database can be equally used for the planning process here.
A limited review conducted during the 2Q2015 (reported on in Section V,a) determined that command review of cases needs to be conducted more diligently.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to affect accountability at senior levels of the investigation directly impacts this paragraph.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued focus on management review and follow-up, coupled with subsequent accountability should increase compliance with this paragraph.
Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, the Chief and/or Deputy Chief provided a written, signed and dated finding on whether the use of force was justified under VIPD's DOJ approved use of force policies and all other requirements of 31(a)-(g) of the Consent Decree.
The VIPD and the IMT have found significant deficiencies in reviews. The compliance rate for most of these sub-paragraphs hovers between 45% and 75%. Some are still totally at zero compliance. Clearly the department has to visualize a solution for this total paragraph. The IMT would suggest that a meeting be convened by the Police Commissioner to review the substance of the VIPD audits and the IMT’s reviews and strategize a plan of action to correct the deficiencies. Use of the IMT supplied Goal worksheets and database can be equally used for the planning process here.
A limited review conducted during the 2Q2015 (reported on in Section V,a) determined that command review of cases needs to be conducted more diligently.
Impediments to Compliance
46

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 47 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Failure to affect accountability at senior levels of the investigation directly impacts this paragraph.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued focus on management review and follow-up, coupled with subsequent accountability should increase compliance with this paragraph.
Sub- Paragraph d, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, supervisors are held accountable for the quality of their investigations, reviews, and documented non-disciplinary and/or disciplinary action has been taken when a supervisor or manager: fails to conduct a timely and thorough review; neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action; or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action.-
Activity
The VIPD and the IMT have found significant deficiencies in reviews. The compliance rate for most of these sub-paragraphs hovers between 45% and 75%. Some are still totally at zero compliance. Clearly the department has to visualize a solution for this total paragraph. The IMT would suggest that a meeting be convened by the police commissioner to review the substance of the VIPD audits and the IMT’s reviews and strategize a plan of action to correct the deficiencies. Use of the IMT supplied Goal worksheets and database can be equally used for the planning process here.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to affect accountability at senior levels of the investigation directly impacts this paragraph.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued focus on management review and follow-up, coupled with subsequent accountability should increase compliance with this paragraph.
Sub-Paragraph e, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>95% of the use of force incidents where the Commander's/Director's review and evaluation concluded that improper tactics were used, there is evidence that the involved sworn personnel received and successfully completed remedial training, and, if appropriate, were disciplined.
The VIPD and the IMT have found significant deficiencies in reviews. The compliance rate for most of these sub-paragraphs hovers between 45% and 75%. Some are still totally at zero compliance. Clearly the department has to visualize a solution for this total paragraph. The IMT would suggest that a meeting be convened by the Police Commissioner to review the substance of the VIPD audits and the IMT’s reviews and
47

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 48 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
strategize a plan of action to correct the deficiencies. Use of the IMT supplied Goal worksheets and database can be equally used for the planning process here.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to affect accountability concerning remedial training compliance and documentation, as well as any appropriate discipline, directly impacts this paragraph.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance VIPD should develop some system for ensuring that remedial training is both accomplished and documented when it is used as a corrective action for improper use of force. Any and all appropriate discipline associated with the findings should also be implemented and documented. Case files, both paper and digital, should include a completion of remedial training certificate or letter from the Training Division.
Sub-Paragraph f, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>95% of the use of force incidents deemed unjustified by the Commander's/Director's review and evaluation, the involved sworn personnel were disciplined, including separation from service with the VIPD when appropriate, and, if separation from service was not appropriate, received remedial training.
The VIPD and the IMT have found significant deficiencies in reviews. The compliance rate for most of these sub-paragraphs hovers between 45% and 75%. Some are still totally at zero compliance. Clearly the department has to visualize a solution for this total paragraph. The IMT would suggest that a meeting be convened by the police commissioner to review the substance of the VIPD audits and the IMT’s reviews and strategize a plan of action to correct the deficiencies. Use of the IMT supplied Goal worksheets and database can be equally used for the planning process here.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to implement and document appropriate discipline, directly impacts this paragraph.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance VIPD leadership needs to ensure that any and all appropriate discipline associated with the findings should is applied and carried out and subsequently documented and associated with the case.
Paragraph 38, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD will investigate all critical firearm discharges. The VIPD will ensure that the investigation accounts for all shots and locations of all officers who discharged their
48

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 49 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
firearms. The VIPD will conduct all ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate.
Activity The IMT and DOJ worked with the VIPD to develop the Force Review Board and Force Investigation Team (FIT) polices, which were signed by the Commissioner with an effective date of 09/01/15. Portions of required training for the FIT was conducted in July 2015, while other training is scheduled for later in August 2015. It is anticipated that both elements will be fully operational during the 3Q2015 and into the 4Q2015 and the IMT looks forward to assisting their processes and evaluating their actions during that and follow-on quarters.
Impediments to Compliance See sub-paragraphs.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance See sub-paragraphs.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>99% of all critical firearm discharges are investigated and documented.
See paragraph level entries for paragraph38.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to thoroughly investigate and account for use of force incidents. Failure to properly implement and train a Force Review Board and Force Investigation Team contributes to the non-compliance of this sub-paragraph. However compliance must be evaluated through review of the action of both of these elements in 3Q2015 and future quarters.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continue to implement a Force Investigation Team and Force Review Board to improve the quality of use of force investigations and subsequent evaluation of justification for the use of force. Complete implementation of the two elements, including review of their activities and actions.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>95% of all investigations or reviews of critical firearm discharges accounted for all shots.
See paragraph level entries, above for paragraph 38.
Impediments to Compliance
49

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 50 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Failure to thoroughly investigate and account for use of force incidents. Failure to fully implement and train a Force Review Board and Force Investigation Team contributes to the non-compliance of this sub-paragraph. Failure to account for all shots fired in use of force investigations. Failure to use the templates as quality control devices to ensure all shots fired are accounted for whenever appropriate.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continue to implement a Force Investigation Team and Force Review Board to improve the quality of use of force investigations and subsequent evaluation of justification for the use of force. Complete implementation of the two elements, including review of their activities and actions.
Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>95% of all supervisors (or other personnel) have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training on ballistic and crime scene analyses and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or (b) if supervisors (or other personnel) have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the supervisors (or other personnel) have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s); or Where supervisors (or other personnel) have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel.
While these directives and initiatives do not directly respond to the issue of supervisors being trained in use of force investigations, if implemented as currently proposed, the number of investigations by supervisors will greatly decline, with the FIT taking over responsibility. Activity of both elements will be a focus of IMT review during the 3Q2015.
Impediments to Compliance See paragraph above
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Implement controls to ensure all supervisors are trained on use of force investigations and/or implement the FIT and FRB.
Paragraph 44, Status = Partial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording Complaints may be filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile or electronic mail. The duty officer at the front desk of each district station will be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints, which persons may file at
50

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 51 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
any district station. Complaint intake officers may describe facts that bear upon a complainant's demeanor and physical condition but May not express opinions regarding his/her mental competency or veracity. Each complaint will be resolved in writing. Upon receipt, each complaint will be assigned a unique identifier, which will be provided to the complainant. Each complaint will be tracked according to the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, improper search, etc.).
Activity VIPD is in compliance with all sub-paragraphs of this paragraph with the exception of paragraph “i” where timeliness continues to be the issue.
Impediments to Compliance See sub-paragraphs.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance See sub-paragraphs.
Sub-Paragraph i, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>90% of complaints are documented and resolved in writing and completed investigations into complaints comport with the provisions of the Consent Decree.
Activity Timeliness continues to be the issue on this paragraph; as previously stated in VIPD’s earlier reports. As reported previously, the VIPD has attempted to resolve the timeliness issue through the issuance of commissioner’s directives in both Districts, which mandated the completion of all outstanding 2013 and 2014 investigations. There has also been a focus on completing 2015 cases. As a result of these directives the number of outstanding cases for both Districts was reduced significantly.
At this time IMT has requested the documentation showing current status of outstanding cases. At the most recent monthly meeting (August 7, 2015) VIPD could not provide the number of outstanding /overdue cases. There was discussion that sometimes cases are completed at the zone, but then sit at IAB. IMT emphasized that our focus was on overdue cases throughout VIPD. IMT requested documentation and will assess once received.
As previously stated timeliness within IAB as regards citizen complaints has improved during the CD, IMT continues to have concerns with a number of the more serious investigations. Many of these involve officer-involved shootings (IAB and CID) and can linger for protracted periods of time (sometimes for years).
"IMT recognizes that VIPD Audits are identifying the timeliness deficiencies. According to the Third-Fourth Quarters 2014 Audit, of 35 cases reviewed 27 were not
51

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 52 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
timely. (There was some confusion in numbers provided; the number 27 may be as low as 25)
During the Audit for the 1st Quarter 2015, 8 cases were reviewed. While the audit report states that these were the cases completed during the first quarter, they appear to be cases initiated and closed within the 1st quarter as they all have 2015 numbers. If this is not case, then it would appear that none of the overdue 2014 cases (referenced above) have made progress. Of those 8 cases, 3 are identified as overdue. IMT will clarify, again, which cases VIPD audits each quarter as regards citizen complaints.
IMT also recognizes that VIPD is attempting to insure that if delays are necessary, appropriate waiver request is initiated.
Impediments to Compliance As previously stated, lack of accountability as regards supervisors continues to be an issue– although we have seen that improve with disciplinary actions taken. IMT will continue to review progress.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance As VIPD moves forward with additional promotions (unsure when this may occur), IMT strongly recommends, again, that priority be given to assignment to patrol
As previously reported, if disciplinary action is not effective; demotion from rank will be the next step – this confirmed by the VIPD.
The VIPD needs to monitor the waiver requests to insure that these are for valid reasons.
Paragraph 58, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording Unit commanders will evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command to identify underlying problems and training needs. Any such problems or need will be relayed in the form of a recommendation to the appropriate VIPD entity.
Activity During the last quarter of 2014, the VIPD issued a Directive to address the process of forwarding information relative to training needs. This Directive was issued in December, 2014.Along with VIPD, IMT continues to monitor effectiveness of same.
During this quarter, VIPD issued a Directive regarding recommendations identified which deals with training or other problems. IMT acknowledges that VIPD is currently auditing this requirement. During the 3rd-4th quarter Audit of 2014 VIPD self identified a number of
52

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 53 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
cases where this was not done; during the Audit for the First Quarter 2015, VIPD self identified one instance when a recommendation should have been forwarded - it was not (1 of 1).
Impediments to Compliance See above
Recommendations to Gain Compliance IMT encourages VIPD to continue auditing this paragraph. As deficiencies are noted, IMT would anticipate disciplinary action would be forthcoming if the same supervisors continue to not comply.
Paragraph 59, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD will develop and implement a risk management system to include a new computerized relational database or paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for supervision and management of the VIPD. Priority will be given to the VIPD obtaining any established program and system. The VIPD will regularly use this data to promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts.
Activity See sub-paragraphs.
Impediments See sub-paragraphs.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance See sub-paragraphs.
Sub-paragraph b, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance The VIPD will, in =>95% of the cases, use this data to promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts.
Activity As stated in previous reports, the IMT continues to emphasize the fact that unless supervisors and management personnel are held accountable for their responsibilities, the VIPD will have a challenging time maintaining CD compliance. Regarding this particular paragraph, the IMT anticipated that by holding managers accountable, the VIPD will move closer to initial compliance.
53

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 54 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Additionally, the IMT anticipates that resolving IT issues, considered a priority by the VIPD, will move initial compliance forward. This paragraph is contingent on other paragraphs coming into compliance regarding EIP.
Impediments to Compliance VIPD needs to reinforce accountability throughout the ranks.
Recommendations Continue to develop a sense of accountability throughout the command structure through training and senior leadership mentoring.
Paragraph 60, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The new risk management system will collect and record the following information:
a. all uses of force; b. canine bite ratios; c. the number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers; d. all injuries to prisoners; e. all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with "resisting
arrest," "assault on a police officer," "disorderly conduct," or "obstruction of official business;" f. all critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty; g. all complaints (and their dispositions); h. all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the Territory and its officers, or agents, resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel; i. all vehicle pursuits; j. all incidents involving the pointing of a firearm (if any such reporting is required); and k. all disciplinary action taken against officers.
Activity See sub-paragraphs.
Impediments See sub-paragraphs.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance See sub-paragraphs.
Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 55 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
=>95% of the canisters of chemical spray issued to officers will be entered into RMS, including the date of issuance and date of expirations of the chemical spray, with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness and the VIPD has developed a process to track the amount of OC Spray used by Officers.
Activity During this quarter VIPD provided a review of OC canisters on STX; during the most recent monthly meeting, VIPD stated that a similar assessment was completed on STT/STJ. VIPD stated they would forward same. IMT has submitted a subsequent request to VIPD. At this time, IMT has not received the documentation as regards STT/STJ.
Impediments to Compliance See recommendations.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance VIPD should audit STT/STJ and provide documentation to IMT
Sub-Paragraph d, Status = Partial Compliance =>95% of all injuries to prisoners will be entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
Activity According to VIPD, The Injury to Prisoners posters are completed and have been posted throughout the various zones. These posters described VIPD policy regarding reporting injuries to detainees to assist officers in completing reporting requirements. This directive has been incorporated into the arrest policy.
Impediments to Compliance See recommendations – IAB addressing impediments.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance VIPD should audit, identify deficiencies and address same.
Sub-Paragraph h, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>95% of criminal proceedings initiated, civil or administrative claims filed, and civil lawsuits served against the Territory, the VIPD, and its Officers resulting from VIPD operations will be entered in RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
Activity During this quarter a new Attorney General was appointed. During the most recent monthly meeting, VIAG representative stated that she believed that the agreement with the former AG would remain in effect until we were notified of any change
55

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 56 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Impediments to Compliance IMT will continue to monitor the submission of materials from VIAG to VIPD to ensure that the time periods represented in the SOP are met.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued close attention to activity covered by this SOP by VIPD staff in IAB. The IMT will continue to monitor the VIAG’s efforts to support the VIPD in these cases and notes that periodic updates on case status from the VIAG have been received ruing the reporting quarter.
Sub-paragraph i; Status = Substantial Compliance =>95% of vehicle pursuits are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
Activity IMT recognizes VIPD efforts in this area; however, there still needs to be work with VITEMA to be able, not only to store, but to easily access pursuit information. IMT is not moving VIPD out of compliance at this time, but will provide additional time to identify and correct any deficiencies
According to the VIPD 1st Quarter Audit, "It was discovered during this audit that the 911 system is not set up to document vehicle pursuits unless originally transmitted and closed out as such.”
While STX is complaint to the extent of capturing pursuit data, STT remains an issue and the VIPD continues to work with VITEMA to resolve this programming issue.
Impediments to Compliance VIPD and VITEMA need to further link the 911/CAD data with the IAPro system to increase capture of all pursuits. This includes the need to associate codes with the pursuit activity and have those codes be the same on STT and STX. This is needed in order to ensure accurate capture of pursuit activity to compare with UOF reporting. This is an IT technical problem that needs to be worked out at that level.
Recommendations As stated in the last report, the sub-paragraph has been deemed in compliance due to VIPD’s efforts to ensure accurate capture of the pursuit data. IMT recommends continued meetings with VITEMA to insure more seamless integration with the coding. IMT recognizes VIPD efforts in this area; however, there still needs to be work with VITEMA to be able, not only to store, but to easily access pursuit information. IMT is not moving VIPD out of compliance at this time, but will provide additional time to correct deficiency. This extension will not exceed the 3Q2015 and after such time the paragraph will be removed from compliance.
56

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 57 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Paragraph 69, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD will develop a protocol for conducting audits. The protocol will be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol will establish a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all VIPD zones.
Activity During this quarter, IMT received the 3rd-4th quarter 2014 audit and the 1st quarter of 2015. The Audits continue to improve. IMT hopes that these Audits will be completed in a more timely fashion than has occurred previously.
As previously noted in IMT quarterly reports, the IMT strongly recommends that, long term, VIPD have a full time staff (minimum 3-4 persons) assigned to the Audit Unit.
Impediments to Compliance As stated in earlier reports, failure to fully staff the unit and prepare annual audit plans, unit policy, and appropriate SOPs.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Fully staff the unit, prepare unit policy, SOPs, and an annual audit plan.
Paragraph 71, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording VIPD policy will identify clear time periods by which the various steps of a complaint adjudication process should be completed, from complaint receipt to the imposition of discipline, if any. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions will not be granted without the Police Commissioner's written approval and notice to the complainant. In the limited circumstances when an extension is necessary, appropriate tolling provisions will be outlined in the policy.
Activity As previously reported, a directive (001-2015) was issued on Jan 6, 2015, that provides for extensions to reporting times, when justified and requested, by investigating personnel.
Impediments to Compliance See other sub-paragraphs.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance See sub-paragraphs.
57

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 58 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>90% of the time, these established time periods are not violated except for in exigent circumstances and with the Police Commissioner's written approval for tolling and notice to the complainant.
Activity
At this time IMT has requested the documentation showing current status of outstanding cases. At the most recent monthly meeting (August 7, 2015) VIPD could not provide the number of outstanding /overdue cases. There was discussion that sometimes cases are completed at the zone, but then sit at IAB. IMT emphasized that our focus was on overdue cases throughout VIPD. IMT requested documentation and will assess once received.”
IMT recognizes that VIPD Audits are identifying the timeliness deficiencies. According to the Third-Fourth Quarters 2014 Audit, of 35 cases reviewed 27 were not timely. (There was some confusion in numbers provided; the number 27 may be as low as 25)
During the Audit for the 1st Quarter 2015, 8 cases were reviewed. While the audit report states that these were the cases completed during the first quarter, they appear to be cases initiated and closed within the 1st quarter as they all have 2015 numbers. If this is not case, then it would appear that none of the overdue 2014 cases (referenced above) have made progress. Of those 8 cases, 3 are identified as overdue. IMT will clarify, again, which cases VIPD audits each quarter as regards citizen complaints.
IMT also recognizes that VIPD is attempting to insure that if delays are necessary, appropriate waiver request is initiated.
Impediments to Compliance VIPD to implement above mentioned steps.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance See above
Paragraph 72, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD will not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix indicates the imposition of discipline. The VIPD will not fail to consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action is required in a case because discipline has been imposed on the officer.
Activity
58

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 59 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
VIPD continues to struggle with compliance with this section. VIPD self identifies this deficiency. According to the most recent Audit, "The Disciplinary Matrix is still not being properly adhered to as discipline is not being meted out as per the standards set forth. We did not find any evidence that there was disciplinary action for those persons out of compliance".
Impediments to Compliance Lack of adherence to VIPD policy.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance As stated repeatedly by the IMT, VIPD needs to identify deficiencies, also need to identify whether it is due to lack of understanding or intentional policy violation – once identified, additional training or discipline needs to occur.
IMT continues to recommend that VIPD continue to assess both the process and the matrix with a goal towards making it more objective and fair in construct and application.
Completion of the current review of the Disciplinary Matrix.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status =Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of the cases where the matrix calls for discipline, discipline is imposed.
All activity, impediments, and recommendations shown above for sub-paragraph a.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status =Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of the cases where discipline is imposed, there is evidence that the VIPD has also considered non-disciplinary corrective action.
All activity, impediments, and recommendations shown above for sub-paragraph b. .
Paragraph 73, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD will continue to coordinate and review all use of force policy and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy. The VIPD will conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually.
Activity A Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the Training Advisory Committee (TAC) was signed by the Commissioner on May 22, 2015, and forwarded to the United States and the Independent Monitor on July 21, 2015. The IMT had previously reviewed and provided extensive comments on the proposed draft (March 31, 2015) and found little change to the signed
59

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 60 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
SOP in light of those recommendations. The IMT’s concerns with the final SOP included both outcomes and the protocol itself (for example it is unclear exactly which of the two police chiefs are the chair of the board, among other inconsistencies.) In addition, while being titled an SOP, it did not detail a protocol for the various reviews (what will be reviewed, in what context, using what criteria, etc). While the signed SOP is a step in the right direction, the IMT still views it as a “work in progress” and thus not compliant with the intent of the paragraph.
This draft and review process, as well concerns raised by the IMT goes back to the fall of 2014. At that time the committee was not, in the IMT’s view, fulfilling the detail or the spirit of the Consent Decree paragraph. This discussion continued through the IMT’s monitoring visits in the spring of 2015. After receiving the last draft in March of 2015, the IMT submitted a detailed critique to the Commissioner on March 31, 2015. The subsequent signed SOP did not seem to address these concerns. The IMT determined the VIPD was in compliance with their Court goal to issue the SOP, but did so with reservations as to its comprehensiveness and content.
Impediments to Compliance As noted previously by the IMT, the IMT has reviewed Training Advisory Committee agendas and reports and had concerns in the following areas:
a. Still does not have a protocol for the conduct and expected outcomes from the meetings, which inhibits its focus and effectiveness;
b. Their agenda tends to focus on review of equipment issues;
c. Fails to review training and training materials from an analytical basis based upon developed criteria. Areas addressed in the meeting seemed to range more on equipment issues. No Use of Force activity as to type and effectiveness was discussed, apparently based upon reports from IAPro (which were attached), but the notes did not adequately reflect the content or decisions that emanated from those discussions. Without a well-developed protocol (e.g., SOP), no meaningful evaluation can take place.
Many of the above concerns remain with published SOP and unless addressed will interdict the usefulness of the committee in improving training. While the SOP is an improvement over past attempts it still falls short in the “how to do the review” department or protocol.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Throughout the conduct of this consent decree, VIPD has struggled with understanding exactly what is required by this paragraph. VIPD must (by the requirements of the paragraph) conduct a semi-annual review of the quality and consistency of their use of force training. They must also review the use of force training’s compliance with both law and VIPD policy. This amounts to two (2) inquiries into VIPD training activity a year. There is also a requirement that VIPD use of force policy (2) be reviewed on the same schedule using the same criteria for the review. This
60

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 61 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
amounts to four (4) inquiries to be conducted by VIPD semi-annually. The new SOP now mandates a quarterly review, which increases the number of reviews to a total of eight (8).
The IMT, based on our experience, would think that these reviews of use of force policy and use of force training would be conducted jointly or, at a minimum, conducted collaboratively. To date, we’ve not seen this kind of agency-wide review. We’ve also not seen a meaningful, analytical review of use of force training. In fact, the current SOP has limited number of participants (8 categories, although no count by category is listed) and few from the first responder/investigator or their supervisors groupings. It appears mostly representative of management and the training function, with two union representatives.
The action by the Training Director followed our suggestions and made provisions for training by the Kirkpatrick Group which specialized in the evaluation of training. This should enhance the understanding of this segment of the training delivery function for all on this committee.
The IMT remains convinced that improvements to this SOP can and should be accomplished and will continue to assist the VIPD in that endeavor.
Paragraph 74, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The Director of Training, either directly or through his/her designee(s), consistent with applicable law and VIPD policy will:
a. ensure the quality of all use of force training; b. develop and implement use of force training curricula; c. select and train VIPD officer trainers; d. develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service training; e. in conjunction with the Chiefs, develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol
division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures; f. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and g. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
Activity
a. ensure the quality of all use of force training;
This was discussed during a meeting with the IMT (Mr. Wilson and Mr. Stewart). Once the TAC is formed it will address the quality of training that is provided to the officers during training also an evaluation process will assist with a an assessment of the training that was provided (Kirkpatrick Levels of Evaluations.
b. develop and implement use of force training curricula;
61

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 62 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

Sub-paragraph is in Substantial Compliance
c. select and train VIPD officer trainers;
The Instructor Selection Process (ISP) was revised and signed by Commissioner Designee Delroy Richards, Sr. on March 8, 2015.Training was conducted for new instructors during August, 2015.

d. develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service training;
e. in conjunction with the Chiefs, develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures;
IMT has received the signed policy and believes it does not conform to the review provided previously by the IMT. Further the IMT believes that the current version still contains material which more closely related with a separate policy or policies on Conducting Roll Calls and one related to Line inspections. The IMT will work with the VIPD to correct these deficiencies.

f. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and See sub-paragraph g below.

g. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.

responsive to

After discussions with Jim Kirkpatrick for the development of the Kirkpatrick’s “Four Levels of Evaluations” training, the VIPD brought the Kirkpatrick team to the VI and conducted training for management and supervisors. Training was conducted in May 2015. This training focuses on how to conduct longitudinal evaluations of the effectiveness of training on the ability of the trainee to perform their assigned functions.

Impediments to Compliance Absence of a comprehensive and analytical review of training outcomes.
Lack of coordinated training priorities and agenda with Chiefs and other command officers.
No comprehensive plan for roll call training.

Questions raised by the IMT memorandum of 9/18/14 regarding the current lapse and inadequacies of the VIPD Roll Call Training Program are serious and any further compliance with this sub-paragraph and paragraph should be held in abeyance. This program is still under review and updating by the VIPD.
Each of the sub-paragraphs details impediments to compliance.

62

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 63 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Several of the sub-paragraphs in this paragraph share common resolutions with the tasks associated with Paragraph 73.
a. ensure the quality of all use of force training. f. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures, and g. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
The IMT has recommended for some time that there is so much similarity to the resolutions to these paragraphs that they ought to be resolved jointly.
The Training Advisory Committee seemed to us to be the best place to establish appropriate protocols for the requirements of these sub-paragraphs and Paragraph 73 and coordinate VIPD’s efforts to reach compliance. We also believe that sub-paragraph e:
”e. in conjunction with the Chiefs, develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures.” This lends itself to the kinds of issues that would be appropriate for the regular review, discussion and advice from the Training Advisory Committee.”
Similarly, sub-paragraph d:
“d. …develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service training,” should be reviewed by the Training Advisory Committee.
We repeat our recommendation that compliance with these sub-paragraphs and Paragraph 73 be at the cornerstone of the duties and responsibilities of the Training Advisory Committee.
The one sub-paragraph that would likely remain outside of the direct focus of the Training Advisory Committee would be:
“c….select and train VIPD officer trainers.”
The IMT has long since held that this definition would include all classes of academy and in-service trainers and all Field Training Officers. VIPD, after more than a year of development, recently published a directive outlining the policies and procedures for the selection of instructors. We have recommended for some time that a similar policy be established for FTO’s
63

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 64 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
The VIPD should conduct a review of all current staff and field instructors, vetting them against the requirements of VIPD Policy 003-2014 Instructor Selection, and provide documentation to the IMT with the results of that review.
Paragraph 77, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD shall continue to maintain training records regarding every VIPD officer that reliably indicate the training each officer has received. The training records shall, at a minimum, include the course description and duration, curriculum, and instructor for each officer.
Sub-paragraphs a,c,e are in Compliance, while b,d,f remain in Partial Compliance.
Activity Currently all training records are maintained by the administrative secretaries in both districts. Those records are located in each respective office in STT and STX. The hard copies of records are placed in binders that are labeled and stored in a file cabinet or on a shelf (Bookcase) in a central area in both locations. These records are not as complete as one would like and in many cases it is impossible to link a trainee’s attendance at a specific block of instruction to the instructor that delivered that training. This frustrates compliance with the accuracy of the records and thus the paragraph as noted below. This is discussed in more detail and how Power DMS can possibly resolve this in Paragraph 81. The training bureau also has a training database (PowerDMS) that tracks all trainings officers receive. The information on PowerDMS can be accessed remotely from any location and VIPD personnel are in discussion with a vendor who will assist in the upload of officer’s files and historical data into PowerDMS.
Impediments to Compliance In August 2014 IMT identified the need for loading data into Power DMS. In September 2014 IMT identified the need for a plan and design for data entry into Power DMS. Continued failure to accelerate the loading of curricula into the Power DMS system will impact compliance.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Substantial Compliance in this paragraph has been particularly troublesome for VIPD. The current state of the paper files of VIPD members does not lend itself to analysis of compliance, especially in the area of who the instructors were for each of the blocks of instruction received by the individual officers. Once what information is loaded and Power DMS can begin to provide comprehensive data reports, some measure of investigation might be able to fill in some of these current blanks, in some cases using other participant’s records. The current paper filing system does not lend itself to this analysis. The IMT has strongly urged the VIPD to complete its data entry of officer records from the paper files so
64

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 65 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
further research can be accomplished. Thus at the heart of this issue is the establishment of an automated capability to produce records which reliably provide:
the course description, the duration of the course, a copy or reference to the curriculum used at the time of the training, and the instructor(s) for each officer.
The IMT has maintained that it is our experience that police departments the size and makeup similar to VIPD have, as a standard practice, this kind of automated capability in total or in-part.
While maintaining that it has the capacity to produce the information required in Paragraph 77, VIPD has produced one report almost two years ago that only included the participants in St. Thomas/S. John District. IMT deems these reports critical to both compliance as well as proper supervision of the training function.
We continue to recommend with great import that making the inclusion of the kinds of records required to be maintained by this paragraph be made a priority. Extraordinary steps must be taken to streamline the process by which complete, accurate historical training records should be entered into PowerDMS and audited as quickly as possible.
Paragraph 81, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD will provide training on appropriate burdens of proof to all supervisors, as well as the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility (to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform, and legally appropriate). The VIPD will also continue to provide training to supervisors on leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training will be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities, and will be made part of annual in-service training.
Activity Sub-paragraphs a,c,e are in Compliance, while b,d,f remain in Partial Compliance.
Impediments to Compliance After the August 2014 Summit the IMT provided this analysis of the compliance level of the paragraph, specifically geared toward supervisory training on leadership and command accountability.
65

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 66 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
While most of the requirements for compliance in this paragraph have been met, there is the clear need for more training in leadership and command accountability for supervisory, management and command personnel. While the training for command personnel may come in the form of "executive development," the IMT believes that command staff could benefit from participating in the supervisory and management training conducted within VIPD as well as attending developmental training conducted by any number of professional organizations and educational institutions. This absence of command staff participation, while recommended highly, is not a direct impediment to compliance.
We have urged command staff to attend part or all of the various supervisory courses taught by outside contractors. At a minimum, they should obtain briefings from these "visiting instructors," who are typically very well versed in their subject areas so that they have a sense of what is being taught to their subordinates but also to get information from subject matter experts on how their command issues are being addressed in other police agencies.
During the November and December 2014 summit and December 2014 court hearing, the VIPD indicated that no progress had been made on this paragraph. The VIPD concurred that no progress had been made during the May 2015 work sessions, with the exception that the FBI had conducted some leadership and supervisory training, in which many senior leaders participated, during the 1st Quarter of 2015. The IMT remains encouraged with this initiative but are withholding long term judgment pending a continuation and broadening of the effort, especially in terms of our previous suggestions that the leadership of the agency also participate in some lower level instruction in support of both exposure to the concepts and team building.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Substantial Compliance in this particular paragraph poses several distinct and complex challenges. The paragraph first requires the Training Bureau to train supervisors on how to apply appropriate burdens of proof, evaluate witness credibility.
While we know that the requisite training has been conducted, we have not seen an objective evaluation of how those supervisors are performing those tasks in the field. We’ve only seen participant performance on the quiz conducted immediately following training. This is certainly another one of the areas that we have pointed out and that the Kirkpatrick Training addresses. Kirkpatrick (and others) references four (4) levels of evaluation, the first being the current after class quiz. The second level asks the trainee, at some period after completing training, did the training received result in improvement in the way they do their job. The third level asks a similar question of the trainee’s supervisor, but after a period of job performance subsequent to the training and the fourth level attempts to ask the organization if the training has improved the organization’s ability to deliver its service product. Each of these is structured against the performance objectives of the training course (or what we want the trainee to be able to do after completion of training).
66

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 67 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
While completion of training is an important step, without an organized effort (longitudinal evaluation components similar to those pioneered by Kirkpatrick) it is difficult to determine if the training has had any impact on the trainee’s job performance. If no improvements are noted than the training was probably not successful and in need of review and modification; thus purpose of the training has not been accomplished. In the IMT’s view, merely conducting the training does not necessarily equate to compliance that is established to result in improvements in officer’s and the department’s compliance with the Consent Decree. There remains the challenge of evaluating the outcomes and/or effect that training has had on participants.
This also points out again how substantial compliance was comparatively easy when the requirements of a paragraph were able to be achieved within a single office, unit or bureau. This kind of evaluation requires the active participation and collaboration between the Training Bureau and the Districts so that Training is receiving enough feedback on supervisor performance in the Districts for them to be able to determine whether their training products were “successful.”
We believe that VIPD will benefit immensely by having the Kirkpatrick Group in for training. It’s important that as many command officers as well as supervisors and managers attend this training.
The second requirement of this paragraph mandates that VIPD provide this training for new supervisory promotees within 90 days of their elevation to their new rank. In addition to the testing that might take place at the time of training, this training should be a part of any probationary evaluation conducted at the end of the probationary period.
The third requirement is that this training be a part of in-service training. When the systems are in place, the focus of the in-service training should be based on the results of evaluations of how the allied functions are being performed in the field. Shortcomings among supervisors in areas of the Consent Decree, as well as other practices in need of improvement, should be well documented and highlighted during in-service, roll call and commander’s call training.
The final requirement and possibly the most important within this paragraph is a responsibility to provide training to supervisors on leadership and command accountability. VIPD has just recently begun to include commanders above the rank of captain in this kind of training even that delivered within the Territory. Command Staff and certain sworn administrative personnel were not included in in-service training. When questioned about the practice, VIPD offered no responses.
There is much to be learned from responsible, modern supervisory training and VIPD has contracted with very reputable and professional trainers. These instructors are generally well versed in many of the standard practices required by this consent decree. They can bring
67

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 68 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
helpful advice to command staff in their work as well as their subordinates. Systematic improvement in a policy or practice can only come when command knows and understands the training that their subordinate commanders and supervisors are receiving so that they can support it.
68

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 69 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
IV. VIPD COMPLIANCE AUDITING PERFORMANCE
The IMT received the VIPD’s Compliance Audits for the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2014 and the First Quarter of 2015 in July, 2015. As in previous Quarterlies, we are summarizing our evaluation. As a result of an important Consent Decree-required evaluation by the Audit Unit Commander, we are able and pleased in this Quarterly, to report on a Use of Force Assessment, sufficient in structure to serve as a platform for future outcome measurement. Last, we address, again, persistently stubborn barriers to compliance, repeatedly cited in the VIPD’s own audits. The 2014 document bundled two quarters. The 2014 Third and Fourth Quarter Report does not have a transmittal letter, an introduction, nor a summary. The Introduction to the Use of Force Section leads off with the following: “In this report we are presenting the audit results for the two quarters. This is an effort to bring us to a current point of information and to enable Department Administration and Managers to have a more dynamic and accessible understanding of our compliance status in regard to Response to Resistance Consent Decree Issues." This statement is repeated in the Introduction to the Citizen Complaint sections, including the RRR reference. The Management & Supervision & Training section states that the audit covers ". . . July thru December 2014." The Training audit covers the ". . . 2014 4th Quarter Training Cycle . . . on Use of Force Policies." The VIPD does not seem to have submitted a Third Quarter Audit for Training. The 2015 First Quarter audits return to the VIPD’s conventional one-quarter audit cycle.
A. The Audits: Shortfalls & Potentials
Compliance auditing consumes many hours of the VIPD’s finite resources. We do not know how many hours. Evolving very incrementally, and poised to advance to a metricsbased approach, the audit process and the Audit Report is not yet satisfying its potential and the information needs of its audiences, internal and external, including the IMT. The IMT’s Review & Recommendations Report for the Second Quarter of 2014 noted:
69

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 70 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
The Second Quarter Compliance Audit & Report, the subjects of this review, repeat variations in work group effort, methodological details, and presentations, which continue to challenge the reader’s ability to assess accomplishments efficiently. The audit again is in four separate pieces, leaving it to readers to interpret results of each and synthesize the combined whole. We encouraged the VIPD previously to bring the audit parts together, analyze and summarize them to present an agency-level perspective. An integration exercise should yield valuable insights to improve successive audits. We recommend that the Audit Group oversight team commit to this task, preferably, yield the work to the recently established Audit & Inspections Unit, for the present, and later to the newly proposed restructured Compliance Unit, once staffed.
These observations still stand. As constructed, the Audit Reports still leave it to the reader/user to synthesize, interpret, and conclude what many of the pages and pages of information and data mean vis-à-vis compliance progress.
Opportunity to reengineer the situation described is inherent in our prescribed metricscentered model. A more robust body of quantified measurements will enable the VIPD to format, analyze, and display results in ways that are just not possible right now. Analytical and action opportunities are expected to come into focus more sharply as a result. Note for perspective and expectations however, what the conversion process entails. The Use of Force presentation in the latest Compliance Audit Report – the model for measuring Citizen Complaints, Management & Supervision, and Training, is composed of 60 separate measurements. These cover eight (8) paragraphs and their subparagraphs. To build out the model will require developing measurements for 39 additional paragraphs: 17 for Citizen Complaints, 14 for Management & Supervision and 8 for Training. (Paragraphs 100 and 101 are not included in the total.) We believe these numbers clarify why the AIU rollout requires ample staffing, with special skills. This said, we believe the AIU Interim Commander is making progress already. This much exceeds expectations. Still, the resource issue stands.
B. Audit-Based Compliance Barriers
70

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 71 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Based on the VIPD’s self-reports, documented in the Recommendations sections of the audits to date, we find continued presence of impediments to compliance progress that have remained stubbornly resistant to change for some time. The 2015 First Quarter Audit Report (VIPD) singles out many principal issues/recommendations. We quote them verbatim from the audit report. The IMT concurs with the VIPD audit statements.
Use of Force
1. Training. Training for all levels of review in what is required information in an RRR and in force investigation. Roll call refresher training for the appropriate information that is mandatory to be included is an RRR. Additional roll call refresher training for supervisors in what is required in an RRR and in a force investigation.
2. Standard of Information. The Command Level Review must pay attention to the fact that there is a specific standard of information that must be in each of the reports. The checklist is to assist the supervisor in assuring the information is in the report when there is a failure to utilize the checklist – pertinent information is not included.
3. Administrative Review. The Administrative Review also must follow the same requirements as those for the Command Level and look at each folder with a critical eye.
4. Accountability. Hold all levels in the force reporting process accountable for failures in reporting, investigating, and review of the force folders.
Citizen Complaints
1. Timeliness. Ensure that cases are completed timely. This is presented as the "predominant recommendation." Improvement is noted.
2. Accountability. There must be accountability for violations of policies 7.2 and 7.3.
3. Internal Affairs. Internal Affairs must monitor the due date(s) that are entered for cases in IAPro. Internal Affairs must ensure that when waivers are approved, the due dates must reflect in IAPro for the time period approved. Internal Affairs must ensure that when cases are requested for audit, all documents must be forwarded.
71

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 72 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
4. Inspections. All areas must submit for Inspections the information materials in the vehicles and stations.
Management & Supervision
1. Canine Bites. Ensure that supervisors have access to the 911 CAD System to run the necessary query at the end of their tour of duty for assigned cases. VIPD has placed a request with VIPD-MIS technical support staff of the 911 CAD System to have supervisors gain access for read-only purposes.
2. Discretionary Arrest Data. Have data analysts on-board so that the requirements of the Early Intervention Program can be implemented fully.
3. Criminal Proceedings, Civil or Administrative Claims. The IMT received signed VIAG SOPs for both civil and criminal actions resultant of VIPD Case on 05/15/15.
4. Vehicle Pursuit Data. Further configuration of the 911 System is needed to meet the Department’s need to track vehicle pursuits. (In consultation to rectify issue.)
5. EIP Training. The VIPD must retrain those required to conduct EIP alerts and there must be training on the entire dynamics of the system to be able to use its full capacity.
This audit presents very important findings which were not raised to the recommendation level and, therefore, are not reported here. Example: "The Disciplinary Matrix is still not being properly adhered to as discipline is not being meted out per the standard set forth." (See Unmet Recommendations below for context.)
Training
1. Meeting Requirements. Ensure that individuals attached to VIPD while holding positions in specialized units outside of the VIPD are scheduled for required training. Ensure that supervisors who were excused from classes (military, leave) receive the training that they missed.
During this Quarter, the IMT received Status Report Number 25, covering the period from 05/25/15 to08/21/15, and Compliance Audits for three past quarters, two in 2014, and one in 2015. Audit documentation and reporting is lagging one quarter behind status
72

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 73 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
reporting and thus IMT real-time reporting to the Court. This undermines our capacity to conduct paragraph-by-paragraph evaluation of consistency between and among efforts.
C. The Recommendations Backlog A primary objective of auditing is to identify compliance shortfalls, prescribe corrective actions, and re-audit/re-measure to gauge the impact of corrective actions. In this regard, the VIPD Work Groups are doing their jobs. Every quarterly report produced by the VIPD auditors has put forth improvement recommendations. While neither the VIPD nor the IMT has produced a comprehensive box score – number of recommendations acted on, successfully implemented, and not acted on, we can say the number of unresolved recommendations presents a formidable challenge to compliance.
The IMT’s response to the VIPD’s 2014 Second Quarter Report (the one preceding the recently received batch) included this statement:
"With regard to Audit Report Recommendations for the Second Quarter and previous Quarter reports, the most charitable statement the IMT can make is that the Work Groups, individually and collectively, are "drowning in good intentions." Each audit report offers recommendations, repeating those from prior audits and adding new ones, with only sporadic references of a direct nature to action or lack thereof regarding previous recommendations. Recommendations are just piling up.” We estimated that the body of unresolved recommendations numbered 50. A recently drafted internal VIPD document, perhaps an uncirculated analysis by the VIPD Audit Unit sets the current number of unresolved recommendations much lower than the IMT’s estimate. By quarter, VIPD estimates are:
73

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 74 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

Table 4

QUARTER
Third Quarter 2013 Fourth Quarter 2013 First Quarter 2014 Second Quarter 2014 Third/Fourth Quarters 2014 First Quarter 2015

UNRESOLVED RECOMMENDATIONS 47 25 27 23 15 17

Not all findings subject to recommendation rise to recommendation level. The document from which the recommendation counts were taken notes lack of consistently timely response to recommendations, ". . . no viable action after presentation of the quarterly audit reports . . . . (has led to) . . . deterioration in some of the audit output and a recycling, in most cases, of the recommendations which had not been addressed over a series of quarters."

To be clear, many recommendations have been acted upon by the Commissioner, the Work Groups, and others involved in the compliance effort. The declining quarterly totals suggest this to be the case. In addition to the current number of unresolved recommendations, our concern, which mirrors that of the author of the VIPD report, there has been no definitive direction or consistent process by which the recommendations of the compliance audits are addressed. A consequence for compliance progress is selfevident.
Implementation potential of recommendations differ, influenced by resources, complexity, and timing requirements. Training recommendations, which comprise a major segment of unresolved recommendations, require material effort, ranging from course design to scheduling considerations. Others, however, are "softer targets," including a number of "accountability" recommendations. "There must be accountability

74

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 75 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
for violations of policy 7.2 and 7.3," for example. Failure to comply with this recommendation could be simply a failure of will, in the judgment of the IMT. We believe the Commissioner needs to address the unresolved audit recommendation issue, starting with a formal plan. It would make sense to prioritize for earliest attention those audit recommendations that would most influence achievement of Court-Ordered Goals. The IMT intends to analyze the unresolved recommendations situation with the VIPD during the next quarter. This opportunity couples comfortably with Court-Ordered Goals Compliance work review we are happy to arrange for the next quarter.
D. Metrics-Centered Auditing
The IMT’s Review of the 2014 Second Quarter Audit Report encouraged the VIPD and its audit staff to embrace the approach employed by the Use of Force Work Group. The approach is central to the broader Metrics-Centered Outcome Measurements model prescribed by the IMT. The components of Metrics-Centered Compliance Auditing were outlined in the IMT’s Review (p. 29). Judging from the construction of the most recent VIPD Compliance Audit, 2015 First Quarter, very limited movement has occurred during the past seven (7) months. The Citizens Complaint audit suggests at least recognition of the concept of Metrics-Centered auditing, but has far to go developmentally. The Management & Supervision & Training sections of the First Quarter Audit do not indicate any movement at all. From discussions recently held (described below), not much movement is likely to be evident in the next Quarter Audit Report, which will take the "no-action" period out to ten (10) months.
Having been rescheduled several times, the VIPD’s Interim Audit Unit Commander and members of the IMT finally met at VIPD Headquarters on St. Thomas on July 13, 2015 to jump-start the Metrics-Centered Auditing conversion process. As the architect of the Use of Force metrics-centered model, the Interim Commander is already primed methodologically to lead the conversion process. The St. Thomas meeting focused mostly on confirming a mutual understanding of objectives and technical considerations.
75

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 76 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
The IMT has complete confidence that the Interim Commander can lead the effort to successful achievement. We are less confident that sufficient authority and resources are present. Audit & Inspections Unit organization and staffing, and therefore distribution of roles and authorities, is still not settled. The Interim Commander is carrying a formidable workload and, at this writing has no staff. Recognizing that the VIPD must balance a number of considerations in regard to AIU and auditing matters, some finality would be welcome. A Chief Compliance Officer is scheduled to come on board in August. This should help. A Compliance Coordinator was just hired. (The previous Coordinator has been promoted, so this may be a trade-off.) Hopefully, our concerns will have vanished by the time the next quarterly report is prepared. To be clear, however, we see no reason why demonstrable movement toward metrics-centered measurements should not be made by the end of the Third Quarter 2015.
E. Outcome Assessment: Use of Force
Current Decree efforts have yet to yield a comprehensive, quantitatively-anchored portrait of the force environment in the Virgin Islands and application of force by the members of the VIPD. A belated start has undermined production of outcome measurement, analysis and, most important, introduction of prevention and control intervention that may have emerged from analysis. Not having an assessment has squandered an opportunity to position the VIPD to achieve the CD’s transparency intents. Force information could have and should have been published for the community. This condition can be placed on the path to correction in reasonably short order, albeit somewhat imperfectly.
Leveraging another unutilized (surely underutilized) VIPD asset, the First Annual Response to Resistance (Use of Force) Analysis Report: St. Croix District 2014, is recommended.
The Report’s Introduction states:
76

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 77 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
"The Virgin Islands Police Department – District of St. Croix is completing its 1st annual Response to Resistance (Use of Force) analysis report as part of an ongoing effort to improve the level and quality of service to the community.
Additionally, as part of the mandates of the VIPD Consent Decree, the Virgin Islands Police Department (VIPD) implemented response to resistance policies which not only regulate and prescribe the types of force being used, but require officers to report their response to resistance to enable the Department to, among other things, collect and analyze data.
The collection of data allows the Department to implement corrective action where needed, in the form of discipline, training, revision of policies, and/or the creation of new policies and practices. The analysis of Response to Resistance data also serves as a method for identifying patterns and trends that could predict or indicate a need for early intervention."
The Report, 30 tables and 13 charts, is a broad ranging statistical download of IAPro data. The scope and content of the data approximates force profiles produced by other consent decree monitors and the force-research community. The RRR Annual can and should be the prototype for further development in the VIPD setting. The second half of the July 13 IMT-Audit Commander meeting focused on ways and means to pursue further development to improve the report.
Building on RRR Report work to date to reach a point when analysis and action may occur, informed by a sufficient body of essential and valid data on force conditions, will be more challenging than advancing metrics-centered auditing. Much design work remains. IAPro data issues are omnipresent (noted in RRR Report). Work to date covers only St. Croix. On the assets side is the presence of lead developer and the very decent prototype. IMT concerns are the same as those noted for metrics-centered auditing progress – authorities and resources. The sooner that useable Force Profile information is in place, the sooner the Parties will be informed with outcome information, have the ability to assess the constitutionality of force practices in the
77

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 78 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Virgin Islands, and introduce policy and practice innovations that protect constitutional guarantees. The IMT recommends as a next action step, a VIPD-DOJ-IMT session to lay out the most essential set of data components and measurements and forge a formal plan for moving ahead.
78

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 79 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
V. IMT USE OF FORCE CASE REVIEW
During the Second Quarter, on-going use of force case review continued. The IMT also took early steps to examine frequency and nature of use of force patterns and trends, a step toward Consent Decree outcome measurement.
A. Case Review: Fostering Command Consistency
"Under the force review and investigation policy in place for the VIPD, a chain of command review system is used. Each supervisory command officer up the chain of command MUST review, concur, and approve the force used, and identify any "out-ofpolicy" force reporting, investigation or inquiry, and any tactical, training, or equipment failures or issues. These issues are all to be noted in THEIR written review of the investigations or inquiries completed by immediate subordinates. Commanders are to be held accountable for any corrective action that is deemed necessary to correct deficiencies."
The chain of command review system described above is used for two principal purposes: 1) to foster knowledge and consistency in force review, from the first line sergeant through to the chief, and 2) to correct mistakes and guarantee the integrity of the agency. This transparency protects both the community and officers. The VIPD implemented command review policies consistent with the Consent Decree to achieve the purposes set forth.
On June 16, 2015 the IMT administered a monitoring instrument to the Chief and Deputy Chief in the St. Croix district to assess their understanding of and compliance with the force review policies of the VIPD and Consent Decree requirements. Prior to the exercise the IMT randomly pulled five (5) completed Use of Force cases from the St. Croix District for compliance with the requirements stated above: 2015-0001; 20150003; 2015-0006; 2015-0009; and 2015-0012. The policy paragraph was read to each commander at the outset of the exercise/interview. Of the sample cases, the Chief of
79

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 80 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Police reviewed two (2) cases. The Deputy Chief reviewed and approved three (3) cases. Neither reviewed the other’s cases. In one (1) case there appears to have been a serious policy violation (STXF2015-0003) where supervisors failed to follow-up and investigate. There is only one document, a Word file, in the IAPro case file and that fails to clarify the situation. This highlights the need for the filling of the Force Coordinator position as required by the Force Review Board policy that was recently approved and signed off on by the Commissioner.
The monitoring methodology revealed several practices that need to be revisited by the VIPD. First and foremost, the Chiefs of Police must read, approve and concur with the force used in his district and be accountable to the people of the district for the force that officers use. It appears that the Deputy Chiefs have final authority on approval of force investigations, but the Chiefs should be responsible for review and approval performance of their subordinates. Second, the Chiefs must know the patterns of force within their commands. Which areas of the community most often result in officers having to use force? What training or interventions need to occur to protect officers and identify the risks they face? An integral element in force review is looking at force from a global level and that responsibility belongs to the Chiefs. Looking for patterns and trends that can either help the officer and the agency or identify those risks that need to be mitigated for both as well.
B. Use of Force Patterns & Trends
The RRR Annual Report for 2014 referenced earlier in this Quarterly was completed by the VIPD earlier this year. During the Second Quarter of this year – this reporting period – the IMT took early steps to prepare for its own examination of force trends and patterns, an initial step toward outcome measurement. At our request, the VIPD downloaded several data sets from IAPro: total number of force incidents reported (recorded); number of cases within that total classified as "excessive" force; and the
80

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 81 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
number within that total classified as "unnecessary." Data was sought, and provided for a five year period, 2010-2015, and for 2015 year-to-date.
Because these broad measures, and many complementary measures to be applied to detail force patterns and trends, are so consequential for judging constitutional policing behavior by the VIPD law enforcement officers, the impact and outcomes of the now years of Consent Decree-mandated remedies, and future/continuing actions called for from analysis, we are not yet reporting the IAPro data received. We know, for example, that IAPro installation and development and Blue Team capacity and practices evolved over time, affecting year-to-year reporting and recording consistency and, therefore, comparative data validity. We have to isolate the point in time that represents a useable baseline for the patterns and trend analysis. We know that case preparation quality has varied over time. Simply put, these conditions and others must be considered to understand data validity, and conduct informed analysis and publish/release force patterns and trend data.
Our intent, for Quarter Three, 2015, is to call on the Commander of the IAB, the two recently hired IAB data analysts, and others in the VIPD, to examine the processes and practices that will position the VIPD and the IMT to produce valid, reliable, and revealing force patterns and trends profiles and analyses.
C. Blue Team Audit
During the month of July, 2015, IMT Team members interviewed eleven (11) supervisors, 4 from STT and 7 from STX, to determine if they were competent with Blue Team activities. The low number of respondents from STT was a result of availability. The IMT used a standardized interview sheet that has five (5) specific questions, followed by an open ended comment opportunity for the supervisors. The questions posed were:
Q1. Was Blue Team system up and available?
81

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 82 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Q2. Was the Supervisor able to sign into Blue Team? Q3. Could the Supervisor find and review current alert status of a member of his unit? Q4. Could the Supervisor identify how often he/she is required to check into the
IAPro system via the Blue Team system to check on activity status related to their personnel? Q5. Could the Supervisor identify the type of activity that is reportable through the Blue Team? Specifically the following incidents: 5-1. Citizen Complaints 5-2. Administrative Investigations
5-3. UOF Incidents 5-4. Vehicle Accidents (Department Vehicles Only) 5-5. Firearms Discharge 5-6. Vehicular Pursuit Incidents 5-7. Injury to Detainees Generally the responses were good and indicated that the supervisors were fully knowledgeable with the Blue Team protocols and requirements. Of the questions asked, only questions 3, 4, 5-2, 5-5, 5-6, and 5-7 had less than 100% accuracy and those only missed one question each for 91%. Of the six missed questions 3 of the 6 were by one interviewee. The questions missed were mostly in the types of incidents that require Blue Team notifications. One supervisor was not familiar with using the Blue Team Dashboard.
The most disturbing response was to Question 5-5 where one respondent did not indicate understanding the requirement for notification of Firearms Discharge. Again, this was one interviewee, who also missed two other incident types of Vehicular Pursuits and Injury to Detainees. In summary the supervisors acquitted themselves quite well.
82

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 83 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

To the open-ended comment question, most supervisors complained about the Alert System process and generally their issues had to do with the following:

1. Retention of alerts on officers after the case has been investigated and found to be unfounded or exonerated.

2. Alerts against the supervisors for officers no longer under their command who had been transferred but alert remains against the supervisor.

3. Alerts sent on date but suspense date is before the date the alert date was sent, requiring an extension request.

4.

Action plans are submitted and actions completed but alert status never changes

to completed.

5. IAB fails to update assignment records on officers as a result of transfer and continues to send action items to previous supervisor.

6. System requests for allegation when reporting injury to detainee when there is none and refuses to take report without an allegation entry.

7. Numerous interviewees noted that officers under their supervision are reluctant to take action because of the alert system as presently operated and feel even frivolous complaints are repeatedly investigated generating alert counts.

8. Low morale resulting from both the alert system and the current disciplinary matrix was noted by several supervisors.

9. One supervisor noted that he was under red status because of one officer under his supervision, however that officer is on extended administrative leave, thus he can do nothing to correct the situation.

10. One supervisor noted that many of the issues have been brought up at Commanders Call and to IAB, but with no resolution of feedback.

In summary, despite the survey population being small, we found that most supervisors appear to understand their responsibilities with Blue Team and EIP. At the same time they seem frustrated with some of the idiosyncrasies of the system which they believe to be unfairly affecting them and their personnel. They also feel that the current state of low

83

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 84 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
morale is related to many of these issues and that management either does not listen or fails to follow-up on the issues raised. Recommendations 1. That a review of the alert system protocols and processes (including the internal
IAPro processes) be undertaken to validate or invalidate and address when necessary the concerns raised by supervisors. 2. The issue of the disciplinary matrix and the field perception (rightly or wrongly) that it is unfair and in need of repair, should be a priority issue for the VIPD management. This concern with the disciplinary matrix was also raised in the supervisory survey done by the IMT in December 2014 and January 2015 and was reported in the 1Q2015 Quarterly report from the IMT. In discussions with the VIPD prior to and after that report there were indications that a review committee had been established and a complete review of the disciplinary matrix was underway. To date the IMT has not been made aware of any results from such a committee nor do we know when such results may be available. We urge the VIPD to expedite this review in order address some of the concerns that have been raised. The IMT will continue to periodically conduct these checks of the Blue Team system using the same questions to further expand the survey population as well as monitor any changes resultant from management response to the issues raised.
84

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 85 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
VI. IMT TRAINING AUDITS
Two on-site Training observation and evaluation visits were conducted this Quarter. The first, July 14, focused on recruit training, the second, July 20-24, focused on a range of Consent Decree-related considerations including instructor certification records and the progress of data entry into the department’s automated recordkeeping system.
A. Recruit Training
Three members of the IMT visited the VIPD Training facility. The team observed about two hours of a module on Community Policing & Crime Prevention, gathered instructional support materials (participant handouts), and had a brief discussion with the training officer in-charge/on-site that day.
We came away with several positives. The instructor was motivated, energetic, and a good fit to lead a group of mostly young, entry-level recruits. The recruit class exhibited attention, enthusiasm, and engagement. Offsetting these positives is a broad range of deficiencies. We treat them in two categories: (1) technical/methodological; and (2) endgame/learning results, both of which impact training generally and Consent Decree related training more specifically.
1. Technical. Two visits to the training setting as well as evaluation of documents that were made available to the IMT, and a history working with in-service training practices, suggest that the ability of the VIPD to conduct effective adultcentered learning is probably not yet sufficiently imbedded to maximize the benefits of recruit training objectives. (Note: Training staff was not able/did not supply instructional program materials for the 26-week course. We left with observational knowledge of topics for Week 3, handouts for the module, and a lesson plan for another course.)
85

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 86 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Training can be primarily teacher/instructor-centered or student-centered. Adultlearning should always be student-centered, designed to meet the needs of the student. This did not seem to be the case in the setting we observed. The performance objectives in the lesson plan for the module observed by the IMT (received after we departed) convey what the instructor is to do, not terminal performance (or skills) – what the students must know and be able to perform. Absence of student-centered performance objectives minimizes the probability that complementary required components of the program of instruction can meet training design standards. It is tantamount to designing curricula without clear definition of the end-game.
Lesson plans reviewed in the past have a modicum of student-centered content, but for the most part, do not. A lesson plan downloaded from Power DMS (Taking Citizen Complaints) is a verbatim statement of content from VIPD policy and nothing else, no instructor notes, no student exercises, no practice exercises, no PowerPoint insertions, nor interactive questions, all essential mechanisms for student-centered learning.
We were stunned to find a copy of the Police Manual being used as a learning aid, a document we have not been able to get despite repeated requests. The Manual has no date of issue and contains materials dating as far back as the 1980s, 30 years ago. (No Consent Decree-related policies are contained in the document.)
We have shared our concerns with the Deputy Commissioner and are engaged in exchanges to further inform our knowledge base and clarify our perceptions. At this juncture, however, we have deep concern about the capacity of the VIPD to get its recruits as ready as they might be when they leave the academy. Our concern is intensified by at least one observation from a VIPD training staff member that the VIPD’s field training program – what should be the seamless
86

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 87 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
next step in development – is not functioning well. Further study of the functioning of the FTO program is in order.
2. Consent Decree Training. The IMT pursued a line of questioning to reveal how Consent Decree purposes, processes, and requirements are presented to recruits. A key question regarded whether the Consent Decree is being taught as one selfcontained module, is woven throughout other modules, or with both methods. The response was that the Consent Decree is referenced in each of the blocks on the Consent Decree policies, but there is not one block to cover, for example, Consent Decree origins, intent, implications, and positive contribution the Consent Decree has made or can make to improve the delivery of constitutional policing services to the people of the Virgin Islands. Accordingly, a major opportunity is being missed to influence the values and perspectives of recruits positively with regard to the Consent Decree and foster cultural change going forward. Training should be viewed as a driver of change. This potential needs to be emphasized and actualized constantly as the VIPD advances training programming, at all levels.
3. The End-Game. Not all members of the Training staff, or contractors employed, may be fully conversant with adult learning concepts. If so, this will impact the end-game -- a force that is responsive to the demands of and champions the purposes of the Consent Decree. This speaks to the outcome of training, which is duty performance. To make the policies and programs prescribed by the Consent Decree functional at a maximum level, adult-centered learning must replace student-centered learning. As the training moves from the psychomotor skills, like shooting, to cognitive recall skills, like understanding and applying policy, to affective areas of cultural change, use of adult learning techniques and delivery methods become more important to the end-game. Recruit courses are notorious for having instructors read from legal publications or procedure manuals. During our visit, the instructor delivering the Community Policing course read several
87

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 88 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
founding objectives from a 1980s COP training program, slowly so students could copy them. (Slides were unreadable due to the light yellow text on the screen.) This style of delivery does not meet adult learning training requirements and is not student-focused.
B. Instructor Certification Records Following a long and contentious development period, Commissioner’s Order #003-2014 “Trainings (sic) Revised Instructor Selection Process” was issued on May 16, 2014. In the last two quarterly reports and during several monthly meetings, the IMT urged the VIPD to conduct an internal review of their instructor files for compliance with the new directive and to then request a more formal audit of those same records with the results being forwarded to the Training Advisory Committee (TAC). To our knowledge, no review or audit has been conducted. The IMT believes that such a review should take place in both districts and undertook the task during a recent on-site visit. We took the opportunity to examine training records generally and to assess the VIPD’s progress in inputting historical data into PowerDMS.
1. Record Maintenance. We find that records are maintained differently in each district. While there is sound rationale for the manner in which records are created, stored and maintained, we believe that the recordkeeping should be the same and that practices be standard throughout the Territory.
We liked the summary sheet in St. Thomas District that provides a ready – resource by listing all of an officer’s training on a continually updated and printed record. We believe that this same kind of report will be stored in the computer system but is more than adequate today.
We were similarly impressed to see FTO Certificates in the folders of trainers in St. Croix District. It is clear that the VIPD is in a position to be able to train its
88

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 89 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
own FTO’s. There are more than enough FTO trainers to fulfill the role for the VIPD without the need to bring contract trainers into the territory.
The IMT found that typically, all of the officers’ training records were placed into a folder. There was no real division between their recruit training records, their inservice training records, and specialized training with certificates and their instructor certifications. We suggest that following a new employee’s probationary period their recruit training records be removed and placed into a separate file and stored. We also suggest that instructor files and certificates be stored within the training folder but divided from personal training histories.
2. Instructor Certifications. The VIPD organizes its instruction certificates in one of three classifications.
General Instructor: These are trainers who have successfully completed a forty hour Instructor Development course or qualify for some sort of equivalency. The certification has no expiration date.
Specialized Instructor: Experts in certain important areas who provide specific information not generally found within the usual “police” or “law enforcement” areas. This might include computer use or foreign languages. No special instructional certification is required.
High Liability Instructor: Trainers who possess instructor certificates in specific weapons and tactics that permit them to teach subjects such as firearms, defensive tactics, less lethal weapons, K-9, emergency vehicle operation and other tactical courses.
Certificates, on average, are for a three year period unless otherwise specified. VIPD has adopted the three year standard where it is not otherwise specified by the certifying entity.
3. Instructor Records. We discovered that we had not been able to access a significant proportion of the PowerDMS records. While we have been viewing records of the last two years of in-service training, we had not been given the
89

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 90 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
appropriate permissions to view instructor files and lesson plans beyond those utilized for in-service training. This issue was addressed right away and is greatly appreciated.
Generally, it appears that there is little in the way of records for Specialized Instructors. Criteria should be established for those records that should be maintained for this group of instructors. At a minimum, their instructional histories and evaluations should be kept.
It would appear that all General Instructors have an appropriate certificate indicating successful completion of an Instructor Techniques or Development class.
Likewise, High Liability Instructors appear to have appropriate certifications in place. It also appears to us, however, that most initial certifications have expired.
While current instructors are not subject to the requirements of Directive 0032014 for newly appointed trainers, there are stipulations concerning performance review and disciplinary histories that are also applicable to established instructors. We found no provisions in place for reviewing performance evaluations and adverse actions.
4. Training Records Automation. We are still exploring records in PowerDMS to which we previously had no access. Other than shortcomings noted elsewhere, the VIPD is making significant progress entering historical records. We should jointly explore the capabilities of PowerDMS so that we might better use it to conduct analysis and evaluation of training and its effectiveness.
We find virtually no records of roll call or commander’s call training. We understood that this was a part of the VIPD plan to enter this training information and to expand the quiz and testing capabilities.
90

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 91 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
C. Recommendations The IMT’s Training Audits revealed the need for a series of specific actions and confirm longer-held observations and recommendations.
1. The VIPD must reengineer its training practices to ensure that courses of instruction comply with standard learning practices, including adult-centered learning principles.
2. The recruit curriculum should be reviewed with a view to ensuring that Consent Decree values, objectives, and practices are consistently imparted.
3. The training function should be consciously employed as a driver of cultural change, consistent with Consent Decree values, objectives and practices.
4. The Training Bureau is in need of oversight and guidance from the department’s command staff to fulfill its role in the organization. This requires an interactive relationship between the leaders of the organization and training personnel so that they are working on shared goals and objectives. The IMT will make every effort to attend the next Training Advisory Committee meeting. We believe that we might be able to help the Committee organize its purpose and goals more definitively.
5. During our on-site visit, we discussed the fact that PowerDMS, in addition to its training module, has a standards module designed specifically for the maintenance and distribution of policy. Currently, the VIPD is utilizing the training module to maintain and distribute policy.
6. While certain features of the training module can perform some of the same functions, the standards module is designed specifically for written policy development and distribution. We believe that many of the policy development
91

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 92 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
tasks would be much simpler in the standards module. We believe that the VIPD, as a goal, would want to place all policies within PowerDMS and retire the existing “Manual.” 7. The IMT repeats its urging for the VIPD to review and audit instructor records. We have pointed to certain shortcomings that require the immediate attention of the department. D. VIPD MOVEMENT As noted, the IMT has already shared many of the observations and findings reported here with the Deputy Commissioner. We are excited to report that a number of decisions have already been taken to begin reengineering of the training function. A training supervisor has been replaced. The VIPD intends to audit all lesson plans. The Consent Decree document will be provided to all recruits and will be discussed during training. These are very positive developments that promise payoff in terms of Consent Decree compliance purposes and desired offer service and behavior.
92

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 93 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
VII. IMT COMPLIANCE SUPPORT: SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS
The IMT has continuously offered Technical Assistance (TA) to the VIPD where and when needed. This Technical Assistance has taken the form of mentoring, suggesting and/or locating reference materials, training opportunities, and sample programs from other law enforcement agencies. The current VIPD compliance team has been especially welcoming in this regard, no one more so than the Deputy Commissioner. During the reporting quarter, TA continued and expanded, including site coordination visits and hands-on assistance. Some examples follow.
During the First Quarter 2015 reporting period, the IMT identified a problem with effective and timely review of VIPD policies, especially those associated with the Consent Decree. In 2014, the IMT created and used monitoring software to track previously published policies, directives, and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS) as well as their established required review dates. This software was part of the larger IMT Data Systems. Not only was the review process not being adhered to (generally required annually on the anniversary date of the documents); the process appeared to lack a cohesive, defined and monitored review sequence that was documented. More than once during meetings with the VIPD, when the IMT asked for the status of a policy that supposed to be under review, no one could definitively provide information as to where the policy was in the review process. Discussions with VIPD personnel further reinforced this lack of organization and the system was variously defined as "ad hoc," "not documented," "review committee not functioning well," or just that "nothing was moving forward on a regular basis."
As the IMT already had written its data system, a component to track all VIPD written directives, monitor them against established review dates, and track the revision process, an extract was made from the system and a stand-alone database software program was developed for use by the VIPD. That system was titled the VIPD Written Directive System and offered to the VIPD during the reporting period. The VIPD responded that they felt their Power DMS system could do all that the IMT-supplied software could and chose not to implement the IMT version. Subsequent review of the Power DMS modules currently licensed to the VIPD seem to indicate
93

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 94 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
that the Training Module (which they are currently licensed for) can only perform the listing and distribution function, while the more detailed development and review processes noted above are only contained within the Standards module of Power DMS. The IMT suggested that the VIPD obtain the Standards Module for tracking the detailed development and review processes contained within the IMT system and not provided for under the Training Module in Power DMS. The IMT developed software remains available and is currently in the hands of the VIPD.
Figure 1 The main data screen can demonstrate some of the capabilities of the software, especially the monitoring of review suspense dates, linkage of forms to directives via coded numbering systems, and the review process itself as the written directive moves through the system to finalization.
94

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 95 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Figure 2 A second issue developed regarding the development, numbering, and monitoring of Court Ordered Goals by the VIPD. In the past, these goals were directly related to the various paragraphs and sub-paragraphs of the Consent Decree and reflected clearly defined compliance requirements and easily identifiable labels such as "32-b." During the Third Quarter of 2014, the VIPD began filing goals with the Court that were not generally directly related to the compliance requirements of paragraphs and did not have specific labels or codes associated with them. Rather, these goals were merely statements of some step or process that the VIPD expected to achieve during the associated reporting periods. An example of one of these goals is "Edit and Improve the Force reporting Templates," with a completion date of 11/29/14. The IMT, in order to better sort and track these goals within its database system gave this goal the label or code of "UOF-A." In retrospect, this choice of coding was not the best. As the quarters progressed, and for the Second Quarter2015 goals we began using a more standardized and simple format such as 2Q15-1, with a secondary and separate code that denotes what workgroup it is associated with (in this case it was 1 for the Use of Force workgroup). For its filings and reporting of
95

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 96 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
compliance the VIPD has chosen not to use these codes and reports its activity by the goal description only.
Other issues are present for the IMT with regard to our goal compliance review obligations. The VIPD has ten (10) working days after the quarter ends to submit their goals for the next quarter. It usually waits until the ninth (9th) day to advise the DOJ and IMT what new goals they are contemplating. In most cases this is accomplished via conference call during which the VIPD requests a quick response in order for them to file with the Court the next day. This results in a number of insufficiently defined goals not structured for precise evaluation. This condition has resulted in conflict between the Parties regarding completion. The IMT suggests that a better way to accomplish this goal submission routine is for the IMT, DOJ, and the VIPD to meet immediately after the evidentiary hearing and develop the goals in a consensus setting. Of concern is the need to have these goals proffered by the VIPD itself and then developed jointly so there is no confusion as what is required to determine whether a goal has been met. This procedure would also set the stage for offers of technical assistance related to goal completion, as well as facilitate a timely and useful submission to the Court by the VIPD, well within the time limits specified by the Court’s order.
Finally it is recommended that to facilitate digital tracking as well as Court reference to the goals, the parties and the IMT should develop a better system to manage and track quarterly goals, which would include a unified coding system. A simple code such as described above will accurately identify a goal to the quarter submitted, and facilitate electronic tracking of submissions and steps toward compliance. These capabilities reside in the software provided to the VIPD by the IMT, the VIPD Court Goals Monitoring System, shown in the following screen shots of the opening menu:
96

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 97 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Figure 3 The software provided detailed monitoring of both the goals and the steps associated with completing them as shown in the main editing window below.
Figure 4
97

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 98 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Like its partner the Written Directive System, this software was extracted and modified from the IMT internal data system for use by the VIPD and both run on the same software platform. The data assembled in both systems is fully transferable to higher level software used throughout the law enforcement spectrum, such as Oracle or IBM DB2 should the VIPD decide to develop their own system in the future.
The system was supplied with a paper based working check sheet that allows the VIPD to plan out the steps required to complete the goals in a group session or the software can provide the same environment with unlimited user access. Since the IMT runs identical software subsystems, the VIPD can easily report their progress through various output reports which the IMT can use to update its systems.
In both cases described, IMT team members provided on-site technical assistance in the operation of the two software system, provided the underlying operating software runtime programs, and made modifications requested by the VIPD. The IMT believes that the VIPD has in fact installed and has operating the Goals Monitoring Software but not the Written Direction Program, still maintaining that Power DMS can handle the problems. While the IMT would be happy with the full Power DMS options (including the Standards module), concerns remain with the process available under the Training module only and has seen no real progress in the required reviews of Consent Decree related policies or the actions of the Policy Review Committee. The IMT still has not received a full accounting for the review status of these critical policies that have long passed their review dates. Both software programs were provided with a User Manual to guide the use of the program. A copy of the current review status of all policies related to the Consent Decree is provided as an Appendix to this report.
98

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 99 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
VIII. REINFORCING VIPD GOAL & PARAGRAPH DOCUMENTATION LINKING
The IMT and the members of the DOJ team have urged the VIPD on several occasions to connect documents transmitted to the Parties to the goals and paragraphs to which they apply. Practice has been uneven, at best. Failure to do so risks and causes confusion, unnecessary consumption of resources (on both ends), and frustrates the Parties (probably, also, on both ends). The Second Quarter effort to evaluate/react to Court-Ordered Goal Compliance is a pointed and still very fresh example. This standing expectation was revisited during the Monthly Call among the Parties, August 7, 2015. We are pleased to report that documentation received subsequent to this mutual discussion has, in fact, been linked. As the newly hired Compliance Coordinator replaces the current one, we trust the importance of the practice will be emphasized. Ability of the IMT to judge compliance progress efficiently and equitably relies on the clarity of documentation, not exclusively but to a material extent.
99

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 100 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
IX. RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY
Chapter II, Section E, Paragraph & Goal Detail Review, details "Impediments to Compliance" and "Recommendations to Gain Compliance" for all paragraphs and sub-paragraphs accepted by the Court as quarterly goals. Even with updates, many of these have appeared repetitively in successive Quarterlies. Command accountability for force review, use of templates, timely response to citizen complaints, and semi-annual review of the quality and consistency of force training are but a few examples. Another repetition here does not seem to be called for. We are singling out for attention other recommendations made in this report.
1. Address the Audit Unit’s self-reported portfolio of the Unresolved Audit Recommendations.
This, like all compliance matters, is a primary responsibility of, first, the Commissioner and second, the Deputy Commissioner.
2. Continue to position the Citizen Complaint, Management & Supervision and Training Work Groups to conduct Metrics-Centered Auditing.
3. Build on the Annual RRR Report prototype to produce comprehensive and outcome focused body of force patterns, trends and analytics.
The sooner that useable Force Profile information is in place, the sooner the Parties will be informed with outcome information, have the ability to assess the constitutionality of force practices in the Virgin Islands, and introduce policy and practice innovations to protect constitutional guarantees.
4. The VIPD must reengineer its training practices to ensure that courses of instruction comply with best learning practices and adult/student-centered learning principles.
100

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 166 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 101 of 101
Second Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
This sweeping, longer-term endeavor should begin with submission of instructional design and course materials to the IMT for evaluation, well prior to scheduled course delivery dates. 5. Review and restructure as needed the recruit curriculum to ensure that Consent Decree values, objectives, and policies and practices are consistently imparted. 6. Strengthen the level of oversight, guidance, and collaboration between command staff and the Training Bureau staff to ensure that goals and objectives are understood and shared. 7. Revisit, all parties and the Court, the calendar proposed earlier which presented a process for collaborating on goal setting and quality real-time quarterly reporting overall.
101

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 1 of 59
INTERIM UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF COMPLIANCE BY THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT FROM THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT NOVEMBER 20, 2014
CHARLES A. GRUBER CONSULTING INC. INDEPENDENT MONITOR
www.imt‐policemonitor.org
Updated December 9, 2014

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 2 of 59

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)

This report summarizes the present status of the Territory of the Virgin Islands (VI) and the Virgin Island Police Department (VIPD) compliance with the Consent Decree (2008-158, as amended). It is the second time that compliance status has been presented down to the sub-paragraph level for all paragraphs.

This work has resulted from a productive collaboration at a Summit style meeting in St Thomas, USVI, on November 12, 2014. The objectives or focused outcomes of that Summit was to:

- Review VIPD compliance status with Not in Substantial Compliance paragraphs, focusing on those with Court ordered goals.

- Address Use of Force concerns and issues including: o Review of police discharge of firearms cases and frequency; o Review of Case File UOFT-2013-0017; o Review Audit Questions on Cases; o Review training memo issue concerning UOF decision making.

- Review suggested quarterly reporting and court dates.

- Review IMT concerns surrounding proposed police instructor waiver.
Progress was achieved on all of the objectives. For the record, the VIPD has brought no additional paragraphs into compliance since the last compliance requirement report, August 15, 2014. Overall compliance is shown in Chart 1, below:

2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 3 of 59 Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
Chart 1, Overall Compliance, November 20, 2014
Compliance trends for life of the Consent Decree are displayed at Chart 2, below:
3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 4 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
Chart 2, Compliance Trends
The IMT feels that if they apply themselves to the recommendations found in Section III, within this report, the VIPD should be able to make some progress before the next report. While feeling comfortable with the above judgment call, we remain cognizant of the pending transition in Territorial leadership and its subsequent impact on the VIPD. Based on our information, it is entirely possible that much of the upper echelon of the department will retire or otherwise leave the police service. That said, we are heartened by the efforts of members of the various working groups who will in all likelihood remain in the department, as they have recently been demonstrating a new found determination and expertise with seeking compliance. We urge the Court to exercise its powers to support as seamless transition as possible so as not to disrupt the progress and spirit that has recently been displayed during the Summit.
4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 5 of 59 Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
Individual Consent Decree group compliance status is displayed in Charts 3-7. Chart 3, Group 1 Use of Force
Chart 4, Group 2 Citizen Complaints
5

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 6 of 59 Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014) Chart 5, Group 3 Management and Supervision
Chart 6, Group 4 Training
Chart 7, Group 5 Implementation 6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 7 of 59 Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)

II. STATUS AND COMMENTARY A. Compliance Status as of November 20, 2014 Table 1, below, depicts those paragraphs that were in Substantial Compliance (SC) on November 20, 2014: Table 1, Paragraphs in Compliance as of November 20, 2014

31

39

40

41

42

43

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

61

62

63

64

65

66

70

75

76

78

79

80

B. Court Ordered Compliance Goals

7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 8 of 59

Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)

During the 1st, 2d, and 3rd Quarters, the VIPD proposed compliance with numerous paragraphs. The Court, in its subsequent summary orders (with the exception of the 3rd Quarter where the proposed goals appear to be orally accepted), ordered that the paragraphs listed in Table 2 come into compliance by the Quarter reporting dates of 5/23/14, 8/15/14, and 11/21/14.

Table 2, Cumulative Court Ordered/Accepted Goals

May 23, 2014

45‐58, ALL Sub‐ Paragraphs

73‐81, ALL Sub‐ Paragraphs

August 15, 2014
61, ALL Sub‐ Paragraphs, 60 ALL Sub‐ Paragraphs, 65, ALL Sub‐ Paragraphs
November 21,2014

32, a‐f; 33, a, e; 34, a,b.e.f; 35, a,d
69, ALL Sub‐ Paragraphs; 73, ALL Sub‐ Paragraphs; 74,e

36, a‐g; 41, ALL Sub‐Paragraphs
75‐81, ALL Sub‐ Paragraphs

44, ALL Sub‐ Paragraphs; 51, All Sub‐ Paragraphs

54‐56, All Sub‐ Paragraphs; 58, ALL Sub‐ Paragraphs

32, a,b,c,d, and f 33, a and e 34, a,b, and e 35, a 36, a,b,d,f, and g

44, timeliness of investigations 58, ALL 60, c, d, h 69, ALL

71, ALL 72, ALL 73, ALL 74, a,c,e,f, and g

77, ALL 81, providing supervisory training in leadership and management

NOTE: The November 21, 2014 goals were submitted but no court order was rendered. Indications are that they were acceptable to the Court.

In addition to the above paragraphs, in its filing on September 12, 2014, the VIPD asserted they would come into compliance with the following seven initiatives.

1. Edit and improve new force reporting templates.

2. Issue directive for template implementation.

8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 9 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
3. Training and implement templates. 4. Approval of Force Review Board Policy. 5. Identify personnel for Force Review Board. 6. Identify training for Force Review Board personnel. 7. Develop Force Investigations Team (FIT) policy.
C. Compliance Detail
The VIPD has achieved Substantial Compliance for 31 paragraphs. Twenty (20) are not yet in Substantial Compliance. This is the second time in the history of the VIPD Consent Decree that more paragraphs have been in full compliance than have not. The work done at August Summit explains some of the surge in compliance.
 Paragraphs in Substantial Compliance at the end of the Quarter Three, 2014 are: 31, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 , 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 70, 75, 76, 78, 79 and 80. (NOTE: Bolded/underlined paragraphs have training evaluated under paragraph 75 and implementation under paragraph 100)
Paragraphs that attained Substantial Compliance at the end of Quarter
Three, 2014 include: 41, 46, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 61, 65, 75, 76, 78, and 80.  Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance: 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 44, 58, 59, 60, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 81, 100, 101.
9

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 10 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
The IMT issued a memorandum on November 13, 2014, in response to requests generated at the Summit, of the linkage between paragraph 100 sub-paragraph compliance requirements or items (a-w) and their original location in another paragraph of the Consent Decree. This linkage can be viewed at Appendix A to this report.
D. Other Activities
The Force Review Board
The IMT provided technical assistance to Captain Duggan, the Force Work Group chairperson. The IMT forwarded carefully selected examples of Policies and Procedures to develop a Force Review Board capable of completing detailed analysis of force incidents that would fall under its purview. Captain Duggan has taken this item under her personal review, with several individuals she has selected from the VIPD supervisory staff, and reported on the committee’s progress during the October 29, 2014 monthly meeting and the November Summit, as well as numerous phone conversations. (See Section III, A., which provides updated details)
The Force Investigation Team
The IMT provided technical assistance to Captain Duggan by providing examples of an Organizational Plan and Operations Manual to implement a Force Investigation Team. Captain Duggan has selected her team members to undertake a review and evaluation of those documents and will oversee the development of recommendations related to the implementation to the VIPD executive leadership of the FIT Team. (See Section III, A., which provides updated details)
10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 11 of 59

Audit & Inspection Unit

Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)

The Commissioner of the VIPD recently decided to implement the Audit & Inspection Unit (AIU), VIPD Policy 2.07. He established it with one full-time member, the unit commander. While it is our understanding that the intent of the VIPD is to supplement the AIU staffing with temporary assigned staff of up to six months duration, such temporary assignments do not enhance the development of AIU experience and capacity as would some level of additional full time staff. This plan is certainly not what the IMT expected when the Commission announced in the last court session that the unit would be implemented.
In the view of the IMT, single person staffing with temporary duty personnel is clearly deficient and does not recognize the importance and relationship between a robust and comprehensive audit and inspection program and the department’s continued progress toward full compliance with the Consent Decree. Assignment of one full-time member, the commander, who is responsible for overall supervision and management of the function as well as of actual conduct of audits, does not ensure that the unit will be able to fulfill its assigned mission. Based on the extensive experience that the IMT members have with audit units and a review of other law enforcement agencies, we were expecting an initial staffing of at least a commander and a combination of at least two to three full or part-time auditors. While we acknowledge that the unit will require some stand-up organizational time, to do so without full-time staffing levels jeopardize the initiation. In saying this, we have taken into consideration the initiation of system-focused audits (discussed in our recent letter to the Commissioner), the

11

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 12 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
oversight and direct staffing assistance to the on-going audit working groups as well as beginning the department-wide, bi-annual unit level inspections function. None of this is possible with only one full-time member, who has other critical duties, and a rotating, part-time staffing of individuals who have their own unit level responsibilities.
While we understand the Commissioner’s and the VIPD’s stated concerns with department staffing, we suggest that at least one full staffer could be assigned by transferring the Department’s Compliance Coordinator to the AIU. This should not diminish his important responsibilities as the coordinator, as much of that work is attributed to the transmittal of documentation between the VIPD and the IMT. If this is accomplished, initial planning and organization could be accomplished and then one or two additional personnel could be added during 2015 as the program transitions to operational activity and the department completes its promotional program. Rotating and/or part-time arrangements are also options.
The IMT urges the department to reconsider staffing of the AIU and recognize that an investment of resources now will certainly enhance the department’s progress toward Consent Decree compliance in 2015. The IMT has already begun providing technical assistance to the AIU commander and is committed to continuing that assistance as the unit moves toward operation level capabilities.
Training Review Committee
The VIPD has established a Training Review Committee that has 12 members, generally representing management and the Training Academy. It appears there
12

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 13 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
are neither first responders nor the lead from the Use of Force Working Group as full time members. In addition, this committee is tasked with evaluating Use of Force training materials and programs, in some cases making use of IAPro generated data. However they have not created criteria, process, or a protocol for this evaluation. Finally the Committee should consider allowing anonymous routing for training improvement recommendations, which may lead to increased recommendations from field personnel.
The IMT recommends that the VIPD address these issues quickly in order to facilitate effective and comprehensive evaluation of use of force training those results in improvements in content and delivery. They can do this by reviewing and adjusting the membership to increase first responder representation and the lead of the Use of Force Working Group, create a well designed protocol for evaluating the training in the context of IAPro operational data, and allow for direct routing of suggestions to the Committee. The IMT stands ready to assist the VIPD with this review in any way we can.
Early Intervention Process The other area of large concern has to do with the lack of progress in the EIP area. There was been limited, ineffective supervisory/managerial response to alerts forwarded. This is allowing employees, who may be starting to exhibit signs of problematic behavior, to continue same behavior resulting in additional citizen complaints and/or uses of force. IMT was informed that there had been 97 alerts forwarded during 2014; however, VIPD could not immediately provide a status update other than a statement that very few had been addressed appropriately. In an attempt to illustrate shortcomings, IMT sent a request to the PC for specific EIP information with a requested due date of Nov 1, 2014. Nothing has been
13

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 14 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
received at this time. Since that request, IMT is also tracking a probationary officer with numerous flags, including uses of force. Initial inquiry resulted in a manager identifying lack of appropriate supervision for his ongoing issues. (Please see subsequent discussion re supervisors.) Section III Court Goals and Paragraph Compliance Detail
A. VIPD Initiatives
1. Edit and improve new force reporting templates. a. IMT Comment: Three templates have been developed by the Use of Force Working Group. These include a Witness Statement, an Officer Statement (RRR), and a Supervisory Investigation. They were recently field tested on St Croix and some updates were made to the final versions. IMT has provided technical assistance to the Working Group throughout the development of these templates.
2. Issue directive for template implementation. a. IMT Comment: The directive has been developed and is pending VIPD Commissioner Signature; it will be issued prior to the December court hearing date.
3. Training and implement templates a. IMT Comment: Training has been scheduled on St Croix and a notice of that was signed by the Commissioner and issued to the field on November 17, 2014. Training will be complete for all of St Croix personnel by December 5, 2014. After evaluation of that training it will be conducted on St Thomas for St Thomas and St John. Training on the Witness and Officer statement should last about two hours, while the Supervisory investigation will be longer due to its complexity and content.
4. Approval of Force Review Board Policy.
14

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 15 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
a. IMT Comment: A draft of the proposed policy was sent to DOJ and the VIPD is reviewing comments made by DOJ and revising as necessary. Once completed it will be reviewed by the IMT staff and returned to the VIPD for approval and publication. This should occur before December 15, 2014. IMT has provided technical assistance and materials to aid the VIPD with this process.
5. Identify personnel for Force Review Board.
a. IMT Comment: This process will be underway once the directive has been approved. IMT will provide assistance as needed with the selection process. IMT has provided technical assistance and materials to aid the VIPD with this process.
6. Identify training for Review Board personnel.
a. IMT Comment: Again, once the directive is approved, development of the necessary training will begin. IMT will assist as needed. IMT has provided technical assistance and materials to aid the VIPD with this process.
7. Develop force investigations team policy.
a. IMT Comment: This is a work in progress, with an expectation that a draft will be available by December 5, 2014. IMT has provided technical assistance and materials to aid the VIPD with this process, and will assist as needed.
B. Paragraph and Goal Detail Review: The IMT reports on all paragraphs and subparagraphs proposed by the VIPD and accepted by the Court as quarterly goals. In addition, the IMT also reports on other paragraphs and sub-paragraphs that are Not in Substantial Compliance or Partial Compliance (sub-paragraphs only) as they feel are important to progress toward Consent Decree compliance.
Paragraph 32, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording
15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 16 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
The VIPD will require all uses of force to be documented in writing. The use of force report form will indicate each and every type of force that was used, and require the evaluation of each type of force. Use of force reports will include a narrative description of the events preceding the use of force, written by a supervisor or by the designated investigative unit. Use of force reports also will include the officer(s)’ narrative description of events and the officer(s)’ statement. Except in cases of use of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, the officer’s statement shall be audio- or videotaped.
Activity During this reporting period the VIPD has undertaken an aggressive approach at revamping its internal review system to respond to known lapses in the force reporting, investigation and review process. They developed a 1) revised Officer Responding to Resistance template, 2) new Witness Officer Force template, 3) revised Supervisor Investigating Force template, and a directive from the commissioner implementing the templates. The force group leader Capt. Duggan executed training and tested the methodology for the implementation of the training and the validity of the templates. Additional tweaks to the products were detected and will be completed. Training will be undertaken and delivered during this reporting period.
Sub-paragraph 32a is currently in compliance.
Impediments to Compliance With regard to the template’s training and curriculum development, the close coordination between the Use of Force Working Group and the Training Division will be critical for the development of effective training development and delivery. It appears that this did not occur. Instructor selection for department wide template trainers has not been completed. The development of the training protocols, outcome measures and evaluation for the template training has not been completed. It does not appear that the Training Division was fully involved in the development of this training and thus its future training delivery may be impacted unless these critical training components are institutionalized and monitored by Training. These must be done to ensure that training is repeated evenly throughout the department and into future sessions going forward.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Coordinate with the Training Division all necessary documentation and curriculum components to ensure all members are trained consistently and provided the same outcome measures.
16

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 17 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Partial Compliance =>95% of RRRs indicate each and every type of force that was used Activity This has been a particularly troublesome spot for the reporting process. Officers fail to identify all the force used and by each officer each time. The new reporting form is designed to capture this element. Impediments to Compliance Supervisors have failed to identify all force used each and every time force is executed. Recommendations to Gain Compliance Train supervisors to evaluate each and every force application employed by department personnel. Prepare “go-bys” to example actual review of different use of force cases. Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>95% of RRRs contain an evaluation of each type of force used by a supervisor Activity In August 2014, deficiencies are being identified through audits and corrective action is being applied by the agency. At the 11/12/14 Summit there has been no change in the status of this subparagraph. The department produced the templates to engage the department leadership into better monitoring the force review process. The templates were electronically produced and have been tested by a diverse group of VIPD managers. Several adjustments were noted by the managers and those adjustments to the templates were in progress by the working group. Further the training was facilitated by the use of force working group and the results would be incorporated into the final roll-out. The Use of Force working Group chair advised that the training should be out and running prior to the Dec court date. The templates include Officer Witness report, RRR, and Supervisor’s Investigation Report of Use of Force. Training will take about 1 hour for the Witness and the officer's RRR; 2.5 hours for the supervisor component, according to the working group leader.
17

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 18 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
We were informed that by the Dec court date, the VIPD will be able to tell us how many officers will have been trained on the new templates. Impediments to Compliance Failure to implement the templates and training personnel on them. Continued failure to meet deadlines and content requirements in UOF reporting. Recommendations to Gain Compliance Follow through with the template implementation and training, with follow-on evaluation, through the on-going audits. Complete “go-bys” development. Sub-Paragraph d, Status = Partial Compliance =>95% of RRRs contain a narrative description of the events preceding the use of force written by the supervisor or assigned investigator. Activity The new forms are designed to capture this information and reinforce the supervisor’s role in learning what the events that preceded the force use were. Impediments to Compliance Untrained supervisors and department leaders who failed to identify the supervisor’s oversights. Recommendations to Gain Compliance Improved training focused on the organizations weaknesses learned through audits and inspections. Sub-Paragraph f, Status = Partial Compliance =>95% of the reports will include an audio or videotaped statement, unless the level of force used is at the lowest level as described by DOJ approved VIPD policy. Activity Reviews of audio and video tape recording of officer’s statements reveal continued failure to include appropriate version with reports or not obtain correct version. Impediments to Compliance
18

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 19 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
Equipment is needed in the field to allow supervisors to capture statements taken during the on-scene review and evidence collection of force inquires from both officers and witnesses. Recommendations to Gain Compliance Install in car video cameras. General Discussion and/Meetings Mini summit produced understanding that VIPD would have templates, and training completed by Dec 2014 court hearing Activity Complete training curriculums, instructor class notes, class objectives, outcome measures and class evaluations. Impediments None known Recommendations Assign personnel to complete tasks and focus leadership on meeting timetables. Paragraph 33, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance Consent Decree Paragraph Wording Officers shall notify their supervisors following any use of force or upon the receipt of an allegation of excessive force. Except in uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, supervisors will respond to the scene, examine the subject for injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain, and ensure that the subject received needed medical attention. Activity IMT met frequently with the Force Working Group chair and members through conference calls, mini summit and IMT monitoring activities. Impediments to Compliance Insufficient supervisors are neither available nor assigned to the areas most needed to ensure proper oversight or inquiries of force are properly reviewed and evaluated. Recommendations to Gain Compliance
19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 20 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
Promote and assign supervisors where experience has shown that supervisors are needed to review, analyze, and evaluate force incidents occurring on their watch.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Partial Compliance In =>95% of the identified use of force incidents, the officer using force notified his/her supervisor immediately as required by VIPD policy. Activity VIPD has identified persons to be promoted for supervision which should help ensure that they are available for force review. Impediments to Compliance VIPD has not completed the promotional process. VIPD must then train the new supervisors on force review, investigation and reporting process. Recommendations to Gain Compliance Finish both the promotional and training processes outlined. Sub-Paragraph e, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of the incidents where the Supervisors responded to the scene, he/she ensured that subjects received any necessary medical attention. Activity VIPD has worked to complete the templates for both the capture and evaluation of the tenets contained in this item of the consent decree. Impediments to Compliance Completion of the training and then oversight management to ensure that both officers and supervisors complete and document their activities. Recommendations to Gain Compliance Ensure that training provides for coordinated training and management of the curriculums necessary to properly retrain and train new employees in the same process. General Discussion and/Meetings Discussion of system designed to ensure the capture of the necessary elements of the consent decree. That those elements are consistently trained
20

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 21 of 59

Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)

Activity This was discussed at the mini summit. The VIPD is making good headway on the system design. Test training has been done and the development of the final protocols, curriculums and teaching outcomes are yet to be completed. VIPD expects to completed all of that work before the Consent Decree hearing in December 17, 2014

Impediments Development of the student and instructor outcome evaluations before the December hearing could be difficult. Development of “go-byes” should assist with compliance.

measures,

lesson

plans,

Recommendations to Gain Compliance Assign training personnel to assist the Force work group chairman in completing the training documentation.

Paragraph 34, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance

Consent Decree Paragraph Wording Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, will review, evaluate, and document each use of force, and will complete the narrative description section of the use of force report. The narrative description will include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer's conduct. As part of this review, the supervisor or designated investigating officer/unit will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officer's actions were within VIPD policy. An officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized conduct leading to the use of force or allegation of excessive force, or who was present during the incident, will not be eligible to review or investigate the incident.

Activity IMT met frequently with the Force Working Group chair and members through conference calls, mini summit and IMT monitoring activities.

Sub-paragraphs f and g are in compliance.

Impediments to Compliance Management review of the completed force cases has been intermittent and incomplete. Both the VIPD audits and IMT reviews have disclosed untimely cases, incomplete analysis that failed to properly identify inadequate officer or supervisor

21

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 22 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
reporting, missing collection of evidence, witness identification missing and case analysis was not supported by evidence. Recommendations to Gain Compliance VIPD efforts to implement both a Force Review Board, and a Serious Force Investigation team will greatly assist in the ongoing force analysis issues. Properly trained and motivated managers who follow reporting procedure themselves will also result in furthering compliance.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Partial Compliance In =>95% of the reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he/she was not involved in the use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize or participate in conduct leading to the use of force incident), will review, evaluate, and document each use of force. No change in activity, impediments, or recommendations from prior reports. No progress was made. Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completes the supervisor's narrative description of the RRR in a manner that comports with the requirements of paragraph 34 of the Consent Decree. No change in activity, impediments, or recommendations from prior reports. No progress was made. Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completed his/her review and evaluation according to VIPD's use of force policies and all other requirements of 31 of the Consent Decree and include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer/s conduct. No change in activity, impediments, or recommendations from prior reports. No progress was made. Sub-Paragraph d, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completed his/her review and evaluation according to VIPD's use of force policies and all
22

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 23 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
other requirements of 31 of the Consent Decree and will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officers actions were within VIPD policy. No change in activity, impediments, or recommendations from prior reports. No progress was made. Sub-Paragraph e, Status = Partial Compliance See a, above. No change in activity, impediments, or recommendations from prior reports. No progress was made. General Discussion and/Meetings Activity Meetings with Force Working Group, mini summit, IMT monitoring and evaluations of cases. Impediments VIPD leadership has not been focused on assuring accountability to CD compliance. Recommendations to Gain Compliance The VIPD must hold the highest levels of the department responsible for completing CD requirements as well as subordinate officers. Paragraph 35, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The parties agree that it is improper interview procedure during use of force investigations to ask officers or other witnesses’ leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer's conduct when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. In each review/investigation, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. The VIPD will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. The VIPD will train all of its supervisors and officers assigned to conduct use of force investigations in conducting use of force investigations, including in the factors to consider when evaluating credibility.
23

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 24 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
Activity IMT met with the Force working Group, had a mini summit and conducted monitoring and evaluations of force cases. Impediments to Compliance Force review does not adequately address cases that suggest supervisors are asking leading questions. Templates are being developed to document and train supervisors to be alert and prohibit leading questions from being used. Recommendations to Gain Compliance Implement and train the templates
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of the interviews conducted during use of force reviews, leading questions were avoided. No change in activity, impediments, or recommendations from prior reports. No progress was made. Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of the use of force reviews, all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence is documented and appropriately considered, and credibility determinations made, if feasible. No change in activity, impediments, or recommendations from prior reports. No progress was made. Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of investigations where material inconsistencies are present between witness statements, reasonable efforts are made to resolve the inconsistencies. When evaluating witness credibility, appropriate factors are considered and documented. No change in activity, impediments, or recommendations from prior reports. No progress was made. Sub-Paragraph d, Status = Substantial Compliance =>95% of supervisors are trained on how to conduct, review, and evaluate use of force incidents, including but not limited to, what factors to consider when evaluating witness credibility.
24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 25 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
Activity This sub paragraph is considered in compliance. It is however one of those paragraphs that can easily fall out of compliance. The VIPD must be vigilant in their oversight of case analysis for insuring that supervisors are carefully considering all factors when evaluating credibility. Reinforcing on daily case oversight when factors might be considered important for such purpose. Impediments to Compliance Proper case review by supervisors Recommendations to Gain Compliance Implement templates and training. Engage Use of Force review Board. Paragraph 36, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance Consent Decree Paragraph Wording Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall conduct an investigation of all uses of force or injury resulting from a use of force by any officer under their command. This requirement does not apply to uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ. In an investigation, supervisors or designated investigating officers or units, shall interview all witnesses to a use of force or an injury resulting from a use of force. Consistent with the requirements of the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable law, VIPD supervisors or designated investigating officers or units shall ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all use of force reports for all levels of force identify all officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports for all levels of force indicate whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided, and whether the subject refused medical treatment. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports include contemporaneous photographs or videotapes taken of all injuries at the earliest practicable opportunity, both before and after any treatment, including cleansing of wounds. Activity Meetings with VIPD leadership, and Force working Group. IMT monitoring and case review
25

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 26 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
Impediments to Compliance Management review and accountability has been spotty and inconsistent Recommendations to Gain Compliance Leadership to hold themselves and VIPD managers accountable for incomplete investigations
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Partial Compliance =>90% of the Use of Force reports, the supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, who supervised the officer using the force, conducted the investigation of all uses of force or injury resulting from the use of force by that officer. This requirement does not apply to the lowest level use of force as defined in DOJ approved VIPD policy. There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this subparagraph Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, all witnesses, to the extent practicable, are interviewed in the investigating supervisor's reports. There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this subparagraph Sub-Paragraph d, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of Use of Force reports, Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all use of force reports for all levels of force identify all officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred. There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this subparagraph General Discussion and/Meetings Case review and audits of both VIPD and IMT Activity Meetings with Force working group, mini summit, IMT monitoring and case evaluations.
26

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 27 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
Impediments VIPD documentation has been weak in assuring that sub paragraphs of the paragraph have been supported. Templates have been developed and are in the process of implementation. Recommendations to Gain Compliance Implement and train officers and supervisors on the templates and “go by's.” Paragraph 37, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance Consent Decree Paragraph Wording All investigations into use of force shall be reviewed by the Officer's Commander and/or Director, or by a Commander and/or Director in the designated investigative unit, who shall identify any deficiencies in those reviews, and shall require supervisors, or designated investigative officers or units, to correct any and all deficiencies. Supervisors, and designated investigative officers or units, will be held accountable for the quality of their reviews. Appropriate non-disciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary action will be taken when a supervisor, or designated investigative officer or unit, fails to conduct a timely and thorough review, or neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action, or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action. As provided by VIPD policy and approved by DOJ, designated command staff shall further review the Commander and/or Director's reviews according to the level of force involved. Activity There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this paragraph. VIPD confirmed no change in status during November 2014 Summit. Impediments to Compliance Recommendations to Gain Compliance
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>90% of the completed use of force case files contained signed documentation from the Chief and/or Deputy Chief indicating that he/she reviewed the completed investigation and the date of such review. In these cases, were all appropriate deficiencies noted and was corrective action directed or imposed? There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this subparagraph
27

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 28 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, supervisors are held accountable for the quality of their reviews, and documented non-disciplinary and/or disciplinary action has been taken when a supervisor or manager: fails to conduct a timely and thorough review; neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action; or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action. In those cases where discipline was imposed, did the officials imposing the discipline follow the departmental disciplinary matrix? There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this subparagraph Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, the Chief and/or Deputy Chief provided a written, signed and dated finding on whether the use of force was justified under VIPD's DOJ approved use of force policies and all other requirements of 31(a)-(g) of the Consent Decree. There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this subparagraph Sub- Paragraph d, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, supervisors are held accountable for the quality of their investigations, reviews, and documented non-disciplinary and/or disciplinary action has been taken when a supervisor or manager: fails to conduct a timely and thorough review; neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action; or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action.There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this subparagraph Sub-Paragraph e, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>95% of the use of force incidents where the Commander's/Director's review and evaluation concluded that improper tactics were used, there is evidence that the involved sworn personnel received and successfully completed remedial training, and, if appropriate, were disciplined.
28

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 29 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this subparagraph Sub-Paragraph f, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>95% of the use of force incidents deemed unjustified by the Commander's/Director's review and evaluation, the involved sworn personnel were disciplined, including separation from service with the VIPD when appropriate, and, if separation from service was not appropriate, received remedial training. There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this subparagraph Paragraph 38, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD will investigate all critical firearm discharges. The VIPD will ensure that the investigation accounts for all shots and locations of all officers who discharged their firearms. The VIPD will conduct all ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate. Activity There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this paragraph. VIPD confirmed no change in status during November 2014 Summit. Impediments to Compliance See sub-paragraphs. Recommendations to Gain Compliance See sub-paragraphs. Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>99% of all critical firearm discharges are investigated and documented. There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this subparagraph Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>95% of all investigations or reviews of critical firearm discharges accounted for all shots.
29

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 30 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this subparagraph Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>95% of all supervisors (or other personnel) have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training on ballistic and crime scene analyses and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or (b) if supervisors (or other personnel) have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the supervisors (or other personnel) have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s); or Where supervisors (or other personnel) have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel. There is no change in activity, impediments, or recommendations for this subparagraph Paragraph 44, Status = Partial Compliance Consent Decree Paragraph Wording Complaints may be filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile or electronic mail. The duty officer at the front desk of each district station will be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints, which persons may file at any district station. Complaint intake officers may describe facts that bear upon a complainant's demeanor and physical condition but May not express opinions regarding his/her mental competency or veracity. Each complaint will be resolved in writing. Upon receipt, each complaint will be assigned a unique identifier, which will be provided to the complainant. Each complaint will be tracked according to the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, improper search, etc.). Activity VIPD is in compliance with all paragraphs of this paragraph with the exception of paragraph “I” where timeliness continues to be the issue. Impediments to Compliance
30

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 31 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
See sub-paragraphs.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance See sub-paragraphs.
Sub-Paragraph i, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>90% of complaints are documented and resolved in writing and completed investigations into complaints comport with the provisions of the Consent Decree.
Activity Timeliness continues to be the issue on this paragraph; as stated in VIPD’s 3rd Quarterly report, “The IMT has determined that the VIPD is in compliance with various components of the paragraph 44, but lacks substantial compliance due to the lack of timeliness of complaint investigations. The VIPD however, is not contesting IMT’s assessment as it relates to timeliness of complaint investigations, as reported previously the VIPD has attempted to resolve the timeliness issue through the issuance of commissioner’s directives in both Districts, which mandated the completion of all outstanding 2013 and 2014 investigations. As a result of these directives the number of outstanding cases for both Districts was reduced significantly. Additionally, through internal processes/mechanisms, which included weekly and monthly dissemination of case listings to the chain of command, and at commanders call sessions, the VIPD will continue to identify outstanding investigations and implement actions, disciplinary as well as commissioner’s directives to ensure that timeliness is no longer an issue as it relates to complaint investigations. “This quote focuses on zone investigations. IMT concurs with this VIPD assessment. IMT will also assess IAB timeliness in future quarters.
Impediments to Compliance Lack of appropriate numbers of supervisors. This has been raised repeatedly as one of the critical impediments towards compliance/reform in the VIPD. According to a variety of sources within the VIPD, sergeants and lieutenants, along with a number of corporals are to be made shortly. IMT is not aware of the selection process for corporals (if there is one), but would hope that these individuals would be ones who have exhibited behavior indicating strong supervisory potential.
31

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 32 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
As the need for additional street/zone supervisors has continually been identified as a critical need, IMT anticipates that all appointees/promotes will be assigned to patrol, unless a more critical need can be identified for an isolated assignment outside of patrol. IMT concerns have been heightened by VIPD employees stating that they also believe that not all promotes will be assigned to street/zone assignments. Again, if this were to occur, IMT anticipated that it would be an isolated event – one where a more critical need (than zone assignment) can be documented.
Lack of accountability re supervisors – although we have seen that start to improve with disciplinary actions taken. IMT continues to review progress
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Promotions scheduled shortly; however, these increased numbers need to slated exclusively for patrol – unless a more critical need can be identified and documented.
If disciplinary action not effective; demotion from rank next step – this step identified by VIPD.
Paragraph 58, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording Unit commanders will evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command to identify underlying problems and training needs. Any such problems or need will be relayed in the form of a recommendation to the appropriate VIPD entity.
Activity According to the VIPD (3rd Quarterly report), “The mandates of paragraph 58 are established in policies implemented and the execution of quarterly audits will continue to aid the VIPD in identifying the extent to which there is compliance or noncompliance with paragraph 58. These audits will continue to be shared with IMT. Also, the responsibilities of Commanders as outlined in paragraph 58 with respect to the evaluation of each investigation of incident under their respective command and as delineated in implemented department policies have been and continues to be emphasized during roll call and commanders call sessions.” This continues within the VIPD. Additionally, Deputy Chief Jones has created a directive relative to commander’s
32

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 33 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
responsibilities in this area, and forwarded same for review/sign off. (IMT requested copy of same during mini summit; Jones to forward to Alcendor for IMT; not received yet.) Anticipate that will be issued territory-wide during the 4th quarter. As reported by IMT to the court last time, “while IMT has seen improvement in identifying the need for additional training and forwarding same, there continues to be very limited documentation that these issues are being properly addressed in a timely fashion and appropriately documented”. This statement is accurate for this quarter also.
One of the impediments identified this past quarter was the fact there has been confusion as to whether the zone or IAB has the responsibility to forward to appropriate entity (thus far, this has been solely to the training bureau). This quarter, IAB assumed responsibility for forwarding as IAB is responsible for the final review of cases.
Impediments to Compliance Again, there needs to be better documentation re identification of underlying problems and training needs. Supervisors have not been consistent in this identification; and, when it does occur, there had been confusion as to the responsibility to forward to appropriate entity (thus far, this has been solely to the training bureau). This quarter, IAB assumed responsibility for forwarding. Finally, there was inadequate documentation at the training bureau on the limited remedial training completed.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance The new directive addressing issues re paragraph 58 should be issued and monitored. Additionally, further direction appears to be needed re the identification of ‘problems’ beyond training. Up until this time, the focus has been on training needs, but the CD paragraph states ‘problems or training’.
Miss Tweed will need to continue work on development of report to better documented remedial training – including the identification of where the request initiated. Also, the training bureau needs to be able to easily access PowerDMS to continually assess whether they are properly addressing and documenting all training needs forwarded. VIPD needs to incorporate this into their ongoing audit efforts Once directive issued, IMT will assess improvement/compliance.
Paragraph 60, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
33

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 34 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The new risk management system will collect and record the following information:
a. all uses of force; b. canine bite ratios; c. the number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers; d. all injuries to prisoners; e. all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with "resisting arrest," "assault on a police officer," "disorderly conduct," or "obstruction of official business;" f. all critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty; g. all complaints (and their dispositions); h. all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the Territory and its officers, or agents, resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel; i. all vehicle pursuits; j. all incidents involving the pointing of a firearm (if any such reporting is required); and k. all disciplinary action taken against officers. Activity See sub-paragraphs Impediments See sub-paragraphs Recommendations to Gain Compliance See sub-paragraphs. Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Substantial Compliance 1. >95% of canine deployments are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness. 2. >95% of canine deployments resulting in a bite are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness. 3. RMS provides statistical analyses of canine bite ratio or the data necessary to compute such ratio. Activity
34

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 35 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
During the VIPD audit process re canine bites, VIPD self identified a concern due to the fact that the Audit Manager identified a number of missing reports. These missing reports bring into question the reliability of the canine numbers. Last quarter, VIPD was identified as being in compliance with this section of paragraph 60 (b) – canine bite ratio – due to the process VIPD put into place and the initial results. At this time, due to the fact that VIPD self identified the possible deficiency which could lead to not being in compliance and are taking steps to immediately address and correct, the IMT is not dropping VIPD out of compliance at this time. VIPD to provide documentation and IMT to review prior to next report. If there continues to be a question/concern at that time, VIPD would move from substantial to partial compliance. IMT recognizes the importance of VIPD developing the ability to identify deficiencies and taking swift and concrete actions to correct.
Impediments to Compliance Supervisors and managers need to ensure that all appropriate reports are completed and filed. (Please see comments re supervisors noted in paragraph 44 – these concerns could be repeated throughout CD)
Recommendations to Gain Compliance VIPD should continue to identify deficiencies throughout the CD to assist in maintaining compliance. VIPD will provide documentation re corrective actions taken re missing reports and final findings.
Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>95% of the canisters of chemical spray issued to officers will be entered into RMS, including the date of issuance and date of expirations of the chemical spray, with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness and the VIPD has developed a process to track the amount of OC Spray used by Officers.
Activity The number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers. Scales for the purpose of measuring the OC canisters have been provided to the training bureau. Documentation re how the process is being handled and the results, territory-wide, has not been provided
Impediments to Compliance
35

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 36 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
The training bureau is not providing appropriate documentation of implementation. Recommendations to Gain Compliance The training bureau needs to initiate the process for weighing OC canisters; additionally, document process and results territory wide. The training bureau will also need to follow-up on any/all questions or concerns this process should raise- for example, missing canisters, individuals using more/less than is documented, etc. Sub-Paragraph d, Status = Partial Compliance =>95% of all injuries to prisoners will be entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness. Activity All injuries to prisoners; A directive has been issued by the PC (drafted by IAB) addressing how to report injuries to prisoners. The system had been in place for prisoners injured due to use of force; the directive addresses all injuries. Reports are starting to be received. There is also a draft of a flow chart currently being reviewed. Finally, in response to the VIPD Court approved goals, there is a draft directive for the records bureau; once completed, will then be incorporated into the arrest policy. Impediments to Compliance See recommendations – IAB addressing impediments Recommendations to Gain Compliance IAB continues to create additional written guideline to improve process re prisoner injuries. This needs to be finalized, trained and implemented. IMT UPDATE: At this time, IMT acknowledges receipt of the finalized directive for the records bureau (on 11/20/14). According to VIPD goals and the Management and Supervision bi-weekly reporting for period ending 12/1/14, this directive is to be incorporated into the arrest policy. Sub-Paragraph h, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
36

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 37 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
=>95% of criminal proceedings initiated, civil or administrative claims filed, and civil lawsuits served against the Territory, the VIPD, and its Officers resulting from VIPD operations will be entered in RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness. Activity All criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the Territory and its officers, or agents, resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel. VIPD had prepared a MOA for the VIAG office to sign, confirming that all materials required for this section were forwarded. At this time, IMT has been informed that the VIAG does not see the necessity. IMT reinforced the need for some documentation confirming that all such required materials are being forwarded to the VIPD. IMT has been informed of a dated request from VIPD to VIAG regarding MV accident information during the 3rd Quarter. IMT Update: IMT recognizes and agrees that the VIPD requested information from VIAG on Nov 3, 2014, and sent a subsequent reminder email, with response received from VIAG around Nov 19, 2014 (Regarding two officer involved MV accidents). However, information from VIAG should be forwarded to the VIPD in a timely fashion, upon receipt. The two claims were actually filed on May 23, 2014 and Sep 16, 2014 (according to records submitted by the VIAG to the VIPD). Impediments to Compliance At this time, VIAG has not provided any documentation reflecting that all required documentation is being provided to VIPD. While materials are being received, the materials has not always been complete and useable. IMT recognizes that the records forwarded from VIAG to VIPD more recently have been more complete however, concerns described above remain. IMT UPDATE: The response was received on 12/03/14 With regard to this letter to the Police Commissioner from the VIAG received by IMT on 12/03/14, the IMT will monitor the submission of materials from VIAG to VIPD to ensure that the time periods represented in the letter are met. IMT does note that the part of the letter addressing criminal matters is not particularly clear. IMT is assuming that the “appropriate time” referenced in the letter is as soon as notification (if only to PC or
37

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 38 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
IAB) would not interfere with the criminal investigation. IMT looks forward, next quarter, to reviewing the VIAG internal protocol/direction which will hopefully clarify this section. Recommendations to Gain Compliance VIAG needs to provide some form of documentation confirming that all such required materials are being forwarded to the VIPD; additionally VIAG needs to respond to VIPD requests in a timely fashion. Paragraph 69, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD will develop a protocol for conducting audits. The protocol will be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol will establish a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all VIPD zones. Activity This paragraph's current status was thoroughly reviewed with the VIPD and IMT staff during the August 2014 Summit. Sep 2014- IMT staff provided TA to the newly appointed Audit Unit Commander with establishing the AIU, suggested staffing requirements, organizational data collection, and assistance with designing the Use of Force Reporting System audit. The IMT will continue providing such TA as needed to further AIU operations. During this TA, it was observed by the IMT that the directive establishing the AIU only provides for one full time member (although it provide for temporary assignments of personnel for up to six months on specific projects) and as such will not provide the unit with the necessary full time staff for continuity of operations or development of staff competency with auditing. October 2014- IMT continued to provide technical assistance as needed with the AIU commander. Lack of additional full time personnel continues to hamper capacity of the unit. IMT staff had repeatedly identified the need for an operational and staffed Audit and Inspections Unit, consistent with the Consent Decree. That unit has been established, but is only staffed with one full time person. The audit load both internal and external to the Consent Decree requirements cannot be accomplished by one person or even the
38

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 39 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
temporary personnel the current directive authorizes (but who the AIU has not seen to date.) This lack of staff and adequate space once staff is assigned inhibits a robust audit capability. Despite these limitations, the IMT has and will continue to commit technical assistance to the AIU commander to help with unit capacity development, current audits, and others required by the various paragraphs of the Consent Decree. Sub-paragraph a remains in compliance. Impediments to Compliance Failure to provide adequate full time staff to match requirements will inhibit compliance in sub-paragraph b. Recommendations to Gain Compliance VIPD should provide additional full time staff to the unit. One source of staff would be to assign the current Consent Decree Coordinator to the unit and allow him to work audits in addition to current duties. He is a trained investigator and thus should be able to adjust to the audit work with little problem. The addition of audit assignments should not inhibit his ability to respond to the requirements of his current position. Since the AIU Commander is also the Consent Decree manager that would consolidate these positions in one office.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Partial Compliance The protocol establishes a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all VIPD zones See paragraph level comments Paragraph 71, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance Consent Decree Paragraph Wording VIPD policy will identify clear time periods by which the various steps of a complaint adjudication process should be completed, from complaint receipt to the imposition of discipline, if any. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions will not be granted without the Police Commissioner's written approval and notice to the complainant. In the limited circumstances when an extension is necessary, appropriate tolling provisions will be outlined in the policy.
39

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 40 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
Activity According to the VIPD 3rd Q Report, “In order to facilitate a consistent and formalized or standardized format or procedure for the issuance of waivers and or extensions from the Police Commissioner, a notification letter was developed and is pending review and approval. An electronic copy of this notification letter was submitted to IMT. Also, a waiver format was created for the Police Commissioner and is pending review and approval, a copy of which was also afforded to IMT. An electronic version of the aforementioned letter was also developed. The management and supervision work group intends to conduct periodic inspections and or audits to ensure the forms or letters are being utilized to comport with the mandates of paragraph 71 sub section (b). These efforts will be reported in future quarterly status reports. IMT concurs with the aforementioned VIPD assessment Impediments to Compliance To put in place the next steps leading to compliance, draft letter and waiver needs PC approval. IMT informed this to happen soon. Recommendations to Gain Compliance All activity, impediments, and recommendations for sub-paragraph b remain the same; no changes.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status =Substantial Compliance; The VIPD has developed a policy that establishes clear time periods by which the various steps of a complaint adjudication process should be completed, from complaint receipt to the imposition of discipline, if any. Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>90% of the time, these established time periods are not violated except for in exigent circumstances and with the Police Commissioner's written approval for tolling and notice to the complainant. Activity According to the VIPD 3rd Q Report, “In order to facilitate a consistent and formalized or standardized format or procedure for the issuance of waivers and or extensions from the Police Commissioner, a notification letter was developed and is pending review and approval. An electronic copy of this notification letter was submitted to IMT. Also, a waiver format was created for the Police
40

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 41 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
Commissioner and is pending review and approval, a copy of which was also afforded to IMT. An electronic version of the aforementioned letter was also developed.
The management and supervision work group intends to conduct periodic inspections and or audits to ensure the forms or letters are being utilized to comport with the mandates of paragraph 71 sub section (b). These efforts will be reported in future quarterly status reports IMT concurs with the aforementioned VIPD assessment. Impediments to Compliance To put in place the next steps leading to compliance, draft letter and waiver needs PC approval. IMT informed this to happen soon.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance All activity, impediments, and recommendations for sub-paragraph b remain the same; no changes.”
IMT UPDATE: IMT has received draft notification form and waiver and understand that the electronic version is pending approval. While this additional information reflects VIPD movement towards compliance, it does not change status.
Sub-Paragraph c, Status =Substantial Compliance; In the limited circumstances when an extension is necessary, appropriate tolling provisions will be outlined in the policy.
Paragraph 72, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD will not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix indicates the imposition of discipline. The VIPD will not fail to consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action is required in a case because discipline has been imposed on the officer. Activity According to the VIPD, “As it relates to subsection (a) of paragraph 72, going forward the management and supervision work group will initiate monthly inspections to gauge compliance “with the disciplinary matrix. “The management and supervision work group
41

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 42 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
will also conduct monthly inspections with respect to subsection (b) for adherence specific to ensuring that “non-disciplinary corrective action is recommended consistently when applicable with disciplinary actions.” Impediments to Compliance Lack of understanding/adherence to VIPD policy. Recommendations to Gain Compliance When VIPD identifies deficiencies, also need to identify whether it is due to lack of understanding or intentional policy violation – once identified, additional training or discipline needs to occur. IAB has stated that IAB intends to create a flow chart for use by supervisors/managers and hearing officers for non-disciplinary options (similar to possible EIP intervention actions). This should be finalized and implemented.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status =Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of the cases where the matrix calls for discipline, discipline is imposed. All activity, impediments, and recommendations shown above for sub-paragraphs a. Sub-Paragraph b, Status =Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of the cases where discipline is imposed, there is evidence that the VIPD has also considered non-disciplinary corrective action. All activity, impediments, and recommendations shown above for sub-paragraphs b. Paragraph 73, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD will continue to coordinate and review all use of force policy and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy. The VIPD will conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually. Activity
42

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 43 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
Although the Training Committee has now met twice, they still need to develop a protocol or analytic process for the conduct and expected outcomes from the meetings. This task was mentioned in the Oct meeting notes, but there was no indication of how or when this protocol would be developed nor was anybody assigned responsibility for leading the development process. The area addressed in the meeting seemed to range more on equipment issues with no documentation (in or attached to the report) of any review of specific courses or lesson plans. Use of force activity as to type and effectiveness was discussed, apparently based upon reports from IAPro (which were attached), but the notes did not adequately reflect the content, issues raised, lesson plans or courses impacted by the data or decisions that emanated from those discussions. Without a well developed protocol for the evaluation and review, no meaningful evaluation can take place.
Impediments to Compliance Training Committee: a- Still does not have a protocol for the conduct and expected outcomes from the meetings, which inhibits its focus and effectiveness; b- Their agenda tends to focus on review of equipment issues; c- Fails to review training and training materials from an analytical basis based upon developed criteria. Areas addressed in the meeting seemed to range more on equipment issues. No Use of Force activity as to type and effectiveness was discussed, apparently based upon reports from IAPro (which were attached), but the notes did not adequately reflect the content or decisions that emanated from those discussions. Without a well developed protocol, no meaningful evaluation can take place.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Recommendations can be found under each of the sub-paragraphs and include: Training Review Board needs to establish an evaluation and review protocol to more effectively conduct their meetings and reviews of UOF training delivery.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Partial Compliance The Training Division has coordinated and reviewed all use of force training. This review occurs: at least semi-annually and needs to be comprehensive and analytical.
Activity During the Summit the Training Director indicated that there was no update or increase in compliance to this sub-paragraph. Further discussions and review of the Training Review Committee meeting minutes submitted prior to the Summit for May and Oct 2014 reveal a review did take place, but that review was neither
43

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 44 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
comprehensive nor analytical. The Committee did review data from IAPro (copies attached to the Committee reports) that listed Use of Force types or categories used by field officers, but the minutes do not reveal any protocol or comprehensive, analytical approach to this review. In addition, this review was not linked to any specific training courses, lesson plans, or testing activities.
Impediments to Compliance The Use of Force training reviews conducted by the VIPD are neither comprehensive nor analytical, in that they:
1- Lack a standardized protocol that spells out how they will evaluate use of force activity and reports against the training materials and courses delivered by the Training Academy.
2- The absence of a protocol indicates that training evaluations are not conducted at all four levels as detailed by Kirkpatrick and/or others and referenced within the Instructional Systems Design (ISD) process.
3- Supervisors and officers, who are involved with the use of force and completing RRRs, have no independent input to these semi-annual Use of Force training reviews.
4- Complicating and contributing to the absence of effective training evaluations, at all four levels, are training lesson plans and course outlines that do not incorporate effective training components such as well developed and written learning goals and student performance objectives.
5- Testing, at all levels, is not shown to be directly linked to an identified performance objective, making field level training failure linkage impossible.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance The Use of Force training reviews conducted by the VIPD are neither comprehensive nor analytical. In order to improve these reviews, they need to:
1- Develop a standardized protocol that spells out how they will evaluate use of force activity and reports against the training materials and courses delivered by the Training Academy, for example UOF execution failures, as reported in IAPro as a start point to review the training programs and/or courses that support the skill associated with the reported UOF.
44

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 45 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
2- This protocol should include training evaluations that are conducted at the four levels as detailed by Kirkpatrick, and others, and referenced within the Instructional Systems Design (ISD) process. These evaluations should be longitudinal and include response from not only the trainee at the end of the course and some time afterward, but also the trainee’s supervisor in order to determine if the training has been effective. 3- Supervisors and officers, who are involved with the use of force and completing RRRs, should have input to these semi-annual Use of Force training reviews. 4- In order to lay the ground work for effective training evaluations, at all four levels, all training lesson plans and course outlines should incorporate effective training components such as well developed and written learning goals and student performance objectives. Testing, at all levels, should be directly related to an identified performance objective. Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Substantial Compliance The Training Division issues reports to DOJ and OIM regarding its review of use of force policies and training programs within a reasonable time after each review, or at least every six (6) months. Paragraph 74, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The Director of Training, either directly or through his/her designee(s), consistent with applicable law and VIPD policy will: a. ensure the quality of all use of force training; b. develop and implement use of force training curricula; c. select and train VIPD officer trainers; d. develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service training; e. in conjunction with the Chiefs, develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures; f. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and g. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained. Activity
45

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 46 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
This paragraph's current status was thoroughly reviewed with the VIPD and IMT staff during the August 2014 Summit. This paragraph was again reviewed with the VIPD staff during the November Summit and they informed the IMT that no progress had been made that would change any of the current compliance areas. Impediments to Compliance Comprehensive and analytical review of training outcomes. Addition to directive reference training certification. Lack of coordinated training priorities and agenda with Chiefs and other command officers. No comprehensive plan for roll call training. Questions raised by the IMT memorandum of 9/18/14 are serious and any further compliance with this sub-paragraph and paragraph should be held in abeyance Each of the sub-paragraphs details impediments to compliance. These include: Recommendations to Gain Compliance Recommendations are noted in each of the paragraph's sub-paragraphs and include: UOF training materials and delivery systems should be reviewed once the VIPD review of concerns raised by the IMT is completed. Continue to assess the need for an instructor waiver as noted in other paragraphs, using the review agreed to by the VIPD. Training staff should obtain additional training in Power DMS in order to actively participate in uploading training records, inputting training materials, and conducting analysis of training through reporting outputs. The VIPD should conduct a complete review of the Roll Call Training program, focusing on definitions of what is Roll Call Training, who should deliver the training in the field (integration of shift supervisors as trainers), and what and where the training records should be maintained (preferably in Power DMS). Increase the speed with which all individual training records are uploaded into Power DMS.
46

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 47 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
Establish a clear and well developed evaluation program for the Training Review Committee, utilizing IAPro data, among other options, as baselines for recommending changes to curriculum and delivery methods.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance The Director of Training and/or his/her staff reviews all use of force training. The Director of Training and/or his/her staff obtains legal review of all use of force training curricula.
Activity VIPD audits indicated that the lesson plans used for UOF training had been approved by both the VIAG and the Training Director. In 2Q2014 audits, the VIPD indicated that all UOF lesson plans used in recruit training were approved and delivered by certified instructors.
On 9/18/14 the IMT forwarded correspondence to the Police Commissioner citing a concern with the training materials and/or delivery of training for UOF deadly force issues. On 10/25/14 the IMT received a response in the form of a memorandum from the Training Director to the Police Commissioner, but only signed by the Training Director.
During the 11/12/14 Summit, the IMT expressed their concern that the 10/25/14 memorandum merely reiterated case law and did not address the situation presented. The IMT further stated they had expected the VIPD to conduct an impartial inquiry to determine the full extent of the concern expressed by the IMT. The Police Commissioner directed that such an inquiry be conducted and that all efforts be made to complete it prior to the next court hearing.
Impediments to Compliance Questions raised by the IMT memorandum of 9/18/14 are serious and any further compliance with this sub-paragraph and paragraph should be held in abeyance
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Once the review of UOF training being conducted by the VIPD is complete, UOF training materials and delivery systems should be reviewed for compliance.
Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed a process to continually select and evaluate VIPD officer trainers.
47

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 48 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
>95% of the training staff has received appropriate training and certification in the subject matter(s) that they are assigned to teach. Activity The VIPD proposed policy document on instructor selection (003-2014, Under Review) contained a waiver component. The IMT questioned the need for the waiver and during the Summit, the Police Commissioner agreed to have Training evaluate the actual need and bring back a list for review by the IMT. Impediments to Compliance VIPD continued inclusion of a waiver to instructor certification. Recommendations to Gain Compliance The IMT recommends that the VIPD conduct the proposed analysis and share the results with the IMT in order to resolves this issue. 11/26/14 Update: IMT acknowledges that this issue appears mute as VIPD advised during the November monthly meeting that the VIPD has removed the waiver provision from the final version of the directive. The IMT will await receipt of Commissioner signed copy of the policy and review status of this paragraph. Sub-Paragraph d, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have reviewed and provided written approval of all curricula, course schedules and lesson plans. The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have created and maintained a training record system that captures attendance records, instructor and student evaluations, and test results. Activity The use of Power DMS will certainly improve the VIPD's capability to collect and store training data. However recent observations by IMT staff seem to indicate that the Director of Training does not have the capability to sign on to Power DMS and the other staff member interviewed by IMT staff on 11/13/14, while able to sign on, did not demonstrate full mastery of the various components of the Power DMS system. Neither indicated that they had the capability to load training data into the system, stating that only Ms. Tweed, from IT can load data into the system. During an on-line session, nobody could find curriculum focused
48

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 49 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
training material loaded into the system or how to use the system to find it. That does little to ensure us that the essence of this sub-paragraph is being accomplished. Impediments to Compliance Until the Training staff becomes more fluent in the use of Power DMS they cannot comply with the content of this sub-paragraph. Recommendations to Gain Compliance The Director of Training should obtain training in Power DMS for himself and key staff members so that the loading and referencing of training materials and records in the system becomes second nature. The benefits of output reporting and analysis will be significant. Sub-Paragraph e, Status = Partial Compliance The Training Director and/or his/her staff, in conjunction with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs, have created a process for the development, implementation and approval of all Roll Call training curricula. The Training Director and/or his/her staff, in conjunction with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs, have developed, implemented and approved all Roll Call training curricula. The Training Director and/or his/her staff have maintained written documentation of this process. Activity Comments made during the November Summit seem to indicate that the VIPD Roll Call training program has slowed down and become less effective than previously. In addition, the current directive, 10.4, was due for review in 2013 and despite the fact that statements were made that it was reviewed, the IMT has not seen the report of that review. A cursory review of the current (02/13/12) directive revealed numerous errors and a copy was noting these questionable items was provided to the Training Director during a meeting on 11/13/14. When this directive was discussed with the Training Director, in the context of review of the records that the directive assigned him responsibility for, he stated he had none of these policy required records and felt the directive was not
49

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 50 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
workable from the start. He could not, however, provide the IMT staff with any written suggested re-write of the directive. While it is our understanding that the two Chiefs of Police have some of the field records associated with the program, given the absence of those records assigned to training, the sub-paragraph can only remain in partial compliance. Impediments to Compliance Failure to completely implement Roll Call Training will continue to inhibit compliance with this sub-paragraph. Lack of management oversight and focus on continued delivery of roll call segments. While there have been some notices regarding this training it does not seem to be consistent with the directive in terms of frequency and comprehensiveness. In addition most notices relate to outside trainers and products. The current directive (10-4, Roll Call Training Policy) has activity listed in paragraph III, Definitions that are not training, but rather administrative in nature (items B, C, and D). The use of additional duty trainers (paragraph IV, B, 3) does little to develop the training and mentoring skills of all supervisors, who should be the primary roll call trainer for their subordinates. The Roll Call attendance training records in Power DMS are just that, attendance records, and fail to identify any testing or evaluation of the training effectiveness. There is no requirement in the 10-4 Roll Call Training Policy for annual planning and scheduling of roll call training. The directives do mention a review but fails to note the frequency or extent. Failure to conduct a thorough review of what appears to be a poorly written directive will inhibit the operation and record keeping of the Roll Call Training Program. Finally there appears to be little or no management oversight or focus on roll call training for the patrol officer and during the Summit senior managers stated that the activity had slowed significantly at this time. Recommendations to Gain Compliance The VIPD should immediately review the current version of 10-4, with specific emphasis on the following:
50

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 51 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
1. Paragraph III, Definitions in order to remove references to non-training related operations as reflected in sub-paragraphs III, B-D.
2. Review and refine the data collection and retention issues under paragraph IV for the Training Director. Consideration should be made to move all of this, as well as components of paragraph VI, B, to the Training division, given the remote update capability of Power DMS. The activity previously handled by the districts or zones could be uploaded from that location and saved in Power DMS. This will facilitate more efficient evaluations of the program as well as ensure the records of training are linked to the officers.
3. Finally, and most important, that VIPD senior management become directly involved in the oversight of the Roll Call training Program, to the extent that they
a- Participate in the creation of training topics. b- Coordinate the scheduling of roll call training. c- Review the record-keeping associated with roll call training. Sub-Paragraph f, Status =Not in Substantial Compliance The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have created and maintained a training record system that captures attendance records, instructor and student evaluations, and test results. For >90% of the conducted Consent Decree related training sessions, evaluation review forms were collected from class participants. Activity This sub-paragraph was not reviewed by IMT staff, although the Training Director said during the Summit that there was no change in the current status. During the Nov Summit discussion was held regarding evaluation systems for training. The Training Director has taken the position that the testing done at the end of training session’s meets the requirement for training evaluation, while the IMT feels that a more robust and longitudinal training evaluation program, similar to Kirkpatrick's Four Levels of Training Evaluation, should be used.
Follow-up meetings by the IMT with the Training Director and one of his staff, revealed, in the IMT's opinion, serious flaws in the development of training materials and programs, which will inhibit or prohibit the implementation of the more robust longitudinal training evaluation program. These include the absence of performance objectives in the available lesson plans for review and a lack of
51

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 52 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
understanding of the need for such objectives both from a lesson development perspective as well as enabling effective evaluation programs.
Impediments to Compliance The VIPD Training Director and his staff see training evaluation as limited to the testing done at the end of each training class, or a combination of Level 1 and 2 evaluations. What they do not see necessary is Level 3 and 4 evaluation efforts. The failure to do so will inhibit compliance with the sub-paragraph required to "evaluate."
The absence of performance objectives within all training programs will continue to prevent implementation of useful and accurate evaluations of training effectiveness.
Failure to open training evaluation options and avenues to all personnel will limit the effectives of the evaluation component. Current indications from Training Review Committee notes seem to indicate that little or no such evaluations are being received.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance In order to move forward the Use of Force evaluation requirements beyond Level 1, improve Level 2, and implement Levels 3 and 4 (if possible), as available, it is recommended that the VIPD Training Director:
Review all current lesson plans and training materials to ensure proper use of performance objectives (may also be called learning objectives, behavioral objectives, or training objectives) are in all lesson plans and training materials.
Base all testing in Level 2 upon the related performance objectives by using a test bank to develop multiple questions for each performance objective. This will allow for direct relationships between test questions that are missed to the performance objective for the material.
Develop longitudinal evaluation models for Levels 3 and, if possible, 4 evaluations that are student performance focused. In doing so, these evaluations will engage the trainee’s supervisor and department management in evaluating the impact of training on operations and employee work performance.
Engage the Training Review Committee in the development of the Levels 2-4 evaluation processes and models.
52

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 53 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
Sub-Paragraph g, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed a process to review use of force incidents to identify patterns and trends that will influence training needs. The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have conducted semi-annual reviews of use of force incidents to evaluate training needs. The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed, reviewed and implemented all use of force training curricula (including lesson plans). Activity The most recent Training Review Committee reports indicate some level of review of UOF data generated by IAPro, however neither method or criteria used for the subsequent analysis was discussed in the report and no indication of any changes that would be needed were listed in the meeting minutes. IMT review of the data attached to the report indicates that there apparently is a serious problem with the use of verbal commands by field personnel, showing it to be the highest category of force used that was not effective in over 60% of the cases. This suggests that possibly how use of verbal commands is taught merits a review. In addition, the issue of a needs assessment was not discussed during the Nov Summit, but was touched lightly during the follow-up meeting on 11/13/14 between the IMT and the Training Director and a member of his staff. A training needs assessment is always done prior to development of a training program and its' subordinate components. In the case of the Consent Decree some training is specifically required and thus the original training needs assessment may or may not have been accomplished. However as the training progresses and evaluations are conducted, additional training needs assessment should be conducted to see if the 1) the needs of the trainee have changed (e.g., they may be more proficient in areas they were not at the beginning, and/or 2) the environment or rules have changed and as such additional or modified training may be required. The key, in most cases to triggering a revisited needs assessment is the Level 24 evaluations, as noted previously, conducted by the training entity. In here lies
53

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 54 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
the problem as the VIPD does not perform well developed Level 2 evaluations and no Levels 3 or 4, thus impacting adequate and effective needs assessment. Discussions with the Training Director and selected staff member, seems to indicate a lack of understanding of the needs assessment or evaluation process, both key components to the Instructional Systems Design or ISD model. This will continue to impact training effectiveness as well as Consent Decree paragraph compliance.
Impediments to Compliance The VIPD has failed to demonstrate a clear evaluation system for review of UOF data against training programs and thus the sub-paragraph remains noncompliant.
Discussions with the Training Director and selected staff member seem to indicate a lack of understanding of the needs assessment or evaluation process, both key components to the Instructional Systems Design or ISD model. Training Surveys, in and of themselves, such as that conducted in January 2014 for InService Training, do not equate to a well designed and executed training needs assessment. This will continue to impact training effectiveness as well as Consent Decree paragraph compliance.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance The VIPD should establish, within its Training Review Committee, a clear and well developed evaluation program for UOF training materials and programs based upon data from the IAPro system and other sources. The results of these reviews should further improve the delivery of effective UOF training.
VIPD should consider revisiting, on a periodic basis, the training needs assessment in order to determine if it is still current and relevant to the field operations needs, especially in the area of use of force.
Paragraph 77, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD shall continue to maintain training records regarding every VIPD officer that reliably indicate the training each officer has received. The training records shall, at a minimum, include the course description and duration, curriculum, and instructor for each officer.
Activity
54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 55 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
This paragraph's current status was thoroughly reviewed with the VIPD and IMT staff during the August 2014 Summit. During the Nov 2014 Summit, the Training Director advised there had been no forward progress on compliance for this paragraph. Impediments to Compliance In August 2014 identified loading data into Power DMS. In September 2014 identified need for a plan and design for data entry into Power DMS. Recommendations to Gain Compliance In November 2014, IMT Recommendations for improvement are noted under each subparagraph and include: VIPD Training staff should increase capability and capacity to operate the Power DMS system and play a greater role in the uploading of training materials and student data.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Partial Compliance The Director of Training and/or his/her staff has maintained current and substantially complete training records for =95% of VIPD Officers. Activity This paragraph's current status was thoroughly reviewed with the VIPD and IMT staff during the August 2014 Summit. During the Nov Summit, the Training Director advised there had been no forward progress on compliance for this paragraph. Impediments to Compliance Loading data into Power DMS. Plan and design for data entry into Power DMS. Impediments are noted under each sub-paragraph for this paragraph. Recommendations to Gain Compliance Recommendations for improvement are noted under each sub-paragraph and include:
55

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 56 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
VIPD Training staff should increase capability and capacity to operate the Power DMS system and play a greater role in the uploading of training materials and student data. Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>95% of the training records shall, at a minimum, include the course description and duration, curriculum, and instructor for each officer. Activity See comments in sub-paragraph a, above. In addition, during an online session in Power DMS on 11/13/14, in which a search was conducted for uploaded lesson plans and other items under the curriculum section, training staff could not locate any course curriculum stored within the system as required by the paragraph. Impediments to Compliance See comments in sub-paragraph a, above. Recommendations to Gain Compliance See comments in sub-paragraph a, above. Paragraph 81, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD will provide training on appropriate burdens of proof to all supervisors, as well as the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility (to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform, and legally appropriate). The VIPD will also continue to provide training to supervisors on leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training will be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities, and will be made part of annual in-service training. Activity During the 11/12/14 Summit the Training Director stated that there had been no substantive progress on this paragraph. IMT reviewed each sub-paragraph and that review revealed no progress. Impediments to Compliance
56

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 57 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
After the August 2014 Summit the IMT provided this analysis of the compliance level of the paragraph, specifically geared toward supervisory training on leadership and command accountability. While most of the requirements for compliance in this paragraph have been met, there is the clear need for more training in leadership and command accountability for supervisory, management and command personnel. While the training for command personnel may come in the form of "executive development," the IMT believes that command staff could benefit from participating in the supervisory and management training conducted within VIPD as well as attending developmental training conducted by any number of professional organizations and educational institutions. We have urged command staff to attend part or all of the various supervisory courses taught by outside contractors. At a minimum, they should obtain briefings from these "visiting instructors," who are typically very well versed in their subject areas so that they have a sense of what is being taught to their subordinates but also to get information from subject matter experts on how their command issues are being addressed in other police agencies. 09/30/14 Lack of supervisory training to supervisors on leadership and command accountability continues. 11/12/14- Given no progress in compliance for this paragraph, as stated by the Training Director at the Nov Summit, the impediments previously noted continue. During the November Summit, the Training Director indicated that no progress had been made on this paragraph. Recommendations to Gain Compliance Recommendations for bringing this paragraph into compliance are logged with each sub-paragraph and include: Complete remedial upgrade to Power DMS and develop linkage protocol. Continue Power DMS remedial upgrade and upload remedial training records when complete.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Substantial Compliance The VIPD will provide training on appropriate burdens of proof to all supervisors.
57

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 58 of 59
Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
IMT did not formerly evaluate this component; however the Director of Training indicated during the November Summit that there was no change in compliance with the paragraph or sub-paragraphs. Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Partial Compliance Training should include factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility. IMT did not formerly evaluate this component; however the Director of Training indicated during the November Summit that there was no change in compliance with the paragraph or sub-paragraphs. They need to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform, and legally appropriate. Training has been provided but the outcomes remain questionable. Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Substantial Compliance Training should include factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility. Sub-Paragraph d, Status = Partial Compliance The training shall include techniques designed to promote proper police practices. IMT did not formerly evaluate this component; however the Director of Training indicated during the November Summit that there was no change in compliance with the paragraph or sub-paragraphs. Sub-Paragraph e, Status = Substantial Compliance This training will be provided w/I 90 days of promotion. Sub-Paragraph f, Status = Partial Compliance And will be made a part of annual in-service training. IMT did not formerly evaluate this component; however the Director of Training indicated during the November Summit that there was no change in compliance with the paragraph or sub-paragraphs.
58

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131-1 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 59 of 59 Compliance Status, November 20, 2014
(Amended December 9, 2014)
/S/ Charles A. Gruber Independent Monitor
November 20, 2014 Amended December 9, 2014
59

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 1 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
THIRD QUARTERLY REPORT OF 2015 FROM THE
INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT
CHARLES A. GRUBER CONSULTING INC. INDEPENDENT MONITOR www.imt-policemonitor.org November 20, 2015
1

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 2 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
INDEPENDENT MONITORING TEAM
Independent Monitor Chief Charles A. Gruber
Elgin, Illinois Police Department (retired)
Police Practices Experts Superintendent Ann Marie Doherty
Boston, Massachusetts Police Department (retired) Chief Robert L. Stewart
Ormond Beach, Florida Police Department (retired)
CAG Staff & Consultants Jerome A. Needle, Project Manager
Director of Programs & Research, International Association of Chiefs of Police (retired) Palmer D. Wilson, Technical Manager Lieutenant, Commander, Office of Audits & Inspections, Montgomery County, Maryland Department of Police (retired) Leon A. Casey, Sr., Field Coordinator Resident Agent in Charge, U.S. Customs Service (retired)
CHARLES A. GRUBER CONSULTING INC. INDEPENDENT MONITOR www.imt-policemonitor.org
2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 3 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 4 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………………….……4 I. THE THIRD QUARTER: MOMENTUM ……………… …...………………………....7 II. COMPLIANCE STATUS: OVERVIEW ..……………………………………….……10 III. COMPLIANCE STATUS: DETAIL ……………………………………………….....17 IV. AUDITING PERFORMANCE…………..………………………………………..…....80 V. USE OF FORCE TRENDS & OUTCOMES…………………………………………...82 VI. EIP UPDATE FOR THIRD QUARTERLY REPORT 2015 ...................…………….. 84 VII. FORCE INVESTIGATION/FORCE REVIEW BOARD TRAINING..………………..93 VIII. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION AGENDA …...…………..95 APPENDICES LOCATED IN SEPARATE PACKAGE APPENDIX A – PARAGRAPHS CURRENTLY IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE OR NA STATUS AS OF END OF THIRD QUARTER 2015,,,…………………………............1 APPENDIX B – COURT ORDERED GOALS SUB-PARAGRAPH ASSOCIATED & NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE STATUS REPORT AS OF END OF THIRD QUARTER 2015………….…………………………………………………………………………..……….28 APPENDIX C – PARAGRAPH 100 SUB-PARAGRAPH LINKAGE TO ORIGINAL PARAGRAPHS…………………………………………………………………….33 APPENDIX D – SUB-PARAGRAPHS NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH NO GOALS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM………………………………………………………….37
4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 5 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The most positive achievement of Quarter Three was the IMT-DOJ-VIPD Action Planning Summit, November 12 and 13, 2015. Technically, conducted one week after the closing date of the Quarter, weeks of work by all Parties occurred during Q32015 in preparation, most important, compliance step planning on court-ordered goals and initiatives.
During the preceding Quarter, the Second of 2015, the VIPD achieved compliance with nine (9) court-ordered initiatives. It met all six court-ordered initiatives scheduled for the current Quarter. Coupled with the Summit production, clearly still work in progress, a major advance in Metrics-Centered Auditing capacity, substantial investment in policy and flow chart-based useof-force and citizen complaint process diagnostics, the IMT is willing to acknowledge VIPD momentum.
At the same time and overshadowing the momentum none of the goals work accomplished this quarter has advanced paragraph compliance. Not one additional paragraph was brought to compliance in Quarter Three. Not one sub-paragraph was brought into compliance. One subparagraph was granted partial compliance. This pattern has characterized the past five quarters.
Compliance Status The VIPD has achieved Substantial Compliance for 31 paragraphs. These 31 paragraphs are itemized in Appendix A. Twenty paragraphs (20) are not yet in Substantial Compliance. Section III provides detail on these paragraphs. Compliance/Non-Compliance patterns vary among Consent Decree paragraph groupings. Three groupings have a majority of paragraphs in Substantial Compliance, two of these a bare majority, Citizen Complaints, 15 of 17, Management & Supervision, 7 of 12, Training, 5 of 9. The Use of Force group remains at only 4 of 11 paragraphs in Substantial Compliance.
5

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 6 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Six new goals were proposed by the VIPD and approved by the Court for compliance by the end of 3Q2015. Filed September 9, 2015 and due November 6, 2015, these goals and their status are:
● Revise OC policy to address weight variance and database to record OC weights, to be implemented territory-wide. Completed
● Submit revised draft OC policy to USDOJ and IMT. Completed
● Develop a flowchart for Use of Force investigations and the adjudication process. Completed
● Update existing flowcharts for Citizen Complaint Process and the adjudication process. Completed
● Complete the test in-service evaluation survey form. Completed
● Submit draft revised disciplinary policy and matrix to USDOJ and IMT. Completed
The existing flow charts reflect processes that change as procedures and practices evolve within an organization. FIT, UFRB & Citizens Complaint Processes will necessarily require updates to the Flow Charts consistent with the procedural changes as VIPD develops and advances their procedures.
Fourth Quarter Priorities Consent Decree paragraph and court-ordered goals compliance work, auditing, policy review, report preparation, court preparation, and Consent Decree staffing and infrastructure building and management are some of the on-going obligations that define Quarterly work for the VIPD. The work is complex and resource/labor intensive. In this environment, it is not only prudent but essential to prioritize production/accomplishment objectives. For the upcoming Quarter, the VIPD is already committed to achieving a package of court-ordered goals and initiatives. This must be a priority. Simultaneously, the IMT recommends that top priority also be accorded to completing a comprehensive Action Plan for compliance that addresses all outstanding Consent Decree paragraphs and sub-paragraphs. This work began weeks ago. The IMT-supplied Goals
6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 7 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Monitoring System software (GMS) was developed to facilitate goals, VIPD initiatives and action planning. The results of our Summit work is being loaded into the GMS while this report is being finalized, including newly defined goals and steps to achieve goals. The IMT will review the work prior to the next court hearing, December 7, 2015.
7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 8 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
I. THE THIRD QUARTER: MOMENTUM For the fifth consecutive Quarter, the Territorial and VIPD compliance team has not brought one additional paragraph to Substantial Compliance status. Fifteen months have elapsed since the last paragraph compliance success. No sub-paragraphs were brought to compliance or partial compliance, with the exception of paragraph 69-a which was moved into partial compliance status this Quarter. As of November 6, 2015, 43 of 97 Court-Ordered Goals have been completed, 44%. Fifty-four (54) have not been completed, 56%. Court-Ordered Goal Compliance by Consent Decree paragraph focus is displayed in the graphic below. VIPD performance for the past Quarter, the Second of 2015, was summarized as "incremental," "simply inching forward." Intense and better organized VIPD work efforts and a measure of observable momentum characterized the Third Quarter, most evident with regard to November 6 court goals.
A. IMT Monitoring & Technical Assistance Overview Our last Quarterly stated that "with several VIPD transition Quarters now behind, and a more settled VIPD environment established, the IMT was able to materially accelerate monitoring and technical assistance." This momentum continued and accelerated in Quarter Three. The IMT conducted five (5) on-site monitoring engagements, delivered two, two day training sessions, and conducted an IMT-DOJ-VIPD Summit. A special compliance-focused analysis was attempted, an EIP Historical Update. This is reported in Section VI.
8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 9 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
GOAL COMPLIANCE STATUS 3Q2015
Our last Quarterly report noted that the IMT developed a Goals Monitoring System (GMS), software designed to support a variety of VIPD requirements including definition of action steps and accountabilities for court-ordered goals, paragraphs and subparagraphs, and, simultaneously, to enable Work Groups to provide information in
9

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 10 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
consistent formats. IMT technical support to the VIPD to employ the software was continuous during the Third Quarter, the ultimate goal being to prepare for the November 8 Summit. Use of Force and Citizen Complaint Process flowcharts were critiqued, technical assistance was provided for several versions, as were proposed Disciplinary Matrix revisions.
B. The Summit A two-day Summit was conducted in St. Thomas on November 12 and 13, 2015. The Summit was designed to facilitate orderly and consistent VIPD production of the goals, paragraph and sub-paragraph compliance and action plans that the court has requested. Five objectives were articulated for/to VIPD participants, who were VIPD’s work group leaders and members, commanders, including the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Compliance Coordinator, and principals from the newly constituted audit unit.
□ Objective One: Review the six (6) goals due for Quarter Three. Expected Work Product: Review and update of the goals with the Parties and consensus on status.
□ Objective Two: Review remaining non-completed goals, estimated to number 59, many directly related to paragraphs and sub-paragraphs that remain NISC (Not in Substantial Compliance). Expected Work Product: Completed compliance plans for all goals, to include for each unfinished goal, action steps, priority choices, steps, suspense dates, that are reasonable and possible to comply with.
□ Objective Three: Review 3Q2015 Quarterly Report Draft. Expected Work Product: Input from the Parties, working toward consensus.
□ Objective Four: Review remaining paragraphs not specifically linked to listed goals supported by Action Plans for sub-paragraphs not associated with the goal
10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 11 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
components of GMS software. Expected Work Product: Steps, action officers, reasonable suspense dates.
□ Objective Five: Review policy on goal setting criteria (what constitutes a goal) and how incremental goals will be used within a goal. Expected Work Product: Draft statement on developing goals and review process.
With some clean-up work on the weekend after the Summit, the VIPD participants produced nine (9) 4Q2015 Goals. While they did review and draft detailed Action Plans for each of the outstanding goal, the IMT as of the date of this report has not received the draft copies of these plans for review. Using the base estimate of 54, the VIPD needs to produce plans for all 54 to have a complete, comprehensive Action Plan for presentation in Court. We hope to have a full evaluation of these drafts completed by the December court hearing.
Not to be overlooked as a value of the Summit, VIPD work group professionals gained IMT-guided experience in compliance planning work. This experience will be reinforced as we evaluate work products prepared at the Summit and engage in refinement. This experience, augmentation notwithstanding, the VIPD is advised to acquire the services of an experienced strategic planning professional to help to complete the required Action Plan. While a permanent arrangement promises many benefits, a contractor should be considered to fill immediate needs.
C. VIPD Quarterly Progress Summary The VIPD view of Third Quarter accomplishments is documented in their Status Report, Twenty-Six (November 2015).
11

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 12 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
II. COMPLIANCE STATUS: OVERVIEW The following 8 charts document Paragraph Status at the end of the Third Quarter of 2015. Compared to Quarter One and Two of 2015, and Quarters Three and Four, 2014, there has been no change at all with regard to Overall Status (Chart 1), and therefore with regard to Overall Compliance by Paragraph Groups (Charts 4-8). Overall Status The VIPD has achieved Substantial Compliance for 31 paragraphs. These 31 paragraphs are detailed in Appendix A to this report. Twenty paragraphs (20) are not yet in Substantial Compliance. Section III, Compliance Status Detail, provides more detail on compliance by these paragraphs. Compliance/Non-Compliance patterns vary among Consent Decree paragraph groupings. Charts 4-8 show that three groupings have a majority of paragraphs in Substantial Compliance: Citizen Complaints, 15 of 17, Management & Supervision, 7 of 12, Training, 5 of 9, two of these reflect a bare majority. The Use of Force group remains at only 4 of 11 paragraphs in Substantial Compliance.
12

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 13 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
CHART 1
13

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 14 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
CHART 2
CHART 3
14

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 15 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
CHART 4
CHART 5
15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 16 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
CHART 6
CHART 7
16

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 17 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
CHART 8
17

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 18 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

III. COMPLIANCE STATUS: DETAIL

A. Compliance Status as of November 6, 2015
Table 1, below, depicts those paragraphs that were in Substantial Compliance (SC) on November 6, 2015:

Paragraphs in Compliance as of November 6, 2015 – Table 1

31

39

40

41

42

43

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

61

62

63

64

65

66

70

75

76

78

79

80

No additional paragraphs came into compliance during the 3rd Quarter 2015 reporting

period. Detail of these paragraphs can be found in Appendix A to this report.

B. Court Ordered Compliance Goals

Six new goals were proposed by the VIPD and approved by the Court during 3Q2015. These

goals were:

Due November 6, 2015; filed September 9, 2015

Goal

IMT Number IMT Response

1. Revise OC policy to address weight variance and database to record OC weights, to be implemented territorywide.

3Q5-1

2. Submit revised draft OC policy to USDOJ and IMT

3Q5-2

Completed; weight variance study completed and variance established; IMT continues to work with the VIPD on designing and implementing the territorywide database. The completed database, ready for loading to their server was forwarded on 11/20/15. This contains all necessary reports for future monitoring Completed; IMT has reviewed, along with DOJ, and forwarded comments back to VIPD

18

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 19 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

3. Develop a flowchart for Use of Force 3Q6-3 investigations and the adjudication process.

4. Update existing flowcharts for Citizen Complaint Process and the adjudication process

3Q5-4

5. Complete the test in-service evaluation survey form.

3Q5-5

19

Completed; On 11/3/15 the IMT met with Det. V. Newton the VIPD person assigned to this project. She provided the IMT with drafts she developed. The IMT reviewed the drafts with Det. Newton and provided technical assistance. On 11/6/15 the IMT received the drafts back from VIPD and shared with the DOJ. The parties worked together and developed initial flow charts for the processes. The existing flow charts are evolving processes that change as procedures and practices change within the effected organizational processes. FIT, UFRB & Citizens Complaint Processes will necessarily require updates to the Flow Charts consistent with those procedural changes as VIPD develops and advances their procedures. Completed; IMT forwarded comments, VIPD redrafted and IMT approved fin al version during quarter. The existing flow charts are evolving processes that change as procedures and practices change within the effected organizational processes. FIT, UFRB & Citizens Complaint Processes will necessarily require updates to the Flow Charts consistent with those procedural changes as VIPD develops and advances their procedures. Completed (with concerns); VIPD did complete the form but has not yet deployed it or analyzed the responses to determine if the process is beneficial within the VIPD

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 20 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

6. Submit draft revised disciplinary

3Q5-6

policy and matrix to USDOJ and IMT.

environment, thus while the form is completed the purpose the form was designed for, evaluation of the effectiveness of VIPD training, has not been achieved yet. Completed; draft received and is under review by the IMT.

Note: The IMT Goal Number is used by the IMT to further identify the VIPD goals, many of which either repeat themselves or are similar in wording. It does not appear in the Court order.

Additional information regarding the status of these initiatives is found in Section III, Table A total of 54 court ordered goals remain unfinished by the VIPD.

During the 1st through 4th, Quarters 2014 and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Quarters 2015, the VIPD proposed compliance with numerous paragraphs. The Court, in its subsequent summary orders (with the exception of the 3rd Quarter 2014 where the proposed goals appear to be orally accepted), ordered that the paragraphs listed in Table 2 below come into compliance by the Quarter reporting dates of 5/23/14, 8/15/14, 11/21/14, 2/20/2015, 5/15/2015, and 08/21/15. Compliance requirement details for those goal focused sub-paragraphs are shown in Appendix B to this report. The Summary Table displays all goals, regardless of status, across the five court orders. The column to the far right shows the status of each of these paragraph grouped goal sets. It should be noted that in many cases the goals reflect the paragraphs across quarters, many of which remain Not in Substantial Compliance.

20

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 21 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Court Ordered Paragraph Related Goals Summary - Table 2
21

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 22 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
It is noted that in addition to the paragraphs and sub-paragraphs referenced above, there are 14 sub-paragraphs that are not associated with a goal and remain in Not in Substantial Compliance status. These 14 sub-paragraphs are listed in Appendix D to this report. The IMT augmented the previously supplied (2Q2015) Goals Monitoring System (GMS) software in late October 2015, to provide the VIPD with monitoring and reporting tools similar to those related to the goals for preparing and monitoring an Action Plan for these sub-paragraphs. This additional component allows the VIPD to apply the same critical thinking to those sub-paragraphs in the Consent Decree that remain Not in Substantial Compliance and have no specific goals attached to them. The required input of suspense dates and persons accountable for completion within those dates further emphasizes the need for attention to these sub-paragraphs by the VIPD and provides a venue for the IMT to apply monitoring pressure for compliance that equals that already applied to the goals side of the process.
In an order dated 06/09/15, issued subsequent to the 1Q2015 Evidentiary Hearing, the Court directed the VIPD to “submit its schedule for achieving its long-term goals related to full compliance with the Consent Decree; provided that such submission shall include, but not be limited to, the deadlines by which the Virgin Islands intends to achieve substantial compliance with respect to the following general areas of the Consent Decree: use of force; training; management and supervision; and citizen complaints “ and further ordered “for each quarter in which it failed, or in which it fails to meet its quarterly goals (i.e., where there is a quarterly deficiency) the Virgin Islands shall submit a new deadline by which it intends to accomplish those previously set quarterly goals no later than seven (7) days after the entry of this order for any quarterly deficiencies that pre-date this order; and not later than seven (7) days after the end of a given quarter for any quarterly deficiencies that arise after the entry date of this order; provided that, in any event, such new deadlines shall not coincide with, nor delay, any prospective deadlines set for completion of future quarterly goals.” The VIPD responded with a plan for the non-compliant goals and those dates (as well as subsequent modifications made as a result of failure to comply) are reflected in Table 3, below. It should be noted that both Table 2
22

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 23 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
and Table 3 reflect some goals not addressed by the VIPD, yet remain unmet in the IMT records. In addition to the referenced filings, and the paragraphs listed above, in its filing of quarterly goals for the 3rd and 4th Quarters of 2014 and 1st and 2nd Quarters of 2015, the VIPD agreed to come into compliance with the several initiatives and or goals. While, for the most part, these initiatives/goals were not associated with a paragraph, the IMT has associated them (if applicable) with a paragraph and reports their status below or within the particular paragraph. In addition, after 1Q2015 Evidentiary Hearing, the VIPD was ordered to establish a completion date for each of the outstanding and non-completed initiatives or goals. These dates have been inserted in the chart under the “Goal/Revised Date” column. In the VIPD’s filing, dated 06/16/15, where a new completion date was not addressed the words “None Listed” appears instead of a date. A detail table of these initiatives/goals is shown in Table 3, below.
23

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 24 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

Additional Court Ordered Initiatives or Goals Summary – Table 3

Goal/

Text

Revised

Date

Status/ Links

Comment

VIPD Additional Initiatives or Goals, Not Listed in Table 2 Due 11/29/14

UOF-A Edit and improve new Completed Three templates have been developed by the Use

force reporting

1Q2015

of Force Working Group. These include a Witness

templates

Statement, an Officer Statement (RRR), and a

Supervisory Investigation. They were recently field

tested on St. Croix and some updates were made to

the final versions. IMT has provided technical

assistance to the Working Group throughout the

development of these templates.

UOF-B Issue directive for

Completed The directive has been developed and signed by

template implementation 1Q2015

the Commissioner. Follow-up use of force template

training conducted in the St. Thomas /St. John

District during the week of March 16, 2015. This is

pursuant to Quarterly goals for the use of force work

group for the reporting quarter ending May 15,

2015; the template directive was provided to the

IMT on May 15, 2015.

UOF-C Training and implement Completed Supervisors and Officers on St. Croix were trained

templates

1Q2015

by Captain Duggan during the period 11/25/14 and

11/26/14, while Supervisors on St. Thomas and St,

John were trained on 12/11/14. St. Croix officers

were trained by the Academy staff on 12/1/14-

12/5/14. The remaining officers on St. Thomas/St.

John and anyone, who missed the previously

scheduled training, are scheduled for that training, conducted by Sergeant Marsh, on March 16th and 18th 2015 on St. Thomas. Still some stragglers

remain and VIPD asserts they will train them during

2Q2015. The stragglers were trained during

2Q2015...

UOF-D Approval of Force

Completed Policy was reviewed, commented on by DOJ and

08/01/15 Review Board Policy

08/04/15 IMT, and final version signed by the Commissioner

on 08/01/15.

UOF-E Identify personnel for

Completed Same as UOFS-7 page 2; positions rather than

Force Review Board

1Q2015

people have been identified in the policy and

whoever fills the position will be on the board; This

process will be underway IMT has provided

technical assistance and materials to aid the VIPD

with this process. Referenced policy has been

approved and signed by the VIPD.

UOF-F

Identify training for

Completed Same as UOFS-8; Again, the policy has been

07/22/15 Force Review Board

approved with a September 1, 2015 effective date.

personnel

IMT has provided technical assistance and

materials to aid the VIPD with this process. Some

training has been provided by Northwestern

University (FIT related) and additional training was

24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 25 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

Goal/

Text

Revised

Date

Status/ Links

Comment

scheduled to be delivered by a FBINA sourced

team for the first week of 3Q2015, however impending weather conditions required a

reschedule. Training was identified for both FIT & EFRB. Provided the 1st week of November in/on

both districts. Curriculums were reviewed and met

policing practices. Additional training will be sought

for both new units of the department to meet the

80 hour requirement in the VIPD Policy.

UOF-G Develop Force 08/01/15 Investigations Team

Completed Same as UOFS-9; Policy was reviewed, 08/04/15 commented on by DOJ and IMT, and final version

(FIT) policy

signed by the Commissioner on 08/01/15.

VIPD Additional Initiatives or Goals, Not Listed in Table 2 Due 02/20/15

UOFS1 08/01/15

Approval of Force Investigation Team Policy

Completed 08/04/15

See UOF-G Policy was reviewed, commented on by DOJ and IMT, and final version signed by the Commissioner on 08/01/15.

UOFS2

Identify personnel for Force Investigation Team (FIT).

Completed 1Q2015

IA personnel have been trained to investigate FIT level 1 cases (see UOF-F); they conduct parallel investigations; IAB also reviews the file for completeness from the CID report. Additional training was completed for Forensic personnel at Northwestern University and was completed during

this quarter. VIPD needs to name the FIT team leaders and their assigned personnel, including the on-call rotation list of FIT supervisors.

UOFS3 07/22/15

Identify training & funding for Force Investigation Team

Completed 07/23/15

Training was scheduled to be delivered by a FBINA sourced team for the first week of 3Q2015; however impending weather conditions required a reschedule. Training was delivered in 3Q15 and produced in both districts. IMT monitored the training and found training met policing standards. Additional training will need to be continued as the goal is to have continuous training to supplement VIPD personnel with ongoing skills development.

UOFS4

Issue Directive for

Completed Same goal and comment as UOF-B

template implementation 1Q2015

UOFS5

Train and implement templates

Completed Same goal and comment as UOF-C 1Q2015

UOFS6 Approval of Force 08/01/15 Review Board Policy

Completed 08/04/15

Same goal and comment as UOF-D Policy was reviewed, commented on by DOJ and IMT, and final version signed by the Commissioner on 08/01/15.

UOFS7

Identify personnel for Force Review Board

Completed Same goal and comment as UOF-E Personnel have

1Q2015

been selected by position and approved by

Commissioner.

UOFS8 Identify training for

Completed Same goal and comment as UOF-F

25

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 26 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

Goal/

Text

Status/ Comment

Revised Date

Links

12/18/15 Force Review Board

Personnel

UOFS9 Develop Force

Completed Same goal and comment as UOF-G

08/01/15 Investigation Team

08/04/15 Policy was reviewed, commented on by DOJ and

policy

IMT, and final version signed by the Commissioner

on 08/01/15.

VIPD Additional Initiatives or Goals, Not Listed in Table 2 Due 05/15/15

UOF1

Development of a UOF Completed Checklist for VIPD reviewers has been developed

Investigation Reviewer's 1Q2015

and commissioner’s directive for implementation

Checklist.

has been signed and issued. Training was

accomplished during 2Q2015

UOF2

Issue Commissioner's Completed The template directive was provided May 15, 2015

Directive for use of

1Q2015

to the IMT and signed by the Commissioner. IMT

Reviewer's Checklist

continues to monitor impact of the checklist.

UOF3

Train Reviewing

Completed Supervisory personnel have received training and

08/01/15 personnel on use of

08/04/15 VIPD attests that 98% of all supervisory personnel

Checklist

have been trained. The IMT will test compliance in

the next quarter by testing supervisors for

compliance with the aforementioned training.

UOF4

Issue Commissioner's Completed Directive completed and pending approval; The

Directive mandating

1Q2015

template directive was provided May 15, 2015 to

Forensic personnel to

the IMT and signed by the Commissioner Pending

comply with work

full implementation status review by the IMT in

product time limits for

3Q2015.

Level 1 Force

Investigations.

UOF5

Complete training for

Completed Officers attended training at Northwestern Traffic

08/01/15 Forensic CSI staff on

08/04/15 Institute and received certificates. IMT will assess

creating officer involved

during compliance review of serious use of force

shooting sketches and

investigations the quality of their reports. Through

trajectory

end of 2Q2015 no incidents arose that required

investigation. IMT will review any such cases as

they arise and determine impact of the training.

UOF6

Continue training for all Completed This is make-up training for those who missed last

officers on UOF

1Q2015

Fall and March 2015 training; Training on the

Reporting templates

templates was completed during 2Q2015.

TRNG22 Reorganize the Training Pending Pending review of directive

Advisory Committee.;

Paragraph 74g

TRNG23 Create and implement Pending Pending review of Kirkpatrick training and

12/18/15 new protocol for

implications for adoption of components by the

monitoring and

VIPD

evaluating UOF training;

Paragraph 73a

TRNG24 SOP Development for Completed 2Q2014 While the VIPD has in fact published a

08/01/15 Advisory Committee;

07/23/15 revised version of this SOP, the IMT continues to

Paragraph 74g

have concerns regarding its content and impact on

the committee’s activities, which are discussed in

26

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 27 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

Goal/ Revised Date TRNG25 12/18/15 TRNG26 12/18/15 TRNG27 M&S7 M&S8
M&S9
M&S10

Text

Status/ Comment

Links

Revise and implement Roll Call Policy; Paragraph 74e
Development of the Kirkpatrick method of evaluating training; Paragraph 73a Conduct the first semiannual meeting and analysis by April 20, 2015 Complete Familiarization training on Disciplinary Flow chart to all Commanders by March 30, 2015; Paragraph 72 Conduct inspections monthly to ensure compliance with the disciplinary matrix and to ensure non-disciplinary corrective action is recommended consistently when applicable with disciplinary actions. Paragraph 72 Develop a workable database to track OC canisters issued to officers. Conduct monthly inspections to ensure compliance; Paragraph 60c
Revisit the implementation of an MOA between the VIPD/VIAG with new administration; Paragraph 60h

Pending
Pending; Completed 1Q2015 Completed 1Q2015 Completed 1Q2015
Completed 1Q2015
Completed 1Q2015

this report’s body at referenced paragraph. IMT reviewed the submitted directive and finds it did not follow IMT recommendations and needs further refinement and possible separation into two or more separate directives. IMT will work with the Training Division Director to expedite the corrections. Initial training completed in 1Q2015; deadline for completion extended by VIPD to 12/18/15 by the VIPD through court filing
This relates to Training Advisory Committee and Training Division to supply documentation for meeting in May 2015; Documentation was received.
VIPD advises did a flow chart on the disciplinary system; training done in both districts
The IMT receives monthly reports of audits performed regarding the matrix use compliance, which contain clear and cogent recommendations for improvement and corrections when errors or non-compliance is found. IMT recommends that VIPD management and VIPD Audit and Inspection Unit review and follow-up with the recommendations and issues reported in these reports.
Technically has reached goal of developing a workable database; but will not move subparagraph into compliance until IMT sees action or documentation on the inconsistencies. Inspection reports received monthly by IMT indicating monthly inspection compliance with the goal, however the VIPD should look toward a unified system that collects this data, now reported in multiple separate reports, in one document agency-wide. The recent report done to establish variance levels for the weight check provides an excellent format in listing STX personnel. VIPD provided IMT copies of SOPs from VIAG regarding notification to VIPD; while not a formal MOA, this addresses the CD concern. This goal completed 05/15/15.

27

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 28 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

Goal/ Revised Date M&S11
M&S12
M&S13 M&S14
M&S15 08/01/15 M&S16 CC17 07/22/15

Text

Status/ Comment

Links

Finalize MOA with VITEMA on information sharing to facilitate the requirements of Paragraph 60 with the goal of moving it into compliance
M&S will with the assistance of 911 create a code for vehicle pursuits and have all vehicles for VIPD listed at 911 so vehicle accidents involving police Vehicles can be track; Paragraph 60i VIPD will retrain supervisors on preparing the EIP action plans and assessment report. Conduct remedial training on the EIP process for Commanders, thereafter, conduct monthly inspections and hold those accountable for non-compliance with the EIP protocol; Paragraph 64
Revise EIP protocol to incorporate previously issued directives in the policy; Paragraph 60
Finalize the development of additional protocols for the Audit unit; Paragraph 69 Creation of a standardized protocol to ensure proper dissemination of

Pending
Pending
Completed 1Q2015 Completed 1Q2015
Completed 08/04/15. Pending Pending

MOA was completed 05/30/15, however the problem with pursuit activity recordation remains an IT issue and the VIPD continues to work with VITEMA to resolve it. The IMT has established a cut-off date of end of 3Q2015 to resolves this issue prior to placing the VIPD in non-compliance with the associated paragraph. Completion of the required IT fixes to the VITEMA software will bring this goal into compliance MOA completed during 2Q2015. Had meeting with VITEMA; problem is that software at STX allows for secondary entry of pursuit with a robbery etc; STT does not have a similar software function. While we recognize that VIPD continues to work with VITEMA to address this issue, IMT has not been provided/shown how to access pursuit listings territory-wide Acknowledge that VIPD reports providing vehicle listing to VITEMA See also M&S 11 above Completed on STT and STX;
Need documentation on attendance vetted to staffing lists. Review more inspections for conformance. Again, retraining accomplished; individuals have been/in process of discipline. Does not move sub-paragraph or paragraph into compliance; VIPD has hired two data analysts who can assist with this function. currently considering hiring individual to assist with assessments and action plans/ IMT receives periodic notification of such remedial training accomplished and continues to monitor during cases review where such was the determined remedial action. Draft received on 7/21/15 in which directive was incorporated. However, more changes need to be made; expect completion in 3Q2015, with subsequent approval, publication, and distribution effected to fully meet spirit of the goal. Draft Audit protocols and SOP pending VIPD review. IMT had not received SOP during 2Q2015; Draft SOP received during 3Q2015 and is being reviewed by IMT and goal status could change before court hearing, The protocol submitted to IMT is electronic or digital based (storage of the documents and signatures on receipt) responds to those officers with assigned laptops or office computers, thus facilitating

28

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 29 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

Goal/ Revised Date
CC18
CC19 None listed CC20 07/22/15 CC21

Text

Status/ Comment

Links

Directives and other protocols Territory Wide; Paragraph 44 Timeliness of Cases
Create email policy to ensure officers and supervisors monitor email notifications on Complaints/UOF/training or other relevant information; Paragraph 44 Revised the Investigative Report format to capture Commanders recommendations to be used Territory Wide; Paragraph 58 Unit Commanders Responsibilities Submit the directive to the Policy Committee to revise policy 7.3 and incorporate directive in the policy; Paragraph 58 Unit Commanders Responsibilities Implement Citizen Complaint Checklist for use by investigators and reviewers to ensure all investigations are within standard.; Paragraph 58 Unit Commanders

Completed 1Q2015
Pending
Completed 07/23/15
Completed 1Q2015

operational access, it does not ensure proper dissemination of directives and protocols for personnel without assigned computers (laptops); further the current bound format of the policy manual (as referenced in VIPD Policy 1.3, Written Directive System (07/20/15) does not lend itself to inserting paper copies which would be required for maintenance of paper directives for personnel without permanent access to assigned laptops upon which electronic storage, distribution and on-line operational referencing is based upon. IMT will work with the VIPD to address this issue during 3Q2015. During 3Q2015, VIPD responded with an initiative in 3Q2015 to prepare and place 3-ring binders in each Zone with paper copies of all CD required policy for use by personnel without laptop computers. The IMT was also provided with a draft policy and the IMT provided comments. Directive completed.
IMT received document first week of November and is reviewing; possible change to Completed before court hearing.
Policy was updated with inclusion of the directive during the 2Q2015 reporting period.
VIPD recently revised and implemented Citizen Complaint Checklist. Directive was completed 05/05/15.

29

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 30 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

Goal/

Text

Revised

Date

Status/ Links

Comment

Responsibilities VIPD Additional Initiatives or Goals, Not Listed in Table 2 Due 08/21/15

2Q5-1

Authorize and contract training for the Force Review Board

Completed Training was authorized in September 2015 to the

3Q2015

IMT and conducted between 11/04/15 and 11/06/15

on both islands.

2Q5-2 11/06/15

Conduct training for the Force Investigation Team

Completed Same as 2Q15-1 3Q2015

2Q5-3

Develop OC Spray

Pending The IMT has been working with the VIPD to develop

Chart

a Territorial-Wide reporting system and database

for the periodic weighing of OC Spray canisters.

That database system is currently in final review

and will be delivered to the VIPD for server based

installation on 11/20/15. This will resolve the

previous issues with the miss-matched reporting

systems from each district and standardize it for

Territorial-Wide reporting.

2Q5-4

IAPro Application Training

Completed

On 8/11, VIPD provided IMT and DOJ with a roster of individuals that attended IAPro training on July 27. While the training However, IMT is awaiting copies of the training schedule, curriculum materials (including lesson plans, Power Points, handouts, etc), Course of Instruction with performance objectives, and other training materials for the course delivered in July 2015. IMT needs such materials to help assess the quality of the instruction. Where possible. IMT will have VI

resident team members attend VIPD scheduled

training courses. Additionally, during the week of

November 2, 4 members of the VIPD (Deputy

Commissioner, 2 analysts and 1 IA agent) attended

IAPro training in Phoenix

2Q5-5

Train investigators and reviewers on the Citizen Complaint Checklist

Pending

IMT was awaiting copies of the training schedule, curriculum materials (including lesson plans, Power Points, handouts, etc.), Course of Instruction with performance objectives, and other training

materials, including attendee rosters, for this

course. Submitted materials did not meet IMT

standards to justify compliance. IMT will work with

VIPD to improve both the quality of the training as

well as the documentation needed to prove

compliance. VIPD further did not follow IMT

Procedure 15-1, VIPD Submission of Paragraph or

Goal Completion, dated 08/07/15 when submitting

the documentation.

2Q5-6

Train investigators and Pending IMT was awaiting copies of the training schedule,

110/06/15 reviewers on the Summary Investigation

curriculum materials (including lesson plans, Power Points, handouts, etc), Course of Instruction with

30

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 31 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

Goal/ Revised Date

Text Report

Status/ Links

Comment
performance objectives, and other training materials, including attendee rosters, for this course. Submitted materials did not meet IMT standards to justify compliance. IMT will work with VIPD to improve both the quality of the training as well as the documentation needed to prove compliance. VIPD further did not follow IMT Procedure 15-1, VIPD Submission of Paragraph or Goal Completion, dated 08/07/15 when submitting the documentation.

The codes used in the first column (Goal/Revised Date) are those used by the IMT to track VIPD compliance with these goals within the IMT data system. These codes were instituted as many of the goals had similar wording or were duplicative of others. The format was standardized in 2Q2015 by use of the Quarter plus Year-Goal Number, e.g.; 3Q5-1. Additionally, some of these initiatives may be discussed further in other sections of this report, as noted. During the 3Q2015 Summit the VIPD agreed with a IMT proposal to formerly adopt this numbering system for future goals. This system is consistent with the Goals Monitoring System (GMS) software provided to the VIPD by the IMT.

C. Compliance Detail
The VIPD has achieved Substantial Compliance for 31 paragraphs. Twenty (20) remain in Not in Substantial Compliance status, with little or no activity during the current quarter.

● Paragraphs in Substantial Compliance at the end of the 3rd Quarter, 2015 are: 31, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 , 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 70, 75, 76, 78, 79 and 80.
(NOTE: Bolded/underlined paragraphs have training evaluated under paragraph 75 and implementation under paragraph 100)
 Paragraphs that attained Substantial Compliance at the end of Quarter Three, 2015: None.
● Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance: 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 44, 58, 59, 60, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 81, 100, 101.
31

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 32 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
The IMT issued a memorandum on November 13, 2014 that displays the linkage between paragraph 100 sub-paragraph compliance requirements or items (a-w) and their original location in another paragraph of the Consent Decree. This is included as Appendix C to this report.
D. Court Goals – Further Discussion 1. The Force Review Board The Force Review Board, Policy 3.3 (Use of Force Review Board) was finalized, approved by DOJ and signed by the VIPD Commissioner with an effective date of 09/01/15. The selection of Board members is contained within the above policy and the IMT staff delivered training for all assigned members during the first week of November, 2015. Additional and ongoing training and skill development will continue as this process continues to evolve.
2. The Force Investigation Team The Force Investigation Team, Policy 3.15, was finalized and approved by DOJ and IMT during the 2Q2015 reporting period. The policy was signed by the Commissioner and has an effective date of 09/01/15. Training for the Force Investigation Team was delivered by the IMT staff during the first week of November, 2015. Additional training was completed by FIT members focusing on the forensic side by Northwestern University during the period June 22-24, 2015. Additional and ongoing training and skill development will continue as this process continues to evolve.
E. Paragraph and Goal Detail Review
The IMT reports on all paragraphs and sub-paragraphs proposed by the VIPD and accepted by the Court as quarterly goals. In addition, the IMT also reports on other paragraphs and sub-paragraphs that are Not in Substantial Compliance or Partial Compliance (sub-paragraphs only) as we feel they are important to progress toward Consent Decree compliance.
32

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 33 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
During the 3Q2015 reporting period there was no additional compliance activity by the VIPD over that reported for the 1Q2015 or 2Q2015 reporting period and thus no compliance status changes were made to either paragraphs or sub-paragraphs. The following section reflects that unchanged status. The Activity, Impediments and Recommendations for each of the paragraphs and related sub-paragraphs Not in Substantial Compliance remain the same for the 3Q2015 reporting period, and the below text is in many cases taken verbatim from the last report.
It is also noted that as of the date of this report, the IMT has not received the VIPD 2Q2015 Audit Report for comparison purposes. The 3Q2015 Status Report was received on November 9th just after publication of the draft of this report.
Paragraph 32, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD will require all uses of force to be documented in writing. The use of force report form will indicate each and every type of force that was used, and require the evaluation of each type of force. Use of force reports will include a narrative description of the events preceding the use of force, written by a supervisor or by the designated investigative unit. Use of force reports also will include the officer(s)’ narrative description of events and the officer(s)’ statement. Except in cases of use of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, the officer’s statement shall be audio- or videotaped.
Activity During this reporting period the VIPD has continued its’ aggressive approach at revamping its internal review system to respond to known lapses in the force reporting, investigation and review process. They had previously (4th Quarter 2014) developed a 1) revised Officer Responding to Resistance template, 2) new Witness Officer Force template, 3) revised Supervisor Investigating Force template, and a directive from the commissioner implementing the templates. The force group leader Capt. Duggan executed training and tested the methodology for the implementation of the training and the validity of the templates. Additional tweaks to the products were detected and modifications resulted. Supervisors and Officers on both islands have been trained on the templates, with any stragglers training in both the last and current reporting quarters. Capt. Duggan has been moved to the Audit unit and during this quarter an Audit Manager has been hired to assist with auditing process.
33

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 34 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Continued training on the templates for officers and supervisors was to be scheduled for the VIPD during the quarter. Future audits in succeeding quarters will dictate if the templates have been successful. As an example during the past 5 Quarters Paragraph 32 c has seen the compliance numbers hover around 65 to 70 percent of all supervisors’ reviews. This trend continued through the 2Q2015 reporting period. This was built upon continuous improvements but still stagnated and fell well short of compliance approval. The templates were designed to attack this issue and others. Close observation of these numbers in future quarters will attest to the wisdom of providing this ongoing training.
Impediments to Compliance With regard to the template’s previously mentioned training and curriculum development, the close coordination between the Use of Force Working Group and the Training Division was deemed critical for the development of effective training and delivery to the public. It appears that this did not occur as completely as desired by the IMT. In addition, the development of the training protocols, outcome measures and evaluation for the template training was not been completed and it does not appear that the Training Division was fully involved in the development of this training. The IMT did not receive or review the associated lesson plans prior to delivery of the training.
The IMT remains concerned that future training delivery may be impacted unless these critical training components are institutionalized and monitored by Training. This must be done to ensure that training is repeated evenly throughout the department and into future sessions going forward. Given the renewed interest in training evaluation as seen in the recent Kirkpatrick courses, the new leadership in the training division seems to have taken the lead and intends on closing the gap in this area. It is essential that the VIPD support and encourage this effort for it to be successful.
During the 3rd Quarter, IMT randomly selected 19 use of force cases closed by VIPD for review for compliance of the Consent Decree. The data analysis that follows regarding our review of those use of force cases was conducted by two of the monitoring team Police Practice Experts. IMT review for use of force cases are classified into three categories for determination for compliance. A finding can be made to find a case sufficient, in which case the PPE found enough information to agree that additional work would not change the finding but that the investigation, review, and analysis missed key pieces of the investigation. Insufficient cases are cases determined by the PPE to be below standards for the investigation, analysis and review of force cases. Complete case reviews are those investigations, which VIPD meets the industry standards and generally accepted policing practices of force investigation, analysis and review.
During this Quarter, IMT reviewed 19 closed use of force cases. For the first time in the history of this investigation, VIPD made progress and had a successful number of cases completed properly. Although much progress was made, they did not achieve sufficient numbers to be in compliance, however, their effort should not go unnoticed, and this quarter review was a good effort toward compliance.
34

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 35 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Specifics of case deficiencies we identified can be made, which are the following:
 officer's use of vague and pattern language,  failure of a supervisor to document the arrival and departure of the supervisory investigation,  failure to document officer and witness statements,  failure to follow up to searches ‐ prior to and after the arrest,  failure to follow up on injuries, and  officers "cut and paste" into their Response to Resistance Reports.
Results of our review by IMT demonstrated 11 out of 19 use of force cases should not have been accepted thru the chain of command. There were key components of the investigation missing or unanswered which should have been captured by chain of command and or Use of Force Review Board, had the UFRB been up and running.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Coordination between the IAB, Audit and Inspection Unit, and the Training Division to ensure that all necessary documentation and curriculum components are met so all members are trained consistently and provided the same outcome measures.
While there is still considerable room for improvement for VIPD use of force investigations, This quarter’s effort by supervisory and command personnel should take notice of their improvement in use of force management. Over time, with the additional training in force investigations given in November 2015, the introduction of the UFRB the VIPD can improve if they continue with their concerted efforts with the basic fundamentals of force investigation, review, supervisory and command oversight.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Partial Compliance =>95% of RRRs indicate each and every type of force that was used.
Activity This has been a particularly troublesome spot for the reporting process. Officers fail to identify all the force used and by each officer, each time, however the new reporting form is designed to capture this element. Last quarter (1Q2015) it was reported that both the VIPD and the IMT review continued to find consistent improvement in reporting in this subparagraph throughout the cases. Close assessment by the supervisors of all force applied moved the VIPD to a compliance rating for the last quarter (1Q2015) of 43%. However, the compliance rating was well below an acceptable level The IMT intends to revisit these numbers in more detail during the next quarter. We will continue to aggregate the data as we move forward and can confirm reliability. While this still leaves room for improvement, it is an indicator that the supervisor’s role in moving the mandates of the consent decree forward cannot be under estimated.
35

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 36 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
For the force cases reviewed during the 3Q 2015, there was a 60% compliance rate for force reviews. Eleven of the cases reviewed were completed appropriately, four did not meet industry standards, and three were insufficient as noted in the report. This again is a movement forward toward compliance. The addition of UFRB (Use of Force Review Board) should complement more compliance.
Impediments to Compliance Supervisors’ failure to properly identify all uses of force continues in some cases. Supervisors and management must review force cases more specifically for the failure to identify each and every specific type of force used during an event. We continue to monitor the impact of the supervisor Review Checklist and will expand that through a larger sample of cases under review. Aggressive follow-up of failure to review at all levels of the VIPD should be a command priority.
Continue to provide training to supervisors on proper methods of supervisory use of force investigations. Simultaneously, hold accountable those trained supervisors in the industry standards of investigation of force incidents. Ensure compliance in appropriate investigation of the force incident, review, analysis and vertical reporting to command.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Train supervisors to evaluate each and every force application employed by department personnel and place close attention to the completion of the checklist by supervisors, reviewers, and other investigators as a quality control device.
Prepare templates to assist in investigation completion. These would be in the form of inserts directly related to the specific investigation being detailed. While introduction of the templates and associated instruction for completion appeared to center on the form, the IMT is suggesting that further detailed examples be developed and made available via computer access to assist officers in completing the templates.
VIPD leadership must insist on objective and consistent review of all reporting packages to ensure they are complete and follow the requirements of the VIPD policies that govern their completion.
In this quarter 63% of cases reviewed, supervisors failed to recognize each and every force type in an incident. The additional training provided to supervisors in the quarter should positively augment previous work to improve compliance. The addition of the audit unit in identifying early mistakes and causing correction before cases are filed and closed should also be helpful.
Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>95% of RRRs contain an evaluation of each type of force used by a supervisor.
36

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 37 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Activity Beginning with the August 2014 Summit, deficiencies were being identified through audits and corrective action was being applied by the agency. However, at the November, 2014 Summit no change was found in the status of this sub-paragraph and errors continued to surface. The department, with IMT encouragement, decided to produce a series of checklist templates to be used to evaluate completeness of use of force reporting. The templates were electronically produced and were tested by a diverse group of VIPD managers. Several adjustments were noted by the managers and IMT review and those adjustments to the templates were implemented in the final copies by the working group. Training was developed and delivered by the Use of Force Working Group point person during the last part of November and early December 2014. Personnel that missed this initial training attended make-up classes taught by SGT Marsh in March 2015.
The IMT has noted repeatedly that the evaluation of force is a major weakness in the reviews of force by the VIPD. It has not gone unnoticed by the VIPD either. VIPD audits and reviews as well as the IMT’s reviews have disclosed that the supervisors fail to properly “evaluate each and every type of force used” Last reporting period (1Q2015), of the 7 cases which were evaluated, only 2 cases met the requirements and 5 cases did not. This is a compliance rating of 29%. When viewed more in the aggregate with the previous 2 Quarters the compliance rating is 38% in 3Q2014 and 40% in the 4Q 2014. The opportunities for VIPD’s supervisors to evaluate force, occurs infrequently, thus achieving the requirements of the consent decree require them to be diligent in the performance of force reviews. This is a primary responsibility of all police supervisors and the community has a right to believe that the VIPD is managing the force being applied by their peace officers constitutionally. These failures continued to be observed during the 2Q2015 reporting period.
During this Quarter, IMT found a 45% compliance rate. This is a small incremental improvement from last Quarter. Although not significant, this is process improvement. The additional training provided to supervisors in the quarter should positively augment previous work to improve compliance. The addition of the audit unit in identifying early mistakes and causing correction before cases are filed and closed should also be helpful
Impediments to Compliance Continued failure to meet deadlines and content requirements in UOF reporting.
No significant change during this Quarter.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Emphasis on use of the recently implemented templates as quality control devices and retraining on them as needed. Follow–up with individual supervisors who fail to complete force reports properly.
37

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 38 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Management must enforce and actively manage use of force incidents, reviews, and the completion of force investigative analysis in a timely manner and consistent with Consent Decree.
Sub-Paragraph f, Status = Partial Compliance =>95% of the reports will include an audio or videotaped statement, unless the level of force used is at the lowest level as described by DOJ approved VIPD policy.
Activity IMT has continued to review case files to determine if audio and video taping is being conducted and if those files are attached to reports. IMT notes that several of the respondents in the surveys conducted during December 2014 and Jan 2015 indicated, anecdotally, that the department had not previously provided such recording equipment and had purchased their own. Both the VIPD and the IMT reviews disclose that this issue is being addressed, in terms of enclosure with the reports and noted in the supervisors report. Evaluation of content of the recordings is still under review by the IMT.
IMT 3Q2015 review resulted in 19 cases reviewed. Of those, 55% of cases failed deescalation consistent with Consent Decree mandates. IMT notes, this may attributed to supervisory non-compliance of de-escalation review and evaluation because of a lack of equipment.
Impediments to Compliance The IMT intends to complete its expanded case reviews and submit a report by September 30, 2015. During 2Q2015 IMT reviewed a series of cases, which followed the same trends as noted above, but will complete a larger sampling during 3Q2015.
VIPD Supervisors fail to recognize de-escalation techniques instructed to them during training and failure to report.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance IMT continues to urge the VIPD to install in car video cameras. Review the distribution and availability of department owned audio and/or video equipment that will assist the VIPD with complying with this requirement, the IMT understands that the equipment has been purchased but the VIPD had not developed the policies and procedures for the equipment use, review, audit, storage and retrieval. This might be an appropriate audit for the Audit and Inspection Unit (AIU) to complete to validate both the survey comments and VIPD efforts to ensure availability of the required equipment.
38

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 39 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
VIPD should write a policy for the use, review, auditing and storage on in-car video cameras. Currently, VIPD has the equipment in squads and they must provide direction for above.
Paragraph 33, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording
Officers shall notify their supervisors following any use of force or upon the receipt of an allegation of excessive force. Except in uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, supervisors will respond to the scene, examine the subject for injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain, and ensure that the subject received needed medical attention.
Activity IMT met frequently with the Force Working Group chair and members through conference calls, mini summits and IMT monitoring activities. The IMT requested department organization and staffing materials during the quarter, but received only a listing or department members from within the IAPro system, which proved to be outdated and incomplete. No position staffing information was provided and organizational charts do not appear to reach down to the squad level to ascertain if appropriate staffing is in place.
IMT recommends the selection and placement of a Use of Force Territorial Coordinator. Firearms Investigation Team (FIT) training has occurred and this is the proper time for the Commissioner to appoint someone to the Coordinator position.
Impediments to Compliance The VIPD claims that sufficient supervisors are neither available nor assigned to the areas most needed to ensure proper oversight or arrival at use of force events and proper investigation, documentation, review and evaluation of these events. The IMT has no documentation such as position staffing tables or allocation plans, and/or detailed organizational charts with line-item position coding, to determine if this situation description is accurate.
IMT understands VIPD undertook a study of other police operations that would positively impact the Consent Decree. We understand some of the areas studies were manning charts, geographic policing, span of control, and resource allocation. IMT looks forward engaging VIPD discussion on how to maximize delivery of the recommendations to enhance VIPD's compliance with the Consent Decree. We also look forward to reviewing the study that the Territorial leaders ordered to be completed on this very topic.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance
39

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 40 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Promote and assign supervisors where experience shows that supervisors are needed to review, analyze, and evaluate force incidents occurring on their watches. IMT has been unable to determine if any positive action was accomplished on this issue, as while the IMT has been advised there were some promotions made in January 2015, we have no direct knowledge or documentation to indicate where they have been assigned (e.g., a staffing table or personnel assignment orders).; The IMT was updated by the VIPD on supervisors who participated in supervisory leadership training delivered by the FBI Training Division. The IMT believes this training was critical, valuable, and well received by the VIPD supervisors who attended.
Develop detailed position allocation tables with authorized and filled position coding and provide same to the IMT for review of supervisory coverage issues. IMT understands VIPD undertook a study of other police operations that would positively impact the Consent Decree. We understand some of the areas studies were manning charts, geographic policing, span of control, and resource allocation. IMT looks forward engaging VIPD discussion on how to maximize delivery of the recommendations to enhance VIPD's compliance with the Consent Decree. We also look forward to reviewing the study that the Territorial leaders ordered to be completed on this very topic.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Partial Compliance In =>95% of the identified use of force incidents, the officer using force notified his/her supervisor immediately as required by VIPD policy.
See Paragraph 33 above
Activity VIPD has identified persons to be promoted for supervision which should help ensure that they are available to conduct Use of Force reviews. The IMT has found consistent with the VIPD audits that officers fail to promptly and properly notify supervisors when they use force. The VIPD and IMT have also found that supervisors fail to respond to the scene to conduct their inquiry and evaluation or fail to report the reasons for not responding. Consistent with this finding during the past 4 Quarters the VIPD has a compliance rating hovering at a compliance rate of 1 proper response in every 3 cases for a 33 % rating for this requirement.
IMT case reviews disclosed improvement, but falls short as to where VIPD should be in at this time and certainly by August 2016. Of the 20 force case reviews ‐ 7 supervisors responded appropriately, 10 cases the supervisor did not respond to the scene. There was nothing in the case reviews to indicate why the supervisor did not respond also there were 3 cases that the PPE was unable to determine because of the lack of information in the report. These conditions are a direct failure of the management oversight of the case review process.
40

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 41 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Impediments to Compliance VIPD must train the new supervisors on force review, investigation and the required reporting process. The VIPD and completed training for newly promoted supervisors during 1Q2015 (late Feb 2015).
VIPD should continue to work with VITEMA to ensure that the records associated with all force events calls for service and radio traffic between officers and supervisors are available for VIPD use in both investigating failures as well as auditing the entire system.
Due to the lack of detail information in police reports, VIPD needs to determine the reason(s) as to why supervisors are not responding to force incidents. Also, why management of the force review process is not being monitored or audited by the VIPD before the case is closed.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Ensure that any promotions and assignments of new supervisors are complimented with appropriate force management and accountability training.
Newly promoted supervisors should not be authorized a shift or manage personnel until they have completed a 40-hour course on Supervisory Investigation of Use of Force Incidents.
Sub-Paragraph e, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of the incidents where the Supervisors responded to the scene, he/she ensured that subjects received any necessary medical attention.
Activity VIPD has worked to complete the templates to both capture and evaluate the tenets contained in this item of the consent decree. During this quarter the VIPD and the IMT found that consistent with past quarters that supervisors only inquire about the medical condition of the person upon whom force was used in about half of the cases that they should have. In the 1st Quarter 2015 supervisors did not examine subjects for injury in 57% of audited cases. Additionally, they did not interview subjects for complaints of pain in 57% of audited cases. Parallel results for the 3rd and 4th Quarters of 2014 were 75% and 100% (did not examine) and 75% and 100% (did not interview). It should be noted that the audited sample is very small, 25 cases for all three quarters. In the 3rd and 4th Quarters of 2014 the failure numbers were much higher which may be an indication that the recent decrease is consistent with the template introduction and or management oversight.
41

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 42 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Results of our previous reviews and Audits Report showed little change. Supervisors did not meet the injury/examination requirements in 57% of the cases, nor were interviews conducted in 57% of cases.
IMT review for this quarter revealed that the VIPD stayed the same as in the prior review. No change is noted and the VIPD remained
Impediments to Compliance Failure to institutionalize template training by the Training Division, as well lack of command emphasis on using the templates for quality control completeness of the use of force investigation process.
These recommendations continue to be valid.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Ensure that the Training Division, in conjunction with the template designers, provides for coordinated training and management of the curriculums necessary to properly retrain and train new employees in the same process. Increase command emphasis on using the templates as quality control devices.
Commanding Officers need to ensure that these questions are answered in every RRR. IMT further recommends the selection and placement of a Use of Force Territorial Coordinator. Firearms Investigation Team (FIT) training has occurred and this is the proper time for the Commissioner to appoint someone to the Coordinator position.
Paragraph 34, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, will review, evaluate, and document each use of force, and will complete the narrative description section of the use of force report. The narrative description will include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer's conduct. As part of this review, the supervisor or designated investigating officer/unit will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officer's actions were within VIPD policy. An officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized conduct leading to the use of force or allegation of excessive force, or who was present during the incident, will not be eligible to review or investigate the incident.
Activity IMT met frequently with the Force Working Group chair and members through conference calls, mini summits and IMT monitoring activities.
Impediments to Compliance
42

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 43 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Management review of the completed force cases has been intermittent and incomplete. Both the VIPD audits and IMT reviews have disclosed untimely cases, incomplete analysis that failed to properly identify inadequate officer or supervisor reporting, missing collection of evidence, witness identification missing and case analysis was not supported by evidence. IMT continues to find closed cases with missing documentation which seems to support VIPD audit findings of a similar nature.
IMT reviews show forward movement within the VIPD's supervisors’ description of the events preceding the use of force in the RRR process. Description of the events preceding the use of force clearly demonstrated progress. But, that were the progress ends the continued use of pattern language and general terms in cases reviews were still present. Some cases contained so much boiler plate language that the appropriateness of the force could not be determined by the PPE’s.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance
VIPD efforts to implement both a Force Review Board and a Force Investigation Team will greatly assist in the ongoing force analysis issues. Properly trained and motivated managers who follow reporting procedure themselves will also result in furthering compliance. The Force Review Board and FIT team policies were finalized and approved by DOJ and IMT during this quarter.
VIPD audits and IMT case review seem to indicate the need for review of all cases in file, using a case content checklist, by the newly hired IAB analysts to ensure completeness of the case files and proper data entry into the IAPro system.
Training for supervisors in Force Review Board and Force Investigation Team (FIT) took place in 4th Quarter. This training will assist with VIPD progress in Consent Decree requirements and possibly move this paragraph into partial compliance.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Partial Compliance In =>95% of the reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he/she was not involved in the use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize or participate in conduct leading to the use of force incident), will review, evaluate, and document each use of force.
IMT continued to see problems in this area in cases reviewed and we expanding the number of cases for review in 3Q2015 to determine if a more positive trend has occurred. We continue to believe that there are insufficient supervisors available to properly respond to and complete UOF investigations and this appears to bear out through the more recent Blue Team spot checking in comments made by the line operational personnel (although a small sampling due to availability) who were
43

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 44 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
interviewed by IMT team members. IMT has not received any VIPD staffing reports for comparison in staffing trends over the last year.
Activity
IMT case reviews of 3Q2015 found a positive trend of VIPD supervisors recuing themselves from force investigations when being initially involved.
Impediments
Insufficient supervision, which are properly deployed and trained. Failure to deploy supervisors who are not part of the force incident.
Recommendations
Command Officers need to ensure sufficient supervisors are available when a subordinate supervisor is involved in a use of force incident. Recommend that the VIPD establish a SOP outlining on-call supervisors to respond to the scenes of force use when needed.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completes the supervisor's narrative description of the RRR in a manner that comports with the requirements of paragraph 34 of the Consent Decree.
Status Change: No Change Date Changed: 10/31/2015
During the prior reporting period there was a slight increase in the number of cases that would qualify as being properly handled. A narrative cannot be considered complete if key information and evidence is missing from the narrative or the document. The VIPD has had a compliance rating hovering around 25% of its cases as being correctly written during previous quarters. The findings by both the VIPD and confirmed by the IMT, as discussed in IMT’s previous reports, show a compliance rating just slightly better at 29%. We expected to see a somewhat better application of the templates and training, but we were reserving judgment to give the forms, supervisors and training more opportunities to prove themselves. We think that the VIPD has moved forward but only
Activity
IMT review indicated a noticeable improvement. There still remains general terms, boiler plate language and passive descriptions. The supervisors are at least writing something in the description. The analysis of the force for Graham factors, threat encounters, and specific descriptions of force resistance encountered is still weak in the
44

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 45 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
reviews. There was however a noticeable difference. If VIPD continues this progress, the 4Q2015 Report could get VIPD into at least Partial Compliance.
Impediments
Supervisors who do not know how to properly write and analyze force use by their subordinates.
Recommendations Command Officers need to review and critique supervisory force narratives. Ensure supervisors who need additional training are trained and recommend that they get the tools necessary to properly complete the task on reporting, investigating, & reviewing force.
Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completed his/her review and evaluation according to VIPD's use of force policies and all other requirements of 31 of the Consent Decree and include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer/s conduct.
No change in activity, impediments, or recommendations from prior reports. No progress was made. Last quarter (2Q2015) IMT reported there was a slight decrease in the number of cases that would qualify as compliant. Supervisors did not include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer’s use of force. The VIPD has had a compliance rating hovering around 39% of its cases as being correctly written during previous quarters. The recent findings by both the VIPD and confirmed by the IMT show a compliance rating just slightly better at 29%. We would have expected to see a somewhat better application of the templates and training but are reserving judgment to give the forms, supervisors and training more opportunities to prove them as contributing to compliance.
Activity IMT reviews indicate no change for 3Q2015.
Impediments
Supervisors do not know how to articulate the precise facts of the Graham Factors, describe the specific threat encountered nor to properly write the circumstances which would provide for a reasonable objective analysis.
Recommendations
45

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 46 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Training for supervisors in Force Review Board and Force Investigation Team (FIT) will take place in 4th Quarter. This training will assist with VIPD progress in Consent Decree requirements.
Sub-Paragraph d, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completed his/her review and evaluation according to VIPD's use of force policies and all other requirements of 31 of the Consent Decree and will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officers’ actions were within VIPD policy.
Activity Similarly, as above, the supervisors do not support findings with facts, evidence, and the totality of circumstances that is descriptive enough to support their findings. The VIPD has had a compliance rating hovering around 29% to 39% of its cases as being correctly written during previous quarters. Recent findings by both the VIPD and confirmed by the IMT show a compliance rating just slightly better at 29%. We expected to see a somewhat better application of the templates and training but were reserving judgment to give the forms, supervisors and training more opportunities to prove themselves.
This 3Q2015 report disclosed a noticeable improvement in force reviews but with much more work to be done.. Further assessment in the next quarter and the training applied during this quarter should assist in VIPD's compliance with the Consent Decree requirements into the 4Q2015 report.
Impediments Supervisors do not know how to articulate the precise facts of the Graham Factors, which provide for a reasonable objective analysis. During this Quarter IMT reviewed written statements involving force incidents from supervisors. There was no indication of follow up for specific areas of concern. Evidentiary concerns were not properly documented and evaluated. Taser downloads were not properly documented. Written statements from officers contained discrepancies in the statements and no indication to evaluate the follow up. Photographs could have provided valuable evidence and no indication they were taken and or placed into the file.
Recommendations Training for supervisors in Force Review Board and Force Investigation Team (FIT) will take place in 4th Quarter. This training will assist with VIPD progress in Consent Decree requirements.
Cases should not have been approved, but rather sent back to the submitting supervisor for follow up. Command Officer should have noted the kick-back and placed information in the file
46

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 47 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Sub-Paragraph e, Status = Partial Compliance In =>95% of the reportable use of force incidents, the investigating officer had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he/she was not involved in the use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize or participate in conduct leading to the use of force incident), in order to be able to investigate each use of force.
No change in activity, impediments, or recommendations from prior reports.
Activity No change
Impediments Cases should not have been approved, but rather sent back to the submitting supervisor for follow up. Command Officer should have noted the kick-back and placed information in the file
Recommendations No change
Discussion and/Meetings
Activity The new VIPD leadership must continue its current focus on assuring accountability to CD compliance.
No change
Impediments Absence of accountability throughout the Use of Force reporting continuum directly impacts compliance.
No change
General
Recommendations to Gain Compliance The VIPD must engage mid-level and senior management in supporting the highest levels of accountability for completing CD requirements. Continued use of and support for use of the recently implemented templates should result in a higher level of compliance with the Consent Decree requirements.
47

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 48 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
No change
Paragraph 35, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The parties agree that it is improper interview procedure during use of force investigations to ask officers or other witnesses’ leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer's conduct when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. In each review/investigation, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. The VIPD will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. The VIPD will train all of its supervisors and officers assigned to conduct use of force investigations in conducting use of force investigations, including in the factors to consider when evaluating credibility.
Activity IMT met with the Force working Group, had two mini summits and conducted monitoring and continued evaluations of force cases.
During this Quarter IMT reviewed written statements involving force incidents from supervisors. There was no indication of follow up for specific areas of concern. Evidentiary concerns were not properly documented and evaluated. Taser downloads were not properly documented. Written statements from officers contained discrepancies in the statements and no indication to evaluate the follow up. Photographs could have provided valuable evidence and no indication they were taken and or placed into the file.
Impediments to Compliance Use of Force review does not adequately address cases that suggest supervisors are asking leading questions. Templates were developed and implemented to document and train supervisors to be alert and prohibit leading questions from being used. A supervisor’s force checklist was developed to ensure supervisors don’t miss required elements of the consent decree during their reviews. A similar checklist was developed for the Citizen Complaint process.
Cases should not have been approved, but rather sent back to the submitting supervisor for follow up. Command Officer should have noted the kick-back and placed information in the file
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued focus of use of the templates as quality control devices.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Partial Compliance
48

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 49 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
In =>90% of the interviews conducted during use of force reviews, leading questions were avoided.
IMT has not seen any improvement in the cases reviewed during the 2Q2015 but has plans to increase the size of the review during 3Q2015 as the current sample is too small to qualify for any change in status.
Activity
IMT did not assess this area during 3Q2015.
Impediments
IMT did not assess this area during 3Q2015.
Recommendations
IMT did not assess this area during 3Q2015.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of the use of force reviews, all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence is documented and appropriately considered, and credibility determinations made, if feasible.
This sub-paragraph is in need of additional work by the VIPD. Both the IMT and the VIPD have found that the supervisors fail to include relevant evidence (circumstantial, direct and physical) in their narratives which must be considered when credibility determinations are being made. An example is where Taser camera and download information is available yet the supervisors do not include it in reports to either support the officer’s statement or the citizen’s statement of the force event. (UOFT2014-0051)
IMT reviews found continued discrepancies and lack of supervisors fully investigating force incidents. When applied, 2 of 7 force incidents were correctly completed 3Q2015. Impediments to Compliance Failure to include all required information, supporting documents, and evidence as part of the use of force investigative report.
Supervisors appear do not know how to recognize and accomplish this task. During quarter Use of Force and Force Investigation Team training will assist and improve in this area.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance
49

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 50 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Continued focus on use of the templates as quality control device at all levels of the use of force reporting and investigative process.
Cases should not have been approved, but rather sent back to the submitting supervisor for follow up. Command Officer should have noted the kick-back and placed information in the file
Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of investigations where material inconsistencies are present between witness statements, reasonable efforts are made to resolve the inconsistencies.
When evaluating witness credibility, appropriate factors are considered and documented.
Activity No change in activity, impediments, or recommendations from prior reports. No progress was made.
See above
Impediments to Compliance Where witness information is known and supervisors do not address material inconsistencies in the investigation, the supervisor failed to follow through as did the reviewers. If the reviewers had caught this lapse and corrected it would not have been found by the audit and the IMT. The parties and the IMT should discuss whether some other designation (other than metrics) might be preferable for sub-paragraphs where few events occur during a reporting period. UOFT2014-0075
See above
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued focus on use of the templates as quality control device at all levels of the use of force reporting and investigative process.
See above
Paragraph 36, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall conduct an investigation of all uses of force or injury resulting from a use of force by any officer under their command. This requirement does not apply to uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ. In an investigation, supervisors or designated
50

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 51 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
investigating officers or units, shall interview all witnesses to a use of force or an injury resulting from a use of force. Consistent with the requirements of the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable law, VIPD supervisors or designated investigating officers or units shall ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all use of force reports for all levels of force identify all officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports for all levels of force indicate whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided, and whether the subject refused medical treatment. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports include contemporaneous photographs or videotapes taken of all injuries at the earliest practicable opportunity, both before and after any treatment, including cleansing of wounds.
Activity Meetings with VIPD leadership and Use of Force Working Group. IMT monitoring and case review.
IMT reviews indicate overall VIPD progress with this area. If continued, during 4th Quarter could be moved into Compliance.
Impediments to Compliance As noted last quarter, management review and accountability has been spotty and inconsistent.
IMT review of 3Q2015, 7 medical case incidents were non-compliant and 4 were compliant. The reports lacked the evaluation to determine why the injuries occurred and were they consistent with the RRR report. Photos of injuries were not taken - 5 incidents were complaint and 6 non-compliant.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Leadership must hold themselves and VIPD managers accountable for incomplete investigations. Continued focus and use of the templates as a quality control device by supervisors
Command Officer monitoring. Cases should not have been approved, but rather sent back to the
submitting supervisor for follow up. Command Officer should have noted the kick‐back and placed information in the file
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Partial Compliance =>90% of the Use of Force reports, the supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, who supervised the officer using the force, conducted the investigation of all uses of force or injury resulting from the use of force by that officer. This
51

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 52 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
requirement does not apply to the lowest level use of force as defined in DOJ approved VIPD policy.
Activity All force cases reported to the VIPD are now being investigated. The IMT will work with the VIPD to determine if this sub-paragraph is ready for compliance. The most recent 3 quarters have shown increased compliance and IMT will conduct a review during the 4Q2015 reporting period to determine status. Data in the IA Pro system must be validated to ensure the IMT is capturing all the events. That will occur in the 4th Q2015
No change
Impediments to Compliance Continued focus on accountability by the correct investigating officer is needed.
No change
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Use of the templates as quality control device should go far towards compliance of this sub-paragraph.
No change
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, all witnesses, to the extent practicable, are interviewed in the investigating supervisor's reports.
The VIPD has been unsuccessful in getting its supervisors to obtain credible witness information and collecting that data for their force investigations. Where witness information is available the VIPD often fails to include their statements in the file. In the last 4 Quarters (1) out of every (3) cases in which a witness was identified in the reviewed files a supervisor failed to follow through on complying with the witness reporting requirements of the subparagraph.
Activity
Cases should not have been approved, but rather sent back to the submitting supervisor for follow up. Command Officer should have noted the kick-back and placed information in the file
Impediments
52

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 53 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Management oversight
Recommendations
Appoint a territorial force coordinator.
Sub-Paragraph d, Status = Partial Compliance In =>90% of Use of Force reports, Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all use of force reports for all levels of force identify all officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred.
Activity IMT and VIPD observe that in the past three quarters supervisors consistently noted that they identified all involved police personnel on the scene and their involvement in the use of force and the parties could therefore properly inquire about the circumstances surrounding the event. Moving forward this sub-paragraph should be ready for a detailed compliance review during the 3Q2015.
Impediments to Compliance Continued focus on accountability by the investigating officer to identify and evaluate use of force by all officers involved or on the scene of a use of force incident.
Cases should not have been approved, but rather sent back to the submitting supervisor for follow up. Command Officer should have noted the kick-back and placed information in the file
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Use of the templates as quality control device, coupled with close attention to the facts of the incident, should go far towards compliance of this sub-paragraph.
Paragraph 37, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording All investigations into use of force shall be reviewed by the Officer's Commander and/or Director, or by a Commander and/or Director in the designated investigative unit, who shall identify any deficiencies in those reviews, and shall require supervisors, or designated investigative officers or units, to correct any and all deficiencies. Supervisors, and designated investigative officers or units, will be held accountable for the quality of their reviews. Appropriate non-disciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary action will be taken when a supervisor, or designated investigative officer or unit, fails to conduct a timely and thorough review, or neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action, or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action. As provided by VIPD policy and
53

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 54 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
approved by DOJ, designated command staff shall further review the Commander and/or Director's reviews according to the level of force involved.
Activity Recent implementation of the templates should have some impact on compliance here, if used correctly and are subsequent corrective actions are supported by management. Command officer received training in this quarter in both FIT and FRB. This should help their continued development in force review and analysis.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to affect accountability throughout the management chain of the investigation directly impacts this paragraph.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued use of the templates, supported by management follow-up and accountability should increase compliance with this paragraph.
Cases should not have been approved, but rather sent back to the submitting supervisor for follow up. Command Officer should have noted the kick‐back and placed information in the file
Appoint a territorial force coordinator.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Partial Compliance =>90% of the completed use of force case files contained signed documentation from the Chief and/or Deputy Chief indicating that he/she reviewed the completed investigation and the date of such review. In these cases, were all appropriate deficiencies noted and was corrective action directed or imposed?
Activity The IMT is pleased that force cases are now being reviewed by the VIPD Command officers from the respective districts. IMT granted Partial Compliance during 1Q2015, while we continue to make an assessment of the reviewers’ ability to capture the values sought within the consent decree in his/her reviews.
A limited review conducted during the 2Q2015 (reported on in Section V, a) determined that command review of cases needs to be conducted more diligently. We have determined during the 3Q2015 review that the command officers are reviewing the cases but not capturing all the deficiencies nor insuring that the corrections are made and followed up on for accountability.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to affect accountability at senior levels of the investigation directly impacts this paragraph. During this quarter the command officers received additional training that should assist them in overseeing force accountability.
54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 55 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued focus on management review and follow-up, coupled with subsequent accountability should increase compliance with this paragraph.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, supervisors are held accountable for the quality of their reviews, and documented non-disciplinary and/or disciplinary action has been taken when a supervisor or manager: fails to conduct a timely and thorough review; neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action; or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action. In those cases where discipline was imposed, did the officials imposing the discipline follow the departmental disciplinary matrix?
Activity The VIPD and the IMT have found significant deficiencies in reviews. The compliance rate for most of these sub-paragraphs hovers between 45% and 75%. Some are still totally at zero compliance. Clearly the department has to visualize a solution for this total paragraph. The IMT would suggest that a meeting be convened by the Police Commissioner to review the substance of the VIPD audits and the IMT’s reviews and strategize a plan of action to correct the deficiencies. Use of the IMT supplied Goal worksheets and database can be equally used for the planning process here.
A limited review conducted during the 2Q2015 (reported on in Section V, a) determined that command review of cases needs to be conducted more diligently.
Our 3Q2015 review showed that the command officers are reading the cases but failing to identify missing case information and approving force cases that should have been returned for additional follow-up or investigation.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to affect accountability at senior levels of the investigation directly impacts this paragraph.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued focus on management review and follow-up, coupled with subsequent accountability should increase compliance with this paragraph. Audit cases before approval by the command officers and identify areas that need attention Appoint a territorial force coordinator.
Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, the Chief and/or Deputy Chief provided a written, signed and dated finding on whether the use of force was justified under
55

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 56 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
VIPD's DOJ approved use of force policies and all other requirements of 31(a)-(g) of the Consent Decree.
Activity The VIPD and the IMT have found significant deficiencies in reviews. The compliance rate for most of these sub-paragraphs hovers between 45% and 75%. Some are still totally at zero compliance. Clearly the department has to visualize a solution for this total paragraph. The IMT would suggest that a meeting be convened by the Police Commissioner to review the substance of the VIPD audits and the IMT’s reviews and strategize a plan of action to correct the deficiencies. Use of the IMT supplied Goal worksheets and database can be equally used for the planning process here.
Our reviews conducted during our previous quarters (reported on in Section V, a) determined that command review of cases needs to be conducted more diligently. Our 3Q2015 disclosed the same concerns and issues as in the previous quarters.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to affect accountability at senior levels of the investigation directly impacts this paragraph.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued focus on management review and follow-up, coupled with subsequent accountability should increase compliance with this paragraph. Audit cases before approval by the command officers and identify areas that need attention Appoint a territorial force coordinator.
Sub- Paragraph d, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, supervisors are held accountable for the quality of their investigations, reviews, and documented non-disciplinary and/or disciplinary action has been taken when a supervisor or manager: fails to conduct a timely and thorough review; neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action; or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action.-
Activity The VIPD and the IMT have found significant deficiencies in reviews. The compliance rate for most of these sub-paragraphs hovers between 45% and 75%. Some are still totally at zero compliance. Clearly the department has to visualize a solution for this total paragraph. The IMT would suggest that a meeting be convened by the police commissioner to review the substance of the VIPD audits and the IMT’s reviews and strategize a plan of action to correct the deficiencies. Use of the IMT supplied Goal worksheets and database can be equally used for the planning process here.
56

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 57 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Impediments to Compliance Failure to affect accountability at senior levels of the investigation directly impacts this paragraph.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued focus on management review and follow-up, coupled with subsequent accountability should increase compliance with this paragraph. Audit cases before approval by the command officers and identify areas that need attention Appoint a territorial force coordinator.
Sub-Paragraph e, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>95% of the use of force incidents where the Commander's/Director's review and evaluation concluded that improper tactics were used, there is evidence that the involved sworn personnel received and successfully completed remedial training, and, if appropriate, were disciplined.
The VIPD and the IMT have found significant deficiencies in reviews. The compliance rate for most of these sub-paragraphs hovers between 45% and 75%. Some are still totally at zero compliance. Clearly the department has to visualize a solution for this total paragraph. The IMT would suggest that a meeting be convened by the Police Commissioner to review the substance of the VIPD audits and the IMT’s reviews and strategize a plan of action to correct the deficiencies. Use of the IMT supplied Goal worksheets and database can be equally used for the planning process here.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to affect accountability concerning remedial training compliance and documentation, as well as any appropriate discipline, directly impacts this paragraph.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Audit cases before approval by the command officers and identify areas that need attention Appoint a territorial force coordinator.
Sub-Paragraph f, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance In =>95% of the use of force incidents deemed unjustified by the Commander's/Director's review and evaluation, the involved sworn personnel were disciplined, including separation from service with the VIPD when appropriate, and, if separation from service was not appropriate, received remedial training.
The VIPD and the IMT have found significant deficiencies in reviews. The compliance rate for most of these sub-paragraphs hovers between 45% and 75%. Some are still
57

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 58 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
totally at zero compliance. Clearly the department has to visualize a solution for this total paragraph. The IMT would suggest that a meeting be convened by the police commissioner to review the substance of the VIPD audits and the IMT’s reviews and strategize a plan of action to correct the deficiencies. Use of the IMT supplied Goal worksheets and database can be equally used for the planning process here.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to implement and document appropriate discipline, directly impacts this paragraph.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance VIPD leadership needs to ensure that any and all appropriate discipline associated with the findings should is applied and carried out and subsequently documented and associated with the case. Audit cases before approval by the command officers and identify areas that need attention Appoint a territorial force coordinator.
Paragraph 38, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD will investigate all critical firearm discharges. The VIPD will ensure that the investigation accounts for all shots and locations of all officers who discharged their firearms. The VIPD will conduct all ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate.
Activity The IMT and DOJ worked with the VIPD to develop the Force Review Board and Force Investigation Team (FIT) polices, which were signed by the Commissioner with an effective date of 09/01/15. Portions of required training for the FIT were conducted in July 2015, while other training is scheduled for later in August 2015. Additional FIT and FRB training was conducted during the Nov. 2015 and most command and senior members of the department attended that training. The training was videotaped so additional supervisors who were not able to attend could view the training. It is anticipated that both units FIT and UFRB will be fully operational during the 4Q2015 and the IMT looks forward to assisting their processes and evaluating their actions during that and follow-on quarters.
Impediments to Compliance Command accountability
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Audit cases before approval by the command officers and identify areas that need attention
58

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 59 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Appoint a territorial force coordinator.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>99% of all critical firearm discharges are investigated and documented.
See paragraph level entries for paragraph38.
Impediments to Compliance Failure to thoroughly investigate and account for use of force incidents. During 3Q2015 training for a Force Investigation Team took place in both districts. However compliance must be evaluated through review of the action of both of the FIT team and the quality of its investigations and the department’s review of those cases and future quarters.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continue to implement a Force Investigation Team and Force Review Board to improve the quality of use of force investigations and subsequent evaluation of justification for the use of force. Complete implementation of both FIT and UFRB, including review of their activities and actions.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>95% of all investigations or reviews of critical firearm discharges accounted for all shots.
No Change
Impediments to Compliance Failure to thoroughly investigate and account for use of force incidents. Failure to fully implement and train a Force Review Board and Force Investigation Team contributes to the non-compliance of this sub-paragraph. Failure to account for all shots fired in use of force investigations. Failure to use the templates as quality control devices to ensure all shots fired are accounted for whenever appropriate.
See above
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continue to implement a Force Investigation Team and Force Review Board to improve the quality of use of force investigations and subsequent evaluation of justification for the use of force. Complete implementation of the two elements, including review of their activities and actions.
See above
59

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 60 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>95% of all supervisors (or other personnel) have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training on ballistic and crime scene analyses and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or (b) if supervisors (or other personnel) have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the supervisors (or other personnel) have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s); or Where supervisors (or other personnel) have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel.
While these directives and initiatives do not directly respond to the issue of supervisors being trained in use of force investigations, if implemented as currently proposed, the number of investigations by supervisors will greatly decline, with the FIT taking over responsibility. Activity of both elements will be a focus of IMT review during the 3Q2015. FIT and UFRB training of command and senior members of the department took place in both districts during 3Q2015. The continued training and implementation of the FIT policy into operational orders must be achieved with the next quarter.
Impediments to Compliance Need to stand up the unit requires operational orders.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Implement controls to ensure all supervisors are trained on use of force investigations and/or implement the FIT and FRB.
Paragraph 44, Status = Partial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording Complaints may be filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile or electronic mail. The duty officer at the front desk of each district station will be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints, which persons may file at any district station. Complaint intake officers may describe facts that bear upon a complainant's demeanor and physical condition but May not express opinions regarding his/her mental competency or veracity. Each complaint will be resolved in writing. Upon receipt, each complaint will be assigned a unique identifier, which will be provided to the complainant. Each complaint will be tracked according to the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, improper search, etc.).
Activity VIPD is in compliance with all sub-paragraphs of this paragraph with the exception of paragraph “i” where timeliness continues to be the issue.
60

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 61 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Impediments to Compliance See sub-paragraphs.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance See sub-paragraphs.
Sub-Paragraph i, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>90% of complaints are documented and resolved in writing and completed investigations into complaints comport with the provisions of the Consent Decree.
Activity Timeliness continues to be the issue on this paragraph; as previously stated in VIPD’s earlier reports. As reported previously, the VIPD has attempted to resolve the timeliness issue through the issuance of commissioner’s directives in both Districts, which mandated the completion of all outstanding 2013 and 2014 investigations. There has also been a focus on completing 2015 cases. As a result of these directives the number of outstanding cases for both Districts was reduced significantly.
At this time IMT has requested the documentation showing current status of outstanding cases. During the August 15, 2015 monthly meeting the VIPD could not provide the number of outstanding /overdue cases. There was discussion that sometimes cases are completed at the zone, but then sit at IAB. IMT emphasized that our focus was on overdue cases throughout VIPD. IMT requested documentation and will assess once received.
As previously stated timeliness within IAB as regards citizen complaints has improved during the CD, IMT continues to have concerns with a number of the more serious investigations. Many of these involve officer-involved shootings (IAB and CID) and can linger for protracted periods of time (sometimes for years). While the VIPD has been the source for many of the delays, responsibility, historically, also rests with the VIAG. IMT will continue to monitor.
"IMT recognizes that VIPD Audits are identifying the timeliness deficiencies. According to the Third-Fourth Quarters 2014 Audit, of 35 cases reviewed 27 were not timely. (There was some confusion in numbers provided; the number 27 may be as low as 25)
During the Audit for the 1st Quarter 2015, 8 cases were reviewed. While the audit report states that these were the cases completed during the first quarter, they appear to be cases initiated and closed within the 1st quarter as they all have 2015 numbers. If this is not case, then it would appear that none of the overdue 2014 cases (referenced above) have made progress. Of those 8 cases, 3 are identified as overdue. IMT still seeks clarification as to which cases VIPD audits each quarter as regards citizen complaints.
61

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 62 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
IMT also recognizes that VIPD is attempting to insure that if delays are necessary, appropriate waiver request is initiated. During this current quarter, VIPD focused on the development of a flow chart regarding the citizen complaint process (with timelines) to address any confusion supervisors/managers may have as to their responsibilities in the area of timeliness
Impediments to Compliance As previously stated, lack of accountability as regards supervisors continues to be an issue– although we have seen that improve with disciplinary actions taken. IMT will continue to review progress. Additionally VIPD managers should have a clear idea as to the status/numbers of overdue cases.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance As VIPD moves forward with additional promotions (unsure when this may occur), IMT strongly recommends, again, that priority be given to assignment to patrol
As previously reported, if disciplinary action is not effective; demotion from rank will be the next step – this confirmed by the VIPD.
The VIPD needs to monitor the waiver requests to insure that these are for valid reasons. VIPD management should also identify the logjams and focus in those areas.
Paragraph 58, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording Unit commanders will evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command to identify underlying problems and training needs. Any such problems or need will be relayed in the form of a recommendation to the appropriate VIPD entity.
Activity During the last quarter of 2014, the VIPD issued a Directive to address the process of forwarding information relative to training needs. This Directive was issued in December, 2014.Along with VIPD, IMT continues to monitor effectiveness of same.
During the last quarter, VIPD issued a Directive regarding recommendations identified which deals with training or other problems. IMT acknowledges that VIPD is currently auditing this requirement. During the 3rd-4th quarter Audit of 2014 VIPD self identified a number of cases where this was not done; during the Audit for the First Quarter 2015, VIPD self identified one instance when a recommendation should have been forwarded - it was not (1 of 1).
62

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 63 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
IMT received a document during the first week of November and is reviewing; possible change of related goal to Completed before court hearing.
Impediments to Compliance See above
Recommendations to Gain Compliance IMT encourages VIPD to continue auditing this paragraph. As deficiencies are noted, IMT would anticipate disciplinary action would be forthcoming if the same supervisors continue to not comply.
Paragraph 59, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD will develop and implement a risk management system to include a new computerized relational database or paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for supervision and management of the VIPD. Priority will be given to the VIPD obtaining any established program and system. The VIPD will regularly use this data to promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts.
Activity See sub-paragraphs.
Impediments See sub-paragraphs.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance See sub-paragraphs.
Sub-paragraph b, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance The VIPD will, in =>95% of the cases, use this data to promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts.
Activity As stated in previous reports, the IMT continues to emphasize the fact that unless supervisors and management personnel are held accountable for their responsibilities, the VIPD will have a challenging time maintaining CD compliance. Regarding this particular paragraph, the IMT anticipated that by holding managers accountable, the VIPD will move closer to initial compliance.
63

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 64 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Additionally, the IMT anticipates that resolving IT issues, considered a priority by the VIPD, will move initial compliance forward. This paragraph is contingent on other paragraphs coming into compliance regarding EIP.
Impediments to Compliance VIPD needs to reinforce accountability throughout the ranks.
Recommendations Continue to develop a sense of accountability throughout the command structure through training and senior leadership mentoring.
Paragraph 60, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The new risk management system will collect and record the following information:
a. all uses of force; b. canine bite ratios; c. the number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers; d. all injuries to prisoners; e. all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with "resisting
arrest," "assault on a police officer," "disorderly conduct," or "obstruction of official business;" f. all critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty; g. all complaints (and their dispositions); h. all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the Territory and its officers, or agents, resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel; i. all vehicle pursuits; j. all incidents involving the pointing of a firearm (if any such reporting is required); and k. all disciplinary action taken against officers.
Activity See sub-paragraphs.
Impediments See sub-paragraphs.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance See sub-paragraphs.
Sub-Paragraph c, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
64

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 65 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
=>95% of the canisters of chemical spray issued to officers will be entered into RMS, including the date of issuance and date of expirations of the chemical spray, with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness and the VIPD has developed a process to track the amount of OC Spray used by Officers.
Activity During the last quarter VIPD provided a review of OC canisters on STX; during the most recent monthly meeting, VIPD stated that a similar assessment was completed on STT/STJ. VIPD stated they would forward same. IMT has submitted a subsequent request to VIPD. At this time, IMT has not received the documentation as regards STT/STJ.
Impediments to Compliance See recommendations.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance VIPD should audit STT/STJ and provide documentation to IMT
Sub-Paragraph d, Status = Partial Compliance =>95% of all injuries to prisoners will be entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
Activity According to VIPD, The Injury to Prisoners posters are completed and have been posted throughout the various zones. These posters described VIPD policy regarding reporting injuries to detainees to assist officers in completing reporting requirements. This directive has been incorporated into the arrest policy.
During the current quarter, VIPD has drafted a system/policy to address documentation of injuries not received by a use of force; IMT provided feedback
Impediments to Compliance See recommendations – IAB addressing impediments.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance VIPD should audit, identify deficiencies and address same.
Sub-Paragraph h, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>95% of criminal proceedings initiated, civil or administrative claims filed, and civil lawsuits served against the Territory, the VIPD, and its Officers resulting from VIPD operations will be entered in RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
Activity
65

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 66 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
During the last quarter a new Attorney General was appointed. During the most recent monthly meeting, VIAG representative stated that she believed that the agreement with the former AG would remain in effect until we were notified of any change.
During the October 2015 monthly meeting, IMT raised the issue that we would need to review the log out system at the VIAG to insure documentation forwarded to VIPD is properly entered into their RMS VIAG rep was unsure that such a system existed. IMT emphasized that we would need to review whatever system VIAG uses to identify what and when materials forwarded to VIAG. IMT will continue to pursue
Impediments to Compliance IMT will continue to monitor the submission of materials from VIAG to VIPD to ensure that the time periods represented in the SOP are met.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Continued close attention to activity covered by this SOP by VIPD staff in IAB. The IMT will continue to monitor the VIAG’s efforts to support the VIPD in these cases and notes that periodic updates on case status from the VIAG have been received ruing the reporting quarter.
Sub-paragraph i; Status = Substantial Compliance =>95% of vehicle pursuits are entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.
Activity IMT recognizes VIPD efforts in this area; however, there still needs to be work with VITEMA to be able, not only to store, but to easily access pursuit information. IMT is not moving VIPD out of compliance at this time, but will provide additional time to identify and correct any deficiencies
According to the VIPD 1st Quarter Audit, "It was discovered during this audit that the 911 system is not set up to document vehicle pursuits unless originally transmitted and closed out as such.”
While STX is compliant to the extent of capturing pursuit data, STT remains an issue and the VIPD continues to work with VITEMA to resolve this programming issue.
During this quarter IMT requested any/all documentation reflecting status. IMT will assess once received
Impediments to Compliance VIPD and VITEMA need to further link the 911/CAD data with the IAPro system to increase capture of all pursuits. This includes the need to associate codes with the pursuit
66

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 67 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
activity and have those codes be the same on STT and STX. This is needed in order to ensure accurate capture of pursuit activity to compare with UOF reporting. This is an IT technical problem that needs to be worked out at that level.
Recommendations As stated in the 1Q2015 report, the sub-paragraph has been deemed in compliance due to VIPD’s efforts to ensure accurate capture of the pursuit data. IMT recommends continued meetings with VITEMA to insure more seamless integration with the coding. IMT recognizes VIPD efforts in this area; however, there still needs to be work with VITEMA to be able, not only to store, but to easily access pursuit information. IMT is not moving VIPD out of compliance at this time, but will provide additional time to correct deficiency. This extension will not exceed beyond the scheduled November 2015 Summit. If appropriate documentation not provided, the paragraph will be removed from compliance into partial
Paragraph 69, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD will develop a protocol for conducting audits. The protocol will be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol will establish a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all VIPD zones.
Activity During the last quarter, IMT received the 3rd-4th quarter 2014 audit and the 1st quarter of 2015. The Audits continue to improve. IMT hopes that these Audits will be completed in a more timely fashion than has occurred previously.
As previously noted in IMT quarterly reports, the IMT strongly recommends that, long term, VIPD have a full time staff (minimum 3-4 persons) assigned to the Audit Unit.
During the current quarter IMT received VIPD proposed Audit SOP. While considered a good faith effort, IMT continues to review. Additionally since the audits are delayed, IMT does not have the opportunity to assess to what level the draft is being applied
At this time, however, IMT is moving sub-paragraph “a” into Partial Compliance as result of the submission of the Audit Unit SOP for review.
Impediments to Compliance As stated in earlier reports, failure to fully staff the unit and prepare annual audit plans, and complete /submit audits in a timely fashion . Recommendations to Gain Compliance Fully staff the unit, and develop an annual audit plan and schedule.
67

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 68 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Paragraph 71, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording VIPD policy will identify clear time periods by which the various steps of a complaint adjudication process should be completed, from complaint receipt to the imposition of discipline, if any. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions will not be granted without the Police Commissioner's written approval and notice to the complainant. In the limited circumstances when an extension is necessary, appropriate tolling provisions will be outlined in the policy.
Activity As previously reported, a directive (001-2015) was issued on Jan 6, 2015, that provides for extensions to reporting times, when justified and requested, by investigating personnel.
Also please see comments in paragraph 44 which describes creation of flowchart for citizen complaint process as this flowchart also addresses this paragraph
Impediments to Compliance See other sub-paragraphs.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance See sub-paragraphs.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance =>90% of the time, these established time periods are not violated except for in exigent circumstances and with the Police Commissioner's written approval for tolling and notice to the complainant.
Activity At this time IMT has requested the documentation showing current status of outstanding cases. During the August, 2015 monthly meeting the VIPD could not provide the number of outstanding /overdue cases. There was discussion that sometimes cases are completed at the zone, but then sit at IAB. IMT emphasized that our focus was on overdue cases throughout VIPD. IMT requested documentation and will assess once received.”
IMT recognizes that VIPD Audits are identifying the timeliness deficiencies. According to the Third-Fourth Quarters 2014 Audit, of 35 cases reviewed 27 were not timely. (There was some confusion in numbers provided; the number 27 may be as low as 25)
During the Audit for the 1st Quarter 2015, 8 cases were reviewed. While the audit report states that these were the cases completed during the first quarter, they appear to be cases initiated and closed within the 1st quarter as they all have 2015 numbers. If this is not case, then it would appear that none of the overdue 2014 cases (referenced above) have made
68

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 69 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
progress. Of those 8 cases, 3 are identified as overdue. IMT will clarify, again, which cases VIPD audits each quarter as regards citizen complaints. At this time the IMT has not received additional audits.
IMT also recognizes that VIPD is attempting to insure that if delays are necessary, appropriate waiver request is initiated.
Impediments to Compliance VIPD to implement above mentioned steps.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance See above
Paragraph 72, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD will not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix indicates the imposition of discipline. The VIPD will not fail to consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action is required in a case because discipline has been imposed on the officer.
Activity VIPD continues to struggle with compliance with this section. VIPD self identifies this deficiency. According to the most recent Audit, "The Disciplinary Matrix is still not being properly adhered to as discipline is not being meted out as per the standards set forth. We did not find any evidence that there was disciplinary action for those persons out of compliance".
During the current quarter, VIPD submitted a draft revised disciplinary policy and matrix to USDOJ and IMT This matrix is currently under review
Impediments to Compliance Lack of adherence to VIPD policy.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance As stated repeatedly by the IMT, VIPD needs to identify deficiencies, also need to identify whether it is due to lack of understanding or intentional policy violation – once identified, additional training or discipline needs to occur.
Completion of the current review of the Disciplinary Matrix.
Sub-Paragraph a, Status =Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of the cases where the matrix calls for discipline, discipline is imposed.
69

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 70 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
All activity, impediments, and recommendations shown above for sub-paragraph a.
Sub-Paragraph b, Status =Not in Substantial Compliance In =>90% of the cases where discipline is imposed, there is evidence that the VIPD has also considered non-disciplinary corrective action.
All activity, impediments, and recommendations shown above for sub-paragraph b. . Paragraph 73, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD will continue to coordinate and review all use of force policy and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy. The VIPD will conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually.
Activity
There has been no movement on this paragraph during this quarter. A Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the Training Advisory Committee (TAC) was signed by the Commissioner on May 22, 2015, and forwarded to the United States and the Independent Monitor on July 21, 2015. The IMT had previously reviewed and provided extensive comments on the proposed draft (March 31, 2015) and found little change to the signed SOP in light of those recommendations. The IMT’s concerns with the final SOP included both outcomes and the protocol itself (for example it is unclear exactly which of the two police chiefs are the chair of the board, among other inconsistencies.) In addition, while being titled an SOP, it did not detail a protocol for the various reviews (what will be reviewed, in what context, using what criteria, etc). While the signed SOP is a step in the right direction, the IMT still views it as a “work in progress” and thus not compliant with the intent of the paragraph.
This draft and review process, as well concerns raised by the IMT goes back to the fall of 2014. At that time the committee was not, in the IMT’s view, fulfilling the detail or the spirit of the Consent Decree paragraph. This discussion continued through the IMT’s monitoring visits in the spring of 2015. After receiving the last draft in March of 2015, the IMT submitted a detailed critique to the Commissioner on March 31, 2015. The subsequent signed SOP did not seem to address these concerns. The IMT determined the VIPD was in compliance with their Court goal to issue the SOP, but did so with reservations as to its comprehensiveness and content.
Impediments to Compliance As noted previously by the IMT, the IMT has reviewed Training Advisory Committee agendas and reports and had concerns in the following areas:
a. Still does not have a protocol for the conduct and expected outcomes from the meetings, which inhibits its focus and effectiveness;
70

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 71 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
b. Their agenda tends to focus on review of equipment issues;
c. Fails to review training and training materials from an analytical basis based upon developed criteria. Areas addressed in the meeting seemed to range more on equipment issues. No Use of Force activity as to type and effectiveness was discussed, apparently based upon reports from IAPro (which were attached), but the notes did not adequately reflect the content or decisions that emanated from those discussions. Without a well-developed protocol (e.g., SOP), no meaningful evaluation can take place.
Many of the above concerns remain with published SOP and unless addressed will interdict the usefulness of the committee in improving training. While the SOP is an improvement over past attempts it still falls short in the “how to do the review” department or protocol.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Throughout the conduct of this consent decree, VIPD has struggled with understanding exactly what is required by this paragraph. VIPD must (by the requirements of the paragraph) conduct a semi-annual review of the quality and consistency of their use of force training. They must also review the use of force training’s compliance with both law and VIPD policy. This amounts to two (2) inquiries into VIPD training activity a year. There is also a requirement that VIPD use of force policy (2) be reviewed on the same schedule using the same criteria for the review. This amounts to four (4) inquiries to be conducted by VIPD semi-annually. The new SOP now mandates a quarterly review, which increases the number of reviews to a total of eight (8).
The IMT, based on our experience, would think that these reviews of use of force policy and use of force training would be conducted jointly or, at a minimum, conducted collaboratively. To date, we’ve not seen this kind of agency-wide review. We’ve also not seen a meaningful, analytical review of use of force training. In fact, the current SOP has limited number of participants (8 categories, although no count by category is listed) and few from the first responder/investigator or their supervisors groupings. It appears mostly representative of management and the training function, with two union representatives.
The action by the Training Director followed our suggestions and made provisions for training by the Kirkpatrick Group which specialized in the evaluation of training. This should enhance the understanding of this segment of the training delivery function for all on this committee.
The IMT remains convinced that improvements to this SOP can and should be accomplished and will continue to assist the VIPD in that endeavor.
Paragraph 74, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording
71

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 72 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
The Director of Training, either directly or through his/her designee(s), consistent with applicable law and VIPD policy will:
a. ensure the quality of all use of force training; b. develop and implement use of force training curricula; c. select and train VIPD officer trainers; d. develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service training; e. in conjunction with the Chiefs, develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol
division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures; f. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and g. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
Activity
a. ensure the quality of all use of force training;
This was discussed during a meeting with the IMT (Mr. Wilson and Mr. Stewart). Once the TAC is formed it will address the quality of training that is provided to the officers during training also an evaluation process will assist with a an assessment of the training that was provided (Kirkpatrick Levels of Evaluations. The VIPD indicates there remains additional work to be accomplished relative to the formation and operation of the TAC.
Unfortunately, the introduction of the Kirkpatrick training to all VIPD supervisors, rather than those who would be directly involved in the training evaluation process, led to confusion and frustration on the part of field supervisors who saw it as more work on top of their already taxing duties.
This has led to a delay in the implementation of any evaluation process that would measure the effectiveness of consent decree training beyond the class evaluations conducting at the end of the training session. VIPD has yet to demonstrate a mechanism that reasonably evaluates the effect of training in the day to day activities of its members in the field.
b. develop and implement use of force training curricula;
Sub-paragraph is in Substantial Compliance
c. select and train VIPD officer trainers;
The Instructor Selection Process (ISP) was revised and signed by Commissioner Delroy Richards, Sr. on March 8; 2015.Training was conducted for new instructors during August, 2015.
Activity
72

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 73 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Following the approval of the Instructor Selection Process, the IMT suggested that the Training Bureau conduct an internal review of their instructor files to ensure that their trainers met the requirements of the policy.
It was further suggested that, following the internal review, that VIPD conduct an audit of their instructor records and files and their inclusion into PowerDMS
The IMT conducted its own review of instructor files during the last quarter and found two separate methodologies for creating and storing instructor files in each district. There were strengths in both efforts and we recommended that they be reviewed for common usage.
We also found that a significant number of high liability instructor certifications had lapsed. We know that VIPD is attempting to rectify this situation but have not yet seen the records that reflect the updates.
Impediments
While VIPD reports that there are no impediments to achieving this goal, we are puzzled by the length of time that it is taking to perform a relatively minor task. While there is a backlog of official audits that must be conducted, we are baffled that VIPD could not conduct its own internal review of the records.
d. develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service training; (Sub-paragraph is in compliance)
e. in conjunction with the Chiefs, develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures;
Activity IMT has received the signed policy and believes it does not conform to the review provided previously by the IMT. Further the IMT believes that the current version still contains material which more closely related with a separate policy or policies on Conducting Roll Calls and one related to Line inspections. The IMT continues to work with the VIPD to correct these deficiencies.
Impediments
While the VIPD has reported that it sees no impediments, the IMT believes that this subparagraph should have been brought into compliance long ago.
Recommendations
73

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 74 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
We've not seen a resolution of a process that systematically produces consistent roll call training and it certainly doesn't include discussions and collaboration with the chiefs. In lieu of this, we would agree that the Training Advisory Committee could very well perform this function once it begins to function.
f. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and
See sub-paragraph g below.
g. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
Activity
After discussions with Jim Kirkpatrick for the development of the Kirkpatrick’s “Four Levels of Evaluations” training, the VIPD brought the Kirkpatrick team to the VI and conducted training for management and supervisors. Training was conducted in May 2015. This training focuses on how to conduct longitudinal evaluations of the effectiveness of training on the ability of the trainee to perform their assigned functions.
Impediments to Compliance Absence of a comprehensive and analytical review of training outcomes.
Lack of coordinated training priorities and agenda with Chiefs and other command officers.
No comprehensive plan for roll call training.
Questions raised by the IMT memorandum of 9/18/14 regarding the current lapse and inadequacies of the VIPD Roll Call Training Program are serious and any further compliance with this sub-paragraph and paragraph should be held in abeyance. This program is still under review and updating by the VIPD.
Each of the sub-paragraphs details impediments to compliance.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Several of the sub-paragraphs in this paragraph share common resolutions with the tasks associated with Paragraph 73.
a. ensure the quality of all use of force training. f. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures, and g. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
The IMT has recommended for some time that there is so much similarity to the resolutions to these paragraphs that they ought to be resolved jointly.
74

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 75 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
The Training Advisory Committee seemed to us to be the best place to establish appropriate protocols for the requirements of these sub-paragraphs and Paragraph 73 and coordinate VIPD’s efforts to reach compliance. We also believe that sub-paragraph e:
”e. in conjunction with the Chiefs, develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures.” This lends itself to the kinds of issues that would be appropriate for the regular review, discussion and advice from the Training Advisory Committee.”
Similarly, sub-paragraph d:
“d. …develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service training,” should be reviewed by the Training Advisory Committee.
Recommendations
We repeat our recommendation that compliance with these sub-paragraphs and Paragraph 73 be at the cornerstone of the duties and responsibilities of the Training Advisory Committee.
We have noted that lesson plans and curricula are sorely inadequate. IMT has provided T.A. on how lesson plans should be developed and provided numerous examples of what standard lesson plans should look like. To date, we've not seen an update on the progress of the effort. The IMT has assisted the VIPD in developing a 4Q2015 Goal that will address not only the structure of these lesson plans but also increase the amount of adult learning delivery options within each of the lessons. The end product of that goal is a schedule of all modifications needed in each lesson plan. The IMT continues to provide Technical Assistance to support an understanding of why adult learning styles are important to student competency and thus the ability to fulfill the Consent Decree policy and procedure requirements. The IMT will closely monitor this area and the distribution of adult learning materials by the IMT has already been forwarded to the VIP D Training Division (11/19/15).
The one sub-paragraph that would likely remain outside of the direct focus of the Training Advisory Committee would be:
“c….select and train VIPD officer trainers.”
The IMT has long since held that this definition would include all classes of academy and in-service trainers and all Field Training Officers. VIPD, after more than a year of
75

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 76 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
development, recently published a directive outlining the policies and procedures for the selection of instructors. We have recommended for some time that a similar policy be established for FTO’s
The VIPD should conduct a review of all current staff and field instructors, vetting them against the requirements of VIPD Policy 003-2014 Instructor Selection, and provide documentation to the IMT with the results of that review.
Paragraph 77, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD shall continue to maintain training records regarding every VIPD officer that reliably indicate the training each officer has received. The training records shall, at a minimum, include the course description and duration, curriculum, and instructor for each officer.
(Note- this paragraph was not originally broken down into sub-paragraphs. Th eiMT broke it down to facilitate progress and focus points.
Sub-paragraphs a, c, e, are in Compliance, while b, d, f remain in Partial Compliance.
Activity Currently all training records are maintained by the administrative secretaries in both districts. Those records are located in each respective office in STT and STX. The hard copies of records are placed in binders that are labeled and stored in a file cabinet or on a shelf (Bookcase) in a central area in both locations. These records are not as complete as one would like and in many cases it is impossible to link a trainee’s attendance at a specific block of instruction to the instructor that delivered that training. The IMT has indicated that the VIPD should have two years of recruit and in-service training records that meet the criteria of being able to demonstrate complete training records that include a course description, curriculum, and instructor data.
This frustrates compliance with the accuracy of the records and thus the paragraph as noted below. This is discussed in more detail and how Power DMS can possibly resolve this in Paragraph 81. The training bureau also has a training database (PowerDMS) that tracks all trainings officers receive. The information on PowerDMS can be accessed remotely from any location and VIPD personnel are in discussion with a vendor who will assist in the upload of officer’s files and historical data into PowerDMS.
We have no idea since VIPD has failed to provide a number of files completed or quarterly goals that included the number of files that would be completed during the upcoming quarter. Despite our requests, we’ve never been given a number of files updated nor a number of anticipated entries for any upcoming quarter.
76

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 77 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Impediments to Compliance In August 2014 IMT identified the need for loading data into Power DMS. In September 2014 IMT identified the need for a plan and design for data entry into Power DMS. Continued failure to accelerate the loading of curricula into the Power DMS system will impact compliance.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Substantial Compliance in this paragraph has been particularly troublesome for VIPD. The current state of the paper files of VIPD members does not lend itself to analysis of compliance, especially in the area of who the instructors were for each of the blocks of instruction received by the individual officers. Once that information is loaded and Power DMS can begin to provide comprehensive data reports, some measure of investigation might be able to fill in some of these current blanks, in some cases using other participant’s records. The current paper filing system does not lend itself to this analysis. The IMT has strongly urged the VIPD to complete its data entry of officer records from the paper files so further research can be accomplished. Thus at the heart of this issue is the establishment of an automated capability to produce records which reliably provide:
the course description, the duration of the course, a copy or reference to the curriculum used at the time of the training, and the instructor(s) for each officer.
The IMT has maintained that it is our experience that police departments the size and makeup similar to VIPD have, as a standard practice, this kind of automated capability in total or in-part.
While maintaining that it has the capacity to produce the information required in Paragraph 77, VIPD has produced one report almost two years ago that only included the participants in St. Thomas/S. John District. IMT deems these reports critical to both compliance as well as proper supervision of the training function. These records should be accurate within 30 days of the most recent training. New entries and updating should occur within 30 days of training having been completed.
We continue to recommend with great import that making the inclusion of the kinds of records required to be maintained by this paragraph be made a priority. Extraordinary steps must be taken to streamline the process by which complete, accurate historical training records should be entered into PowerDMS and audited as quickly as possible.
Paragraph 81, Status = Not in Substantial Compliance
77

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 78 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Consent Decree Paragraph Wording The VIPD will provide training on appropriate burdens of proof to all supervisors, as well as the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility (to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform, and legally appropriate). The VIPD will also continue to provide training to supervisors on leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training will be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities, and will be made part of annual in-service training.
NOTE- As with Paragraph 77, the IMT created the following sub-paragraphs in order to better monitor progress and compliance by the VIPD
Activity Sub-paragraphs a, c, e are in Compliance, while b, d, f remain in Partial Compliance.
Impediments to Compliance After the August 2014 Summit the IMT provided this analysis of the compliance level of the paragraph, specifically geared toward supervisory training on leadership and command accountability.
While most of the requirements for compliance in this paragraph have been met, there is the clear need for more training in leadership and command accountability for supervisory, management and command personnel. While the training for command personnel may come in the form of "executive development," the IMT believes that command staff could benefit from participating in the supervisory and management training conducted within VIPD as well as attending developmental training conducted by any number of professional organizations and educational institutions. This absence of command staff participation, while recommended highly, is not a direct impediment to compliance.
We have urged command staff to attend part or all of the various supervisory courses taught by outside contractors. At a minimum, they should obtain briefings from these "visiting instructors," who are typically very well versed in their subject areas so that they have a sense of what is being taught to their subordinates but also to get information from subject matter experts on how their command issues are being addressed in other police agencies.
During the November and December 2014 summit and December 2014 court hearing, the VIPD indicated that no progress had been made on this paragraph. The VIPD concurred that no progress had been made during the May 2015 work sessions, with the exception that the FBI had conducted some leadership and supervisory training, in which many senior leaders participated, during the 1st Quarter of 2015. The IMT remains encouraged with this initiative but are withholding long term judgment pending a continuation and broadening of the effort, especially in terms of our previous suggestions that the leadership of the agency also
78

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 79 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
participate in some lower level instruction in support of both exposure to the concepts and team building.
Recommendations to Gain Compliance Substantial Compliance in this particular paragraph poses several distinct and complex challenges. The paragraph first requires the Training Bureau to train supervisors on how to apply appropriate burdens of proof, evaluate witness credibility.
While we know that the requisite training has been conducted, we have not seen an objective evaluation of how those supervisors are performing those tasks in the field. We’ve only seen participant performance on the quiz conducted immediately following training. This is certainly another one of the areas that we have pointed out and that the Kirkpatrick Training addresses. Kirkpatrick (and others) references four (4) levels of evaluation, the first being the current after class quiz. The second level asks the trainee, at some period after completing training, did the training received result in improvement in the way they do their job. The third level asks a similar question of the trainee’s supervisor, but after a period of job performance subsequent to the training and the fourth level attempts to ask the organization if the training has improved the organization’s ability to deliver its service product. Each of these is structured against the performance objectives of the training course (or what we want the trainee to be able to do after completion of training).
While completion of training is an important step, without an organized effort (longitudinal evaluation components similar to those pioneered by Kirkpatrick) it is difficult to determine if the training has had any impact on the trainee’s job performance. If no improvements are noted than the training was probably not successful and in need of review and modification; thus purpose of the training has not been accomplished. In the IMT’s view, merely conducting the training does not necessarily equate to compliance that is established to result in improvements in officer’s and the department’s compliance with the Consent Decree. There remains the challenge of evaluating the outcomes and/or effect that training has had on participants.
This also points out again how substantial compliance was comparatively easy when the requirements of a paragraph were able to be achieved within a single office, unit or bureau. This kind of evaluation requires the active participation and collaboration between the Training Bureau and the Districts so that Training is receiving enough feedback on supervisor performance in the Districts for them to be able to determine whether their training products were “successful.”
The second requirement of this paragraph mandates that VIPD provide this training for new supervisory promotees within 90 days of their elevation to their new rank. In addition to the testing that might take place at the time of training, this training should be a part of any probationary evaluation conducted at the end of the probationary period.
79

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 80 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
The third requirement is that this training be a part of in-service training. When the systems are in place, the focus of the in-service training should be based on the results of evaluations of how the allied functions are being performed in the field. Shortcomings among supervisors in areas of the Consent Decree, as well as other practices in need of improvement, should be well documented and highlighted during in-service, roll call and commander’s call training. The final requirement and possibly the most important within this paragraph is a responsibility to provide training to supervisors on leadership and command accountability. VIPD has just recently begun to include commanders above the rank of captain in this kind of training even that delivered within the Territory. Command Staff and certain sworn administrative personnel were not included in in-service training. When questioned about the practice, VIPD offered no responses. There is much to be learned from responsible, modern supervisory training and VIPD has contracted with very reputable and professional trainers. These instructors are generally well versed in many of the standard practices required by this consent decree. They can bring helpful advice to command staff in their work as well as their subordinates. Systematic improvement in a policy or practice can only come when command knows and understands the training that their subordinate commanders and supervisors are receiving so that they can support it.
80

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 81 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
IV. AUDIT PERFORMANCE
The Second Quarterly Report of 2015 documented receipt of the VIPD’s Compliance Audits for the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2014 and the First Quarter of 2015 – one package. Auditing compliance was not consistent among Work Groups. Training did not supply a Third Quarter Audit for 2014. Management & Supervision did not complete an audit for the First Quarter of 2015. Of even greater import for this Quarterly, the IMT must report that we have not received a Compliance Audit Report for either the Second or Third Quarter of 2015. The Second Quarter Compliance Report has been drafted by the VIPD and is being processed for formal release. The delinquency is attributable in large part to a restructuring of audit methodology to comply with IMT recommendations. The interruption/delay in quarterly audits should be worth the cost in the long run.
A. Metrics-Centered Auditing Program
Approximately one year ago, the IMT called on the VIPD to take steps designed to materially strengthen the value of the auditing process. The IMT’s Review of the 2014 Second Quarter Audit Report encouraged the VIPD and its audit staff to embrace the approach employed by the Use of Force Work Group. The approach is central to the broader Metrics-Centered Outcome Measurements model prescribed by the IMT. The most recent VIPD Compliance Audit, 2015 First Quarter, reflected very limited movement. The Citizen Complaint audit suggested at least recognition of the concept of Metrics-Centered auditing, but had far to go developmentally. The Management & Supervision & Training sections of the First Quarter Audit did not indicate any movement at all.
Engagement with Audit Unit executive staff, as recently as during the Summit, confirms that the "audit hiatus" – the several quarters period without formal submission of an official audit, has been used to develop the tools for more comprehensive Metrics Centered Auditing, to respond to IMT recommendations.
81

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 82 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
B. VIPD Work To Date Approximately 175 measurements have now been defined, applicable to and encompassing quantifiable paragraphs and sub-paragraphs in all four Consent Decree categories, Use of Force, Citizen Complaints, Management & Supervision, & Training. Approximately 120 measures are new – hiatus period design and development work. For each measure, data can be collected for each quarter, going forward. Historical data is available for Use of Force. Legacy data is not otherwise available. Some measurements yield only to yes/no decisions. Next steps will include IMT review of proposed measurements, and should include beta-testing by the VIPD, followed by appropriate revisions The value-added potential of the Metrics-Centered Auditing design and development advances made this Quarter by the VIPD can be appreciated by reviewing the next section which demonstrates how the IMT has employed the metrics available to date, to analyze Use of Force compliance progress and lay out several decision options.
82

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 83 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
V. USE OF FORCE TRENDS & OUTCOMES
During Quarter Three the IMT initiated its most comprehensive effort to date to profile use-offorce incidents and trends. Previous Quarterlies document our expectations of data shortfalls and an array of reliability issues. These problems were, in fact, encountered. As a result of the work done we are, however, better positioned to collaborate with the VIPD to move outcome measurement work forward, starting in Quarter Four, 2015.
Force data for six years, 2010-2015 were downloaded from IAPro:
□ Types of Force: 42-45 types. □ Total Number, by Type. □ Effective or Not Effective: force applied gained subject compliance
or did not.
Data were aggregated to produce: Total Number of Incidents; Total Uses of Force; Number of Officers Involved; Average Number of Officers Per Incident. Data were sorted by Island and combined for a Territorial view. The data convert easily for set-up by Effectiveness – most effective and least effective.
To understand and interpret the data that are available with an acceptable degree of confidence and fairness it is necessary to add context, including data on Levels of Force, Dispositions/Justifications, and measures of police-citizen encounters/engagements (calls-forservice, stops, for example). We have not yet been able to compile these data sets. They may or may not be hosted in IAPro. This is a next step, as is confirming validity and reliability of the data we do have. It is because of the absence of the not-yet-available data sets and reliability confirmation requirements that we are not releasing the Force Profiles just yet. Auditing reliability will entail comparing and perhaps reconciling the use of force data sets with RRRs, citizen complaint data, and case files.
83

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 84 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Our plan is to seek agreement from the VIPD to jointly pursue the aforementioned next steps, starting immediately. The tasks to be done seem ideally suited to the IAB staff, including the recently hired data analysts. Our most immediate task will be to reexamine the functionalities of IAPro and to seek important data that resides outside of IAPro. VITEMA should be able to provide police-citizen transaction data (calls-for-service), for example. All of this stated, we intend to share our measurement data with the VIPD to initiate discussions surrounding what the data may indicate or do suggest for use-of-force analysis.
84

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 85 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
VI. EIP UPDATE FOR THIRD QUARTERLY REPORT 2015
The Early Intervention Program (EIP) for the VIPD is being developed pursuant to requirements contained in the current Consent Decree (CD). The information for this update has been drawn from a variety of documents, including the: CD; IMT (OIM) Quarterly Reports; VIPD Audits; working group periodic reports; VIPD training materials; and Police Practices Expert reports. For purposes of this report it should be noted that prior to June 2015, IMT was known as OIM.
According to the Consent Decree:
The VIPD will develop and implement a risk management system to include a new computerized relational database or paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for supervision and management of the VIPD. Priority will be given to the VIPD obtaining any established program and system. The VIPD will regularly use this data to promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts. (Paragraph 59.)
In order to create such a system, Paragraph 60 of the CD states:
The new risk management system will collect and record the following information:
a. all uses of force; b. canine bite ratios; c. the number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers; d. all injuries to prisoners; e. all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with "resisting
arrest," "assault on a police officer," "disorderly conduct," or "obstruction of official business;" f. all critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty; g. all complaints (and their dispositions); h. all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the Territory and its officers, or agents, resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel; i. all vehicle pursuits; j. all incidents involving the pointing of a firearm (if any such reporting is required); and k. all disciplinary action taken against officers.
85

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 86 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
According to the current VIPD policy on Risk Management Protocol:
“EIP” Early Intervention Program refers to VIPD’s Risk Management System designed to extract information from databases and forms to track work performance activities for each member of the VIPD in order to identify and alert supervisors and executives of the possible need for intervention or special recognition. The system allows supervisors to document regular reviews of member’s work performance and any actions taken to correct poor performance and or recognize exemplary performance.
“IAPro” refers to the Internal Affairs software used by this department to manage the EIP.
To broadly explain actions taken by the VIPD thus far to implement the EIP, a variety of measures/attempts are presented.
During 2011 the IMT (OIM) Reported:
The Consent Decree requires the VIPD to implement a RMS to identify potentially problematic behavior from VIPD personnel at an early (and hopefully remediable) stage. The VIPD chose IAPro as its RMS, and has been working to bring it online for several quarters. After a series of lengthy and frustrating delays, the VIPD reports that IAPro is now functional in both Districts.
The OIM subsequently learned that the VIPD needed to increase storage capacity of its servers to accommodate IAPro. This significantly slowed the implementation process.
The VIPD also reports that it is working with the IAPro vendor to install the Blue Team component of IAPro on all Supervisors’ computers in both Districts. Blue Team will allow VIPD personnel to enter force-related information into IAPro while in the field. Once that information is uploaded into IAPro, it will be accessible to Supervisors and IAB personnel. Blue Team installation, as well as a related train-the-trainer program, took place in July (2011) in the St. Thomas District; a parallel training will take place in the St. Croix District thereafter………
The Management & Supervision working group focused much of its attention during the Second Quarter on the Department’s Data Input Plan. Although the
86

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 87 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
DOJ approved the VIPD’s Data Input Plan on March 22, (2011) the Department has not yet disseminated the Plan department-wide; we encourage the VIPD to do so during the next quarter. As previously discussed, the Data Input Plan identifies information about VIPD personnel (including, but not limited to, uses of force, disciplinary issues, motor vehicle accidents, and sick days) that the Department will enter into IAPro to facilitate its risk management function. The Management & Supervision working group contacted the individuals (some of whom work outside the Department) who are ordinarily responsible for maintaining that information and worked with them to develop an efficient process to enter that information into IAPro…..
IAB is in the process of entering information from as early as 2009 into IAPro. Because IAPro seeks to identify potentially problematic conduct based on established norms, IAPro functions best when it has a wealth of information to analyze. Unfortunately, despite making multiple requests for additional personnel, IAB does not have the resources (while also carrying out its other functions) to complete this process on a reasonable time-line. The Director and Assistant Director of IAB previously hired an intern to assist with entering historic information into IAPro. The OIM applauds that type of creative problem solving, and invites the Management & Supervision working group to develop other solutions.
Another missing piece in the RMS puzzle is the Department’s RMS Protocol, which sets forth various thresholds for supervisory review. For example, if an Officer receives more than X number of complaints within Y period of time, IAPro will alert the Officer’s Supervisor to the potential issue; X any Y will be set forth in the RMS Protocol based on Department norms and generally accepted police practices. The DOJ provided the Department with comments on a draft version of the RMS Protocol on June 14. As such, we expect the Department to finalize the RMS protocol in the upcoming quarter.
In order to educate VIPD personnel about the Department’s new RMS, the Director of IAB invited Samuel Walker, Ph.D., a highly regarded criminologist and expert on early intervention programs, to make a series of presentations in the St. Thomas and St. Croix Districts during the Second Quarter. The day long presentations were conducted on May 16, 2011 on St. Thomas and May 17, 2011 on St. Croix.
There were approximately 60-70 participants in each session. Mr. Walker talked about departments that have been transformed by the implementation of an EIP and attempted to provide a historic view of the evolution of EIP systems and the features that have been most successful and the benefits of an efficient system. Participants, however, were much more interested in the policies and procedures
87

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 88 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

surrounding the acceptance and investigation of citizen complaints. Most of their discussion questioned reasons complainants were not charged when they made false statements as a part of their complaint.
We were left with the impression that there was a general lack of interest in Mr. Walker’s presentation. The primary focus of the sessions was to question and criticize the citizen complaint process……
The Management & Supervision working group must take a more active role in the implementation of the Department’s RMS; while the Director and Assistant Director of IAB and the Acting Director of MIS have done a laudable job, they need others to contribute their time and energy as well. Among other things, the Management & Supervision working group should: 1) identify personnel to assist with entering historic information into IAPro; 2) work with the Training Director to develop training relating to the Data Input Plan, RMS and Blue Team; and 3) finalize the Department’s RMS Protocol. We expect the Department to issue the finalized RMS Protocol during the next quarter.
While the above paragraph was written in 2011, the first RMS Protocol was approved and issued in 2013.
During 2012 and 2013 the VIPD continued to struggle with the implementation of EIP.
Significant efforts during this time period include:

-

the creation of a Data Collection Check Sheet identifying 33 pieces of data to be

entered and where the information will come for 32 of the 33 (one TBD at that

time). Ongoing discussions and meetings held to further efforts to obtain all

required information. These efforts necessitated cooperation internally and with

external entities

-

individuals identified as potential analysts. Internal candidates assigned to

positions. Historic data continued to be entered.

-

training for commanders provided by the then IAB Director and one of the initial

analysts. Some of this training (by initial analyst) provided the following as

various types of interventions:

1. Referral to the Chaplain. 2. Referral to the Psychologist. 3. Referral to the Peer Mentorship or a Peer Counselor program. 4. Referral to the Employee Assistance program. 5. Referral to Training for supplemental training.

88

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 89 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

6. Going on calls with the employee. 7. Requiring the employee to maintain a daily log. 8. Monitoring the employee. 9. The Supervisor being flexible, available, informal and consistent and coaching
or mentoring the employee. 10. Direction to take a specific course. 11. Recommend re-assignment. 12. Enter into a performance contract. 13. Other _______________________________________.
Subsequently IMT determined that all of these potential interventions had not been approved/
authorized by the VIPD. Temporary analyst subsequently transferred.
VIPD agreed to provide IMT with quarterly EIP reports as of the Third quarter of 2012. These
have evolved tremendously since the 2012-2013 time period.
VIPD issued an approved RMS protocol in 2013.
VIPD initiates alerts to managers and supervisors.

During 2014 the Data Collection Data Sheet continued to be worked on. Working group report for March 2014 reflects less than 20% of required fields being effectively captured. September 2014 notes from this group reflect ongoing challenges in this area.

This working group also identified the following issues during this same time period:

-

Action Plans not consistently being prepared and Follow-up Assessments not

being prepared.

-

Crime trends and patterns only created for STT not for STX.

-

No evaluation or evidence to show that Command Staff is using data.

-

EIP Evaluation Form still in Draft Stage.

-

No Evaluation method to show Command staff’s ability to use the system.

-

Arrest Data Base not functional on STT and no sufficient data entered.

-

No Analyst to collect and analyze collected data or to ensure all data is collected

accurately and timely.

-

No method to show that Command Staff is consistently requesting or reviewing

officers EIP files who recently transferred to their unit.

89

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 90 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

It should be noted that the issues listed above remained issues for a prolonged period of time; in fact, the majority remain today.

While the following points (in working group December 2014 update) may not reflect the highest priority issues, they do exemplify the environment which created extensive frustration for those attempting to bring the CD into compliance:

1. Subsection (b): M&S will conduct monthly inspections to ensure nondisciplinary is recommended consistently when applicable with disciplinary actions

a. TASK - Create a flow chart for use by Supervisors/Commanders and Hearing Officers (e.g., Counseling, Remedial Training, Financial Counseling- same as EIP Intervention Actions)

1. STATUS – COMPLETED NOVEMBER 25, 2014. Policy committee reviewed and forwarded to Commissioner for final approval (pending).

2. And

Task - send commissioner reminder to review document.

b. TASK 1. Create new Easy-follow Flow Chart on EIP Process 2. STATUS – EIP flow chart completed and sent to Ms. Rames for printing on 10/06/14- Ms. Rames is on leave to return on Wednesday December 3, 2014.

Also, during the 4th Quarter 2014, IMT was informed that there were 97 alerts forwarded during 2014. However, the VIPD could not immediately provide a status update other than a statement that very few had been addressed appropriately. This seems to indicate a VIPD supervisory issue which continues into 2015. However, earlier in 2015, the VIPD has initiated formal charges for lack of appropriate EIP action against 2 supervisors and 1 commander.

During 2015 there has been movement within EIP, to include:

-

Ongoing training.

90

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 91 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

-

Attempts to address concerns regarding OC spray, pursuits, injuries to prisoners,

documentation from VIAG – all elements needed for an effective EIP.

-

Limited activity on the disciplinary process and matrix.

-

Hiring of 2 analysts.

-

Draft of a revised RMS protocol.

Additionally, during the month of July, 2015, IMT members interviewed eleven (11) supervisors, 4 from STT and 7 from STX, to determine if they were competent with Blue Team activities. The low number of respondents from STT was a result of availability. The IMT used a standardized interview sheet that had specific questions, followed by an open ended comment opportunity for the supervisors. Generally the responses were good and indicated that the supervisors were fully knowledgeable with the Blue Team protocols and requirements. To the open-ended comment question, most supervisors complained about the Alert System process and generally their issues had to do with the following:

1. Retention of alerts on officers after the case has been investigated and found to be unfounded or exonerated.
2. Alerts against the supervisors for officers no longer under their command who had been transferred but alert remains against the supervisor.

3. Alerts sent on date but suspense date is before the date the alert date was sent, requiring an extension request.

4.

Action plans are submitted and actions completed but alert status never changes

to completed.

5. IAB fails to update assignment records on officers as a result of transfer and continues to send action items to previous supervisor.

6. System requests for allegation when reporting injury to detainee when there is none and refuses to take report without an allegation entry.

7. Numerous interviewees noted that officers under their supervision are reluctant to take action because of the alert system as presently operated and feel even frivolous complaints are repeatedly investigated generating alert counts.

8. Low morale resulting from both the alert system and the current disciplinary matrix was noted by several supervisors.

91

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 92 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
9. One supervisor noted that he was under red status because of one officer under his supervision, however that officer is on extended administrative leave, thus he can do nothing to correct the situation.
10. One supervisor noted that many of the issues have been brought up at Commanders Call and to IAB, but with no resolution of feedback.
In summary, despite the survey population being small, we found that most supervisors appear to understand their responsibilities with Blue Team and EIP. At the same time they seem frustrated with some of the idiosyncrasies of the system which they believe to be unfairly affecting them and their personnel.
While a number of the supervisors’ concerns are actually required components of an effective EIP – these concerns should be addressed even if it merely results in an explanation of their necessity during future training opportunities.
A review of the 2015 EIP files on STT reflected 44 alerts forwarded to date (Oct 29, 2015). The majority of folders contained the alerts and a memo to supervisor (and command) for action. There were a limited number of action plans found in these folders and far fewer assessments. During the September Monthly Meeting, VIPD anticipated that there may be 1 or 2 totally completed EIP folders.
The value of the current analysts thus far has been the reassignment of periodic reports (monthly, quarterly, fiscal year, etc) and the responsibility to forward alerts. They were hired midyear 2015. During the first week of November 2015 the new analysts attended their first formal training with IAPro. Thus far, their training has been on the job.
As reported in numerous IMT quarterly reports (and above), as regards EIP, there has been limited, ineffective supervisory/managerial response to alerts forwarded. This is allowing employees who may be starting to exhibit signs of problematic behavior to continue the same behavior resulting in additional citizen complaints and/or uses of force. It is anticipated that with the hiring of the new analysts, more focused attention will occur to ensure that the EIP is followed correctly. The analysts alone cannot, however, bring the required CD paragraphs into compliance. IMT anticipates that with the analysts, additional managerial staff assigned to the
92

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 93 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
CD and managerial/supervisory accountability (throughout the chain of command), the VIPD will move towards effective EIP compliance quickly between now and late 2016. This initial review of the VIPD EIP is a limited historical perspective. At this time there are a number of individuals working on CD compliance within the VIPD who were not involved or present during the early attempts of EIP. The IMT intends to focus on the EIP status in future IMT Quarterly Reports.
93

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 94 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
VII. FORCE INVESTIGATION/FORCE REVIEW BOARD TRAINING
The Third Quarter featured an IMT arranged, designed, and delivered Managing Force in the VIPD training to selected members of the evolving Force Investigation Team and Force Review Board, associated internal stakeholders, and accountable executives. Back-to-back two-day sessions were held, November 4 and 5 on St. Croix and November 5 and 6 on St. Thomas.
The first day of each session, taught by three nationally recognized use-of-force experts, consisted of 65 scheduled hours of lectures, adult-learning designed exercises, and Q&A, preceded by an Opening Test (13 questions). Course topics included:
□ The Goals/Learning Objectives □ Why Do This? □ Force In Policing □ The VIPD Consent Decree □ Legal Considerations □ Investigating Use of Force – Division of (VIPD) Responsibilities □ Managing Police Use of Force □ Deconstructing a Use of Force Event (Totality of Circumstances) □ The Final Decision □ Aftermath □ Decision Point Analysis □ The Comprehensive Investigation Report
The objectives of Force Investigation Team Procedural Training, Day 2, were to enable participants to:
□ Appreciate the Importance of the VIPD FIT. □ Respond, Investigate, and Review Level 1 Uses of Force & Serious Force.
94

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 95 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
□ Conduct a Comprehensive FIT Investigation for Quality and Completeness. Relying heavily on actual VIPD cases, the instructors, Chief Chet Epperson, Rockford, Illinois Police Department and IMT Charles Gruber, tailored a curriculum composed of the modules:
□ What to Expect (included a review of Consent Decree responsibilities) □ Desired Outcomes (of FIT investigations) □ FIT Duties □ VIPD Policies □ FIT – Definition □ Serious Use of Force □ Team Composition □ Activation of FIT □ Key FIT Investigation Responsibilities □ FIT Training Requirements □ Case-Based Learning (Breakouts and case-work) □ Past VIPD Incident Review
A FIT/FRB-specific Training Needs Assessment was designed and distributed prior to finalizing curricula. The effort did not produce results expected. Participants and course evaluations are not yet available.
95

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 96 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY & ACTION AGENDA
Chapter II, Section E, Paragraph & Goal Detail Review, details "Impediments to Compliance" and "Recommendations to Gain Compliance" for all paragraphs and sub-paragraphs accepted by the Court as quarterly goals. Even with updates, many of these have appeared repetitively in successive Quarterlies. Command accountability for force review, use of templates, timely response to citizen complaints, and semi-annual review of the quality and consistency of force training are but a few examples. Another repetition here does not seem to be called for. We can only stress the mounting frustration with the languishing absence of compliance progress. We are singling out for attention recommendations made and actions called for in this report and addressing/updating progress and absence of progress with regard to recommendations made in our previous, Second Quarter 2015 report.
A. Second Quarter Recommendations Update
1. Address the Audit Unit’s self-reported portfolio of the Unresolved Audit Recommendations.
This, like all compliance matters, is a primary responsibility of, first, the Commissioner and second, the Deputy Commissioner and is a repeat recommendation from previous Quarterly Reports. The IMT would like a report that summarizes movement with regard to the Unresolved Audit Recommendations set forth in the VIPD’s (undated) document.
2. Continue to position the Citizen Complaint, Management & Supervision and Training Work Groups to conduct Metrics-Centered Auditing, using the new metrics created by the Audit Commander.
Impressive progress made.
96

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 97 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
3. Build on the Annual RRR Report prototype to produce comprehensive and outcome focused body of force patterns, trends and analytics. The sooner that useable Force Profile information is in place, the sooner the Parties will be informed with outcome information, have the ability to assess the constitutionality of force practices in the Virgin Islands, and introduce policy and practice innovations to protect constitutional guarantees. The IMT is not aware of any progress/action. The Audit Unit is working on developing the ability to assess this information.
4. The VIPD must reengineer its training practices to ensure that courses of instruction comply with best learning practices and adult/student-centered learning principles.
This sweeping, longer-term endeavor should begin with submission of instructional design and course materials to the IMT for evaluation, well prior to scheduled course delivery dates. Until base changes are made in the design, delivery and evaluation of training, the progress of the Consent Decree compliance will certainly remain stagnant.
The VIPD exhibits greater awareness of the values of recommended actions but the "base changes" are not nearly in reach.
5. Review and restructure as needed the recruit curriculum to ensure that Consent Decree values, objectives, and policies and practices are consistently imparted and woven throughout all components of the training.
The IMT has no evidence of progress/action.
97

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 98 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

6. Strengthen the level of oversight, guidance, and collaboration between command staff and the Training Bureau staff to ensure that goals and objectives are understood and shared.

The IMT has no evidence of progress/action.

7. Review and reinvigorate the Departmental commitment to the audit function by increasing staffing to the unit and refocusing command attention to its work products and contributions to moving the Consent Decree and the Department forward toward contemporary policing best practices.

The Audit function is back on track. Command is not maximizing the opportunities inherent in Audit production, special audits, such as the RRR Annual and shooting/serious force case auditing.

B. Third Quarter Recommendations

1.

Acquire immediate strategic planning capacity to facilitate completion of the

court required plans for both the goals and paragraph compliance.

2. Prioritize use-of-force trends and outcome measurements data collection. Appoint a Territorial Force Coordinator.

IAB should be the accountable unit.

3. Prioritize correction to the EIP shortfalls itemized above and in numerous preceding Quarterly reports.

4. Accelerate FIT/FRB development.
98

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 99 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
□ Develop Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Force Investigation Team (FIT).
□ Develop Standard Operation Procedure (SOP) Force Review Board (FRB).
□ Chiefs of Police will hold at least two (2) Use of Force Review Boards for the quarter.
□ Develop Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)/Commissioner Directive to identify and provide for an on-call supervisor(s) to respond to Use of Force incidents when no other supervisor is available.
5. Ensure the Action Plan is completed in a timely and quality manner.
99

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 182 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 100 of 100
Third Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
APPENDICES See Separate Package
100

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 1 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
FOURTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF 2015 FROM THE
INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT
CHARLES A. GRUBER CONSULTING INC. INDEPENDENT MONITOR
www.imt-policemonitor.org February 19, 2016
1

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 2 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 3 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
INDEPENDENT MONITORING TEAM
Independent Monitor Chief Charles A. Gruber
Elgin, Illinois Police Department (retired)
Police Practices Experts Superintendent Ann Marie Doherty
Boston, Massachusetts Police Department (retired) Chief Chet Epperson
Rockford, Illinois Police Department (retired) Chief Robert L. Stewart
Ormond Beach, Florida Police Department (retired)
CAG Staff & Consultants Jerome A. Needle, Project Manager
Director of Programs & Research, International Association of Chiefs of Police (retired) Palmer D. Wilson, Technical Manager Lieutenant, Commander, Office of Audits & Inspections, Montgomery County, Maryland Department of Police (retired) Leon A. Casey, Sr., Field Coordinator Resident Agent in Charge, U.S. Customs Service (retired)
CHARLES A. GRUBER CONSULTING INC. INDEPENDENT MONITOR www.imt-policemonitor.org
3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 4 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………………….……5

I. COMPLIANCE STATUS

……………… …...………………………..10

II. COMLIANCE OVERVIEW - A GLOBAL ASSESSMENT………………………......24

III. THE GOALS PLANNING SUMMIT ……………………………………………….....43

IV. 2016 PRIORITIES…………..……………………………………………………..…....46

V. RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………………...……………...49

APPENDICES (See Separate Package)

APPENDIX A – PARAGRAPHS AND SUB-PARAGRAPHS NOT IN SUNSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE,REPORT

APPENDIX B – COURT ORDERED GOALS NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE STATUS REPORT

APPENDIX C – PARAGRAPH 100 SUB-PARAGRAPH LINKAGE TO ORIGINAL PARAGRAPHS

APPENDIX D – SUB-PARAGRAPHS NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH NO GOALS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM

APPENDIX E – GOALS MEETING COMPLIANCE DURING QUARTER

4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 5 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY It is discouraging to report that for the sixth consecutive quarter, the VIPD has not brought an additional Consent Decree paragraph into substantial compliance. One and one-half years, (eighteen (18) months) have elapsed since the IMT has been able to award substantial compliance for even one paragraph. Two Territorial and VIPD administrations span this period. One full year has now elapsed since the current Territorial Government took office. One full year has elapsed since the current VIPD Commissioner and his new command staff have been in place. Renewed commitments to accelerate compliance have been expressed by Territorial and VIPD leadership. We find these quite authentic. Measured by IMT-VIPD relationships and VIPD work efforts, the compliance environment is far healthier today than in 2014. A stronger resource investment has been made, most notably in the Audits & Inspections function and the Professional Standards Unit. Still, the substantial compliance record has not altered. It is fair to emphasize that during this period, the IMT has not taken any paragraphs or sub-paragraphs out of compliance.
Especially in light of the Court’s expressed aspirations at the December 7, 2015, hearing that the Consent Decree be brought into substantial compliance and move toward its final assessment state by August 2016, all parties should now consider Consent Decree operations to be at a turning point. Failure to move forward dramatically in coming quarters just cannot be acceptable if we are to meet the Court ordered deadline. A new sense of urgency must guide compliance work strategically and operationally. The IMT’s Fourth Quarter work centered on actions to materially accelerate VIPD momentum.
Incremental progress is reportable with regard to Court-approved goals only. Compliance was achieved during Quarter Four, 2015 for seven goals. These included a one day IAPro in-house conference, and two goals which are duplicative of each other. In addition, the VIPD had to file to extend the suspense dates on four of the 4th Quarter goals because of non-compliance.
Compliance Status
5

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 6 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
The VIPD has achieved Substantial Compliance for 31 paragraphs. These are treated in Appendix A. Twenty paragraphs (20) are not yet in Substantial Compliance. These are addressed in Section III. Compliance/Non-Compliance patterns continue to vary among Consent Decree paragraph groupings. Three groupings have a majority of paragraphs in Substantial Compliance, two of these only a bare majority, Citizen Complaints, 15 of 17, Management & Supervision, 7 of 12, Training, 5 of 9. The Use of Force grouping, to many the most essential, lags far behind all others with only 4 of 11 paragraphs in Substantial Compliance, 36%. This pattern has not changed during the past six quarters either.
Global Assessment of Consent Decree Status
With the Court’s recently expressed aspirational expectation in mind, the IMT feels it to be useful to complement the now-standard accounting scorecard of Consent Decree status presented in quarterly reports with summary appraisals of VIPD compliance performance and the global condition of the Consent Decree. We are constantly aware of potential for the parties to get distracted by the numbers – the status of about 74 non-compliant paragraphs (20) and goals (54). Accordingly, we stepped back/paused to qualitatively evaluate the condition of Consent Decree status, by mandate grouping and in totality (the sum of the parts) and the potential for compliance in 2016.
Four individual qualitative assessments, one for each category of Consent Decree mandates, Use of Force, Citizen Complaints, Management & Supervision, and Training, do not combine to support the likelihood of a 2016 transition to substantial compliance status for currently unmet paragraphs (20), sub-paragraphs, and Court-ordered “step” goals which total 54. The Citizen Complaint grouping is poised for substantial compliance this year. The condition/position of the other three groupings is distinctly problematic. Considerer the following bottom-line observations from our Monitor and the IMT’s Police Practices Experts:
□ On Use of Force: Several unmet Consent Decree requirements are those which the IMT believed would be among the first to come into compliance. These include matters of force application, supervision, documentation, and accountability. Most if not all of these mandates reflect professional standard
6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 7 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
policies and practices that are common in similarly organized police agencies. Needless to say, the fact that standard, routine policies and practices are not in place and/or were dysfunctional within the VIPD is alarming and does not bode well for the future of embedding and sustaining constitutional policing practices in the VIPD cultural and political environment.
□ On Citizen Complaints: Although much work remains to be done to attain and maintain full compliance in this Consent Decree area, the VIPD, and particularly the personnel of this Working Group, deserve credit for the progress that has been made and continues to be built upon. At this time, with continued strong effort, this Consent Decree section will probably be the first to achieve full compliance. Hopefully, this will/can occur in a relatively short period of time.
□ On Management & Supervision: Both EIP and the Audit function are essential components for a well managed police agency. At this time, it may be possible for the VIPD to reach compliance within 2016, but this will be very challenging. For this to occur, the VIPD needs to dedicate additional resources, very soon, and maintain a high standard for managerial and supervisory accountability, an area where it has fallen short since the inception of Consent Decree compliance work. Short of this, we cannot be optimistic that the entire management and supervision component of the Consent Decree will reach total compliance.
□ On Training: Written IMT records, including Quarterly Reports, have consistently shown Training paragraphs compliance to be notably less successful than all other groupings, historically. Work toward substantial compliance with Paragraphs 73-81 of the Consent Decree continues to be woefully inadequate and critical systemic problems continue to retard VIPD’s efforts to satisfy the requirements of the Consent Decree. Problems sort themselves into two categories, those that are Consent Decree mandate-specific and those that demonstrate/have demonstrated absence of recognition of basic principles of
7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 8 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
training and education, such as adult learning concepts, effective instructional design, and training process and outcome evaluations.
More detailed diagnostics appear later in the report. Interestingly and most significantly, each Police Practices Expert chose to highlight as a prominent challenge and barrier to better compliance work, historically and presently, the VIPD’s accountability shortfall. This condition undermines the potential for many VIPD efforts to supply a compliance payoff.
Potential Momentum Changers
The IMT concentrated Fourth Quarter work on two applications designed to promote paragraph and goal achievement: (1) Goals Action Plans and (2) Priorities 2016.
In November, 2015, the DOJ, IMT, and VIPD collaborated to “…develop a comprehensive plan to comply with outstanding goals and paragraphs.” The intended Work Product was to be, and is, a plan (a progressive series of action steps) for each unmet paragraph of the Consent Decree and Court-ordered goal. Using the IMT-designed GMS (Goals Management Software), VIPD Work Group members were tasked to choose and document action steps, action officers, priority choices, and suspense dates that are reasonable and possible to comply with. The IMT facilitated the event. The goals work to date – done prior to, during, and after the Summit, is very mixed in quality and still undergoing review and modification by VIPD compliance staff and the IMT. More work is scheduled for the February 2016 Summit. IMT technical assistance is ongoing.
At its annual retreat in January, 2016, IMT and VIPD representatives looked ahead to 2016 monitoring requirements. With conscious regard to the reinforcing objectives of - (1) responding to the stated aspiration of the Court that the VIPD achieve Consent Decree compliance in August, 2016, (2) singling out the paragraphs and sub-paragraphs and goals most essential to satisfying that aspiration, and (3) maximizing return-on-resource investment (of all parties) – the IMT and VIPD representation completed a compliance priority & monitoring plan for 2016 (January-June), which can be found Section IV,. The Plan was developed in concert with the IMT and VIPD representation, and subsequently endorsed by everyone present. The Plan has been reviewed by the USDOJ and discussed with the Work Groups during the January Monthly
8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 9 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Call (2-3-16). And VIPD’s Consent Decree Work Groups have been provided with the compliance priority plan. Worthy of note, consensus on the 17 priorities selected emerged very readily. There was a high level of consistency among the choices of PPE’s and others from the outset. Emphasis is overwhelmingly on Use of Force mandates. To be successful – to achieve compliance for Priorities 2016, as well as other unmet mandates, the Goals and Action Plans must be well crafted and carried out in a timely manner. In this regard, the Priorities cannot/is not likely to be met if the Action Plain initiative fails. (The Plan is summarized below in Section IV.)
Finally, and of major consequence for monitoring and compliance progress, IMT staffing has been augmented. We have added a Police Practices Expert (PPE) who will devote time primarily to Use of Force monitoring, technical assistance, and compliance status matters. Chief Chet Epperson has already begun work. The Court and the VIPD can expect a measurable increase in both monitoring and technical assistance during coming quarters.
First Quarter The Fourth Quarter 2015 Summit was held February 11-12, 2016. Guided by the primary need to materially accelerate paragraph compliance, priority objectives for the Summit were:
o Further refining the compliance plans started in December within the GMS software.
o Develop 1Q2016 Goals o Finalize a comprehensive plan that addresses paragraphs and goals. Accomplishments will be discussed at the February, 2016 Court hearing and reported on in the next quarterly report.
9

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 10 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
I. COMPLIANCE STATUS:
The following 8 charts document Paragraph Status at the end of the Fourth Quarter of 2015. Compared to Quarter One, Two, and Three of 2015, and Quarters Three and Four, 2014, there has been no change at all with regard to Overall Status (Chart 1), and therefore with regard to Overall Compliance by Paragraph Groups (Charts 4-8). Trending is depicted in Charts 2-3.
A. Overall Status The VIPD has achieved Substantial Compliance for 31 paragraphs. Twenty paragraphs (20) are not yet in Substantial Compliance. These paragraphs are detailed in Appendix A to this report.
Compliance/Non-Compliance patterns vary among Consent Decree paragraph groupings. Charts 4-8 show that three groupings have a majority of paragraphs in Substantial Compliance: Citizen Complaints, 15 of 17, Management & Supervision, 7 of 12, Training, 5 of 9, two of these reflect a bare majority. The Use of Force group remains at only 4 of 11 paragraphs in Substantial Compliance. The Use of Force grouping has the majority of steps and checkpoints for compliance within the reporting and investigation processes and thus a significant number of problem areas which continue to exist, thwarting compliance, even at the sub-paragraph level.
B. Compliance at the end of Quarter Four, 2015: 1. Consent Decree Paragraphs That Came Into Compliance During the 4th Quarter No Consent Decree Paragraphs came into compliance during the 4th Quarter 2015. One subparagraph (60-H) came into compliance.
2. Paragraphs in Substantial Compliance at the end of the 3rd Quarter, 2015 are: 31, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 , 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 70, 75, 76, 78, 79 and 80.
10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 11 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
(NOTE: Bolded/underlined paragraphs have training evaluated under paragraph 75 and implementation under paragraph 100) Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance: 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 44, 58, 59, 60, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 81, 100, 101. Paragraphs Having Not Applicable (NA) Status: 67, 68 The IMT issued a memorandum on November 13, 2014 that displays the linkage between paragraph 100 sub-paragraph compliance requirements or items (a-w) and their original location in another paragraph of the Consent Decree. This is included as Appendix C to this report. The following charts display this status information.
11

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 12 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
CHART 1
CHART 2
CHART 3 12

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 13 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
CHART 4
13

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 14 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
CHART 5
CHART 6
14

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 15 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
CHART 7
CHART 8
15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 16 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
C. Court Ordered Goals for the 4th Quarter 2015
The following VIPD submitted goals for the 4th Quarter 2015 were approved by the Court. Their status as of the end of the 4th Quarter 2015 are as follows:
4Q5-1 Goal Statement Develop Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the Force Review Board (FRB).
IMT Evaluation IMT will provide technical assistance during the week of Feb 7, 2016, to assist with the development of the referenced SOP. This goal will be updated at the end of that week. The IMT worked with VIPD personnel during the week of Feb 7 and developed a final draft SOP for the FIT operations. This SOP is currently being reviewed by the Parties.
Completed 02/12/16
4Q5-2 Goal Statement Develop SOP for Force Investigation Team (FIT)
IMT Evaluation IMT will provide technical assistance during the week of Feb 7, 2016, to assist with the development of the referenced SOP. This goal will be updated at the end of that week. The IMT worked with VIPD personnel during the week of Feb 7, 2016 and developed a final draft SOP for the FRB operations. This SOP is currently being reviewed by the Parties.
Completed 02/12/16
16

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 17 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
4Q5-3 Goal Statement Chiefs of Police will hold at least two (2) Use of Force Review Boards for the quarter. FIT members to observe or participate.
IMT Evaluation IMT will provide technical assistance during the week of Feb 7, 2016, to assist with the conduct of two Force review Boards by each District; this goal will be updated at the end of that week. While the IMT did work with the FIT and FRB personnel during the week of Feb 7, 2016, time and data constraints (lack of investigative files by FIT and naming of the FIT and FRB personnel delayed until 02/11/16,) the IMT was only able to conduct briefing meetings with these personnel, where the draft SOPs were reviewed as were limited cases, focusing on force compliance with policy issues. The IMT believes this goal should be re-written to address the lack of Level 1 investigations available within a quarter and the IMT will attend the first iterations of the FRB hearings to provide mentoring and training as needed. The VIPD, in its filing dated 02/12/16, extended the compliance date for this goal to 05/06/16.
Not Completed
4Q5-4 Goal Statement Establish process for on-call Supervisor(s) to respond to Use of Force incidents when off duty.
IMT Evaluation The IMT has advised the VIPD that they need to standardize their On-Call Supervisor Call Back form Territory-wide. The IMT received a revised format from the VIPD on the day this draft report was completed and will evaluate that format and update this evaluation during the week of Feb 7, 2007. This issue regarding schedule formats was not resolved during the Summit week and the IMT will continue to work with the VIPD regarding this issue.
17

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 18 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Not Completed
4Q5-5 Goal Statement VIPD will bring backlog of cases current by designating a time period for supervisors responsible for the delinquent cases to complete the investigation of each delinquent case.
IMT Evaluation As reported previously and repeatedly by the IMT, the VIPD has attempted to resolve the timeliness problems by issuing Commissioner’s directives in both Districts, which mandate the completion of all outstanding 2013 and 2014 investigations. There has also been a focus on completing 2015 cases. As a result of these directives the number of outstanding cases for both Districts was reduced significantly. More recently, as a result of the November 2015 summit, the Chief of St Croix reassigned supervisors to his office to complete their overdue cases. St Thomas chose an alternative plan to address the same issue. Originally, the due date for these overdue cases to be completed was mid-January 2016. At the request of VIPD this date was extended to February 5, 2016. IMT will assess the effectiveness of these efforts. VIPD needs to clearly identify the specific reasons for the delay and address same. Additionally, VIPD must continue to hold managers and supervisors accountable for inappropriate delays.
Not Completed
4Q5-6 Goal Statement
18

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 19 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
The VIAG will provide the VIPD with a log of all criminal proceedings initiated by, as well as civil lawsuits and administrative claims served upon the Attorney General in 2015 resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel
IMT Evaluation The VIPD submitted a copy of an internal VIAG SOP outlining the process for notifying/forwarding VIPD of any/all actions filed against VIPD personnel (civil and criminal). According to this SOP, the initial notification process is to be completed within 72 hours. During mid-2015, VIAG representative stated that, although this SOP was signed by a former AG, the current AG agreed to follow/continue this process. IMT was told they would be informed by VIAG should this change. Additionally, at the November 2015 Summit, VIAG committed to start providing a log of all such actions/notifications. The VIAG determined that, in addition to the initial notice, it will provide a log on a quarterly basis. VIPD submitted a copy of the first of such logs. On January 5, 2016, the VIPD submitted a log for cases filed resulting from VIPD actions, thus complying with this goal.
The VIPD should monitor the continued delivery of these reports by the VIAG and ensure that these updates are entered into the IAPro system, with an established suspense date for periodicfollow-up. Further the VIPD should establish a permanent folder for the filing of all such submissions from the VIAG. The VIPD AIU should include these reports as part of their future udit plans on a continuing basis. Exceptions to the continued reporting by the VIAG should be promptly reported to the USDOJ and the IMT.
Completed 01/06/16
4Q5-7
Goal Statement
19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 20 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
VIPD will conduct IAPro summit on December 21, 2015, in an effort to better track status of cases and bring about increased managerial accountability.
IMT Evaluation The VIPD conducted a summit (seminar) on IAPro use and recent developments with executive and management staff, They produced a report that detailed the items and training conducted during the session.
IMT Recommendation for Continued Compliance The IMT recommends that this type of review and training be repeated periodically and to the broadest range of personnel who regularly utilize the system.
Completed 01/08/16
4Q5-8 Goal Statement Determine where more effective adult learning can be applied and be more effective. Reexamine curricula to identify opportunities to introduce and use adult learning concepts and practices to improve learning for the attendees. Priority to Consent Decree related curricula. a. Identify a training for adult learning concept b. Identify training dates and location c. Obtain course outline and training material for review and approval
IMT Evaluation This goal should be a part of an overall revision of all lesson plans. While there is a priority to revise and update CD related lesson plans, the entire system needs review and revision. There was an Instructor “Retreat” in November, 2015; there is a meeting scheduled to take place by 129-16 to advance this goal. Another meeting was scheduled for 12-17-15 which IMT believed would produce a lesson plan revision schedule. While the meeting took place, IMT did not see
20

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 21 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
any additional progress. Progress should be reported during Monthly meeting 2-3-16 but was not. We would very much want to come away from our next “summit meeting” with VIPD with a revision plan. The VIPD in its filing of 02/12/16 extended the compliance date of this goal to 03/31/16.
Not Completed
4Q5-9 Goal Statement Training Division will collaborate with the other three (3) working groups to identify and respond with training support to Consent Decree issues and areas identified by the working groups. Training Division’s support will include assessment of the needs; identification of the trainees; development of the curricula; delivery of training; and, in conjunction with the audit unit, evaluation of the training effectiveness. a. Design the training support process b. Meet with each of the working group and explain protocol.
IMT Evaluation The IMT is aware that the Training Division has developed a training support request form and has distributed this to the other three working groups. The IMT is further aware that based on Training Division reports, they have met with these groups and briefed them on the substance of this goal and the process by which they will be providing training support. However, the IMT continues to wait for Training Division generated reports and schedules for training support services delivery to the three other working groups and therefore VIPD has not met the goal. This is further complicated by the fact that in a large number of compliance plans within the GMS software there are references to training initiatives as solutions to problems, but we have not seen any evidence of the Training Division involvement.
In addition, we are not sure that the steps to achieve this goal are leading to the desired result. This goal is attempting to install a system for other Consent Decree Work Groups to
21

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 22 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
communicate to the Training Bureau that there is a need for Training to conduct Consent Decree related training. We would think that something less formal might be more effective. There has to be a system in place already for training requests to be sent forward to the Training Director. This may be a duplication of effort. The VIPD in its filing of 02/12/16 extended the compliance date of this goal to 03/31/16.
Not Completed
D. Other Court Ordered Goals Completed During the Fourth Quarter 2015.
A total of three (3) other goals were completed during the quarter, including 60-c, 60-h, and M&S 11. The analysis of those goals, along with those 4Q2015 goals completed can be found at Appendix E to this report.
D. Current Status of All Other Court Approved Goals
All remaining Court Order Goals, not noted above, remain non-compliant. To view a detailed listing of these goals, the reader is directed to Appendix B to this report, which includes a total of 54 goals non-compliant.
E. Sub-Paragraphs Not Associated With a Goal
There are a total of twelve (12) sub-paragraphs monitored by the IMT that are not associated with a specific Court Ordered Goal. These are listed in Appendix D to this report. During the Fourth Quarter of 2015 there was no work done by the VIPD to prepare compliance plans within their GMS software, nor any work done and reported to the IMT, toward compliance with these sub-paragraphs. The IMT has, on several occasions, reminded the VIPD of the need to complete these work plans and to begin work in response to same towards compliance.
F. Current Status of Consent Decree Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance
22

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 23 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Detailed listing of Consent Decree paragraphs, along with their sub-paragraphs, can be found in Appendix A to this report. There are a total of 73 sub-paragraphs located within 20 paragraphs that remain non-compliant.
23

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 24 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
II. COMPLIANCE OVERVIEW: A GLOBAL ASSESSMENT
The previous section offered a quantitative overview of Consent Decree compliance. This has become a staple of our Quarterly Reports, designed to supply a current and accessible summary of bottom-line status. With the Court’s recently expressed aspirational expectations in mind, and the Territory’s declaration for August, 2016 Consent Decree compliance, the IMT felt it would be useful to all parties to supplement the standard quantitative overview with a global qualitative, PPE-crafted assessment of (1) the condition of the Consent Decree in its entirety and in its component parts and (2) judgments regarding a 2016 wind-down.
Prospects for 2016 Compliance
Four group-specific assessments follow. One is positive. The Citizens Complaint paragraph group is positioned for substantial compliance in 2016. Two potential momentum changers notwithstanding, the Goals Action Plans & Priorities 2016, the IMT is not optimistic that any of the other three paragraph groupings are currently positioned for substantial compliance, in their entirety. Our individual assessments, collectively – the “sum of the parts,” simply cannot support such an expectation.
Use of Force Paragraphs
Virgin Islands Police officers must conduct themselves in accord with clear and concise policies that establish guidelines on the limitations of the use of force and on use of deadly force in particular. The VIPD must train officers on the appropriate and proficient use of the full range of force options, not just firearms. Especially important is a focus on the value of less lethal force and de-escalation techniques. The most important component for managing and regulating the use of force by the Virgin Islands Police Department’s law enforcement officers is the role and effectiveness of first-line supervisors. Policies and procedures, and training officers on their applications of force are of little value in absence of oversight of line supervisors and commandpersonnel ensuring officer compliance and conformity and with VIPD directives. This concern makes it essential that VIPD command staff create formal procedures for reporting force and for
24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 25 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
investigating, reviewing, auditing and especially exacting accountability for use-of-force incidents. The Consent Decree mandates design and institutionalization of all of these practices in the Use of Force paragraphs. Reduced to fundamentals the Consent Decree comes down to these core items.
So why is it taking so long for the VIPD to comply with what should have been and should be an uncomplicated process? Retrospectively considered, the answer is neither simple nor necessarily easily tracked. We believe an early administration thought the department would simply follow direction because officials were told to “do it.” Without follow-up, detailed assignment of personnel, and organizational accountability, little if any progress was made regarding Consent Decree implementation. The condition prevailed for some time. Personnel changed positions, and commissioners came and went. Judge Gomez has stated several times he is now on his 6th commissioner since the start of the Consent Decree. Each new leader wants his stamp of approval on policies and practices. With each Deputy Chief, Chief, Deputy Commissioner, and Commissioner came more delays, changes, and varying degrees of across-the-board organizational lethargy.
Years of writing approved policies on force practices and many different force training programs have not produced compliance with the paragraphs in the Consent Decree. Previous efforts to gain substantial compliance with force paragraphs have been found wanting for a number of reasons, not the least of which is an insufficiently supported departmental desire to contribute to constitutional policing practices. The Consent Decree requirement to write use of force reports was alien to the VIPD culture and unexpectedly challenging. VIPD supervisors were unequipped and or unwilling to accomplish the required reporting elements of the Consent Decree. To be sure, there are still members of the VIPD staff and supervisors who oppose doing the work, for reasons known only unto them. While this resistance is less prevalent than it has been in years past, it still resonates in the department culture. This is evident from the number of officers who continue to fail to properly file use of force reports. Six officers from throughout the territory were charged by the department with failing to carry out this duty (Mar 2015 thru Dec 2015). To the credit of the VIPD they did charge the officers! These cases still remain open as of January 2016. The failure of the department to investigate and close these cases in a timely
25

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 26 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
way could preclude discipline and accountability of the offenders. This lack of formal accountability, even when a preponderance of evidence has been determined, creates the culture of no accountability at all.
In 2015 a new governor and his team came to power. This resulted – again, in across-the-board changes in VIPD leadership and another setback for the Consent Decree. This change brought a new team forward, however, that is more energized and determined to implement the Consent Decree than previous leadership groups. This is a welcome change for the entire Consent Decree team. Progress started with the VIPD working and developing a plan of action, assigning personnel as analysts, and auditors, and by hiring new personnel designated specifically to implement the Consent Decree. A true sense of commitment to the policies and practices embedded within the Consent Decree, and confirmed by the court, emerged from the VIPD’s new Compliance Unit, Professional Standards. It was immediately apparent to the IMT that a new sense of urgency had replaced years of both passive and active resistance to the consent decree by members of the VIPD. All of this notwithstanding, compliance is still “stuck” at 31 paragraphs and with no movement during the four quarters, the current leadership group has been at the controls!
Fixing Force Review & Accountability. Thirteen (13) force mandates have been prioritized for immediate attention. Major steps await near-term introduction to the VIPD force review and accountability process. First, an appointment of a Use of Force Review Board Administrator, as required under Policy 3.3, Force Review Board. The coordinator will also be responsible for preparing force review cases and related packages, calendaring inquiries for the UFRB, and following-up with written findings.
Second is completion of the operating procedures (SOPs) for the Force Investigating Team (FIT). An initial working draft was developed by the VIPD Force Working Group and submitted to the IMT for use during the TA visit Feb 9-10, 2016, where a final version is to be completed. Key elements required for successful deployment and operation were missing from the document and it was returned with areas for improvement noted. The IMT scheduled Police Practices Experts to meet with the Working Group and assist VIPD with completing the documents
26

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 27 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
necessary for FIT team deployment during the Fourth Quarter 2015 Summit, scheduled for early February 2016. A final draft SOP for FIT operations was completed at the Summit and is currently out for review by the Parties.
Third, the Use of Force Review Board operating procedures were also scheduled for review at the February meeting as well. The VIPD has identified additional training for the UFRB from skilled and experienced police executives, currently operating a UFRB. This training is under scheduling review by the VIPD Training Director. A specific date has not been given by the Training Director. Like the FIT SOP, a final draft SOP for the UFRB was completed during the Summit and is currently out for review by the Parties.
Successful introduction of the components to the VIPD force review and accountability system will result in comprehensive force analysis and have an immediate positive impact on identifying areas of the force environment in need of attention. Paragraph compliance should follow soon thereafter if the VIPD allows the system to identify both process and human behavior issues as they surface.
The Force Accountability System in the VIPD is actively managed by the supervisors and leadership of the VIPD. The learning curve has been steep for a majority of members of a department that has not experienced the level or depth of such training before. Supervisors have remarked to the IMT that they have not received any training on force accountability and evaluations before. This new responsibility has come to them without sufficient attendant direction or organizational clarity. This problem has repeated itself since the Consent Decree was initiated. How the VIPD is organized, staffed, directed and managed is colored by politics. The VIPD is still a top down structure starting from the Government House itself. Not much changes without the concurrence of the political leaders of the territory including operational policing matters. We recommend that the new government look hard at reorganizing the police department so politics is not involved in the selection, deployment or promotion of police personnel up to the level of Deputy Chief.
27

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 28 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Accelerating Force Mandate Compliance. Force paragraphs, sub-paragraphs and goals are not yet in substantial compliance. The Court has expressed its desire for compliance in calendar year 2016 clearly. In the view of the IMT, this may be beyond the capacity of the VIPD. Our considered judgment notwithstanding, the IMT and VIPD are positioning to meet the challenge, if at all possible. We call the Court’s attention to two initiatives recently designed to focus our collective energies on compliance: The Compliance Priority & Monitoring Plan for 2016 (see Section IV) and the Goals Action Plan (which is a VIPD internal produced document.) While these planning tools are discussed in other sections of this quarterly, we will note a few items about them. They were designed to bring about as much substantial compliance to the out of compliance paragraphs as is possible and to advance Judge Gomez’s stated timeline of August 2016. They are, simultaneously, initiatives/applications to plans that organize the VIPD efforts and keep a focus on stated goals. Each PPE will work directly with the Work Group leaders in a prescriptive step-by-step partnership.
Monitoring & Technical Assistance Resources. With the above needs and plans in mind, IMT staffing has been augmented with the hiring of a PPE who will devote time primarily to Use of Force monitoring, technical assistance, and compliance status matters. The Court and the VIPD can expect a measurable increase in both monitoring and technical assistance during coming quarters. The aforementioned FIT/FRB SOP development were among the already scheduled assignments.
Citizen Complaints Paragraphs
Earlier VIPD efforts to address Consent Decree citizen complaint intake and investigations requirements necessitated a focus on policy development. At the initiation of our monitoring, policies were either glaringly inadequate or non-existent. After an extended period of time relevant policies were developed, reviewed and formally authorized by the VIPD. Following these accomplishments was a lengthy period of time while appropriate training on said policies was developed and delivered. The period of time required for citizen complaint policy and training development and delivery was underestimated by all parties involved in Consent Decree compliance work. The skills to address policy and training development did not exist in the
28

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 29 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
VIPD during the initial Consent Decree compliance period. To move forward, the VIPD hired a consultant. While the summary of these actions is reflected in one paragraph, the actual effort took multiple years to complete.
Following another extended period of time, and a number of retraining efforts, a second glaring deficiency became readily apparent – a lack of management and supervisory accountability throughout the VIPD. While a select number of managers/supervisors attempted to hold personnel accountable for the requirements associated with the citizen complaint process, overall effort was very limited and not reinforced throughout the agency. This condition and challenge was reinforced by constant turnover in Police Commissioners during the initial 5 years of Consent Decree compliance work. Repeated leadership change should not be underestimated for its effect on the delays in Consent Decree compliance. Absence of the required demonstration of management/supervisory accountability continues to be an issue. The IMT has witnessed increased recognition of accountability requirements under the current administration. While we appreciate the increased attention, it must be materially intensified and continually reinforced to reach Consent Decree compliance – across the mandate groupings.
A specific area in the Citizen Complaint paragraphs with which the VIPD continues to struggle is the timeliness of investigations. Reported previously and repeatedly by the IMT, the VIPD has attempted to resolve the timeliness problems by issuing Commissioner’s directives for both Districts, which demand completion of all outstanding 2013 and 2014 investigations. There is also pressure to complete 2015 cases. The result of these directives is a significant reduction in the number of outstanding cases in both Districts. More recently, as a result of the November 2015 summit, the Chief of St Croix reassigned supervisors to his office to complete their overdue cases. St Thomas chose an alternative plan to address the same issue. Originally, the due date for these overdue cases to be completed was mid-January 2016. At the request of VIPD this date was extended to February 6, 2016. No real progress on this issue resulted from the Summit and the VIPD extended the suspense date on the related goal (4Q5-1) until 04/08/16 in their court filing of 02/12/16The IMT will continue working with the VIPD to seek pathways to reduction of this case backlog now and in the future.
29

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 30 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
The IMT continues to be concerned about the number of outstanding investigations – and the causes for these delays. Validity and reliability of the exact number associated with IAProsourced citizen complaint data frustrates, indeed inhibits, performance diagnostics, evaluation, and decision-making that would otherwise be possible. During the August 15, 2015 monthly meeting the VIPD could not provide the number of outstanding /overdue cases. Subsequently, the IMT requested and received listings of outstanding and overdue cases. The IMT has received multiple reports that are not entirely consistent.
The VIPD is obligated to convey and document the specific reasons why cases are not completed in a timely fashion. Numerous discussions reflect a belief in the zones that the delay is in IAB, and the opposite. Zone personnel claim that when cases are completed at the zone, they sometimes “sit” at IAB. At the same time, there are occasions where cases may be at IAB for review and are forwarded back to the zone for deficiencies. To address this problem properly and completely, the VIPD must clearly identify the specific reasons for delays and address same. Due to a large number of overdue/outstanding cases that have developed during the last few years, the workload appears onerous to many supervisors. One bright spot: once delayed investigations are addressed, the actual numbers of cases handled by the VIPD on a yearly basis appear to be a very manageable number.
The IMT recognizes that the VIPD is attempting to ensure that if delays are necessary, appropriate waiver requests are initiated. The VIPD must continue to ensure that the reasons for these waivers are appropriate and consistent with their own policies.
While timeliness in responding to citizen complaints has improved during the Consent Decree continuance period, the IMT continues to be concerned with a number of the more serious investigations. Many of these involve officer-involved shootings (IAB and CID) and for protracted periods of time (sometimes for years). While the VIPD has been the source for many of the delays, responsibility is shared with the VIAG. The current administration has voiced a commitment to address this significant issue.
30

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 31 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
One final concern is the very limited number of individuals assigned to assist/guide the VIPD to compliance in this area. While the current Working Group is functioning diligently to address concerns and deficiencies, only a few individuals are assigned to this responsibility. The same individuals that work on citizen complaint paragraphs are also responsible for the management and supervision paragraphs.
While the VIPD has achieved compliance with most of the paragraphs in the citizen complaint area of the Consent Decree, the VIPD must remain vigilant in their efforts to continue to maintain this compliance. The key in this area rests with the managers and supervisors.
Although much work remains to be done to attain and maintain full compliance in this area, the VIPD (and particularly the VIPD personnel in this Working Group) deserves credit for the progress that has been made and continues to be built upon. At this time, with continued strong investment, this Consent Decree section will/can probably be the first in full compliance. Hopefully this will occur within a relatively short period of time.
Management & Supervision Paragraphs
The Management and Supervision paragraphs of the Consent Decree center on two main components. The first is developing and implementing a risk management system (RMS) to include a new computerized relational database or paper system to maintain, integrate, and retrieve information necessary to supervise and manage the VIPD. The VIPD is to regularly use this data to promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts. (CD Para 59.) The second is a requirement that the VIPD develop a protocol to conduct audits. The protocol is to be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol will establish a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all VIPD zones. (CD Para 69.)
VIPD internal capacity for RMS development and auditing simply did not exist at the outset of Consent Decree compliance efforts. Compounded by absence of appropriate managerial and supervisory direction and accountability, effective work in these areas was severely hampered
31

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 32 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
and compliance was delayed for years. The challenge was intensified by the constant turnover of Police Commissioners during the first 5 years of Consent Decree compliance activity. Repeated leadership change should not be underestimated for its effect on the delays in Consent Decree compliance, generally. The absence of and/or inattention to management/supervisory accountability continues to be an issue. The IMT is witnessing an uptick in this regard under current VIPD leadership.
EIP The Early Intervention Program (EIP) of the VIPD is being developed pursuant to requirements contained in the current Consent Decree. The development and implementation of an EIP is the significant result of compliance with the RMS components.1
During the second quarter of 2011, the Management & Supervision Working Group concentrated much of its attention on the Department’s Data Input Plan. Although the DOJ approved the VIPD’s initial Data Input Plan on March 22, 2011 the Department never disseminated the Plan department-wide. Now, nearly five years later, the plan is in need of revision. VIPD submitted a revised plan on Dec. 29, 2015. The IMT and the DOJ are working with the VIPD to finalize the plan.
The IAB was entering information into IAPro as early as 2009. Because IAPro seeks to identify potentially problematic conduct based on established norms, IAPro functions best when it has a wealth of information to analyze. Unfortunately, despite multiple requests for additional personnel, IAB did not have the resources (while also carrying out its other functions) to complete this process on a reasonable time-line. While IAB has obtained additional personnel (analysts) in 2015, the attention to EIP plan entry to the system does not seem to have been increased.
During the 4th Quarter 2014, the IMT was informed that 97 Alerts were forwarded during 2014. Significantly, the VIPD could not immediately provide a status update other than a statement that
1 The last IMT Quarterly Report summarized VIPD progress.
32

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 33 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
very few had been addressed appropriately. This indicates a VIPD supervisory issue which continues into 2015.
As reported in numerous IMT quarterly reports, including last quarter’s report, response to supervisory/managerial response to Alerts forwarded has been limited and ineffective. This allows employees who may be starting to exhibit signs of problematic behavior to continue the same behavior, potentially resulting in citizen complaints and/or uses of force. It is anticipated that with the hiring of new analysts, more focused attention will occur to ensure that the EIP protocols are followed correctly. IMT review seems to indicate they have not had a dramatic effect on increasing the EIP plan presence. The analysts alone cannot, however, bring the required Consent Decree paragraphs into compliance. With the analysts, additional managerial staff assigned to the Consent Decree and managerial/supervisory accountability (throughout the chain of command), the IMT believes the VIPD can move toward effective EIP compliance late in 2016.
During late 2015, the VIPD revised their Data Input Plan, which still needs work, and held an IAPro Summit. Also, currently the VIPD is reviewing and responding to comments regarding their revisions to the EIP-RMS policy.
At this time, the EIP is very much a work in progress. While the infrastructure to support EIP has improved, IMT has not yet seen evidence that managers and supervisors are effectively, and uniformly, utilizing the system. Management and supervisory accountability in this area is an essential step for compliance.
Audits Compliance progress in the Audits area has been very slow. Historically, VIPD initiated Audit efforts solely through the Working Groups. This resulted in very inconsistent, uneven and vastly different approaches – and results. From a very early point, the IMT strongly recommended a fully staffed and trained Audit Unit. This recommendation was not embraced until the current administration took office. While the assignment of full-time personnel has been helpful in this
33

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 34 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
area, not enough staff has been assigned. While the individuals are very hard working, the capacity to complete the number of audits required by the Consent Decree is not present.
During early 2015 Audit submissions were severely delayed. During the second quarter 2015, the IMT received the 3rd-4th quarter 2014 audit and the 1st quarter of 2015, in a “batch.” As of February 11, 2016, neither the IMT nor the DOJ had received VIPD’s audits for the 3rd or 4th quarter of 2015. While the Audits continue to improve, the IMT hopes that these Audits will be completed in a more timely fashion than has occurred previously.
During the last quarter the IMT received a VIPD proposed Audit SOP, which the IMT commented on. While we have been informally told that this is the final version, we have not received such officially from the Consent Decree Coordinator, as per written policy between the VIPD and the IMT and the IMT is still awaiting the final published version. Since the audits had been delayed, the IMT looks forward to assessing to what level the draft is being appropriately applied.
Regardless of the historically slow progress in this area, there is good news to report. The IMT reported in our last Quarterly Report that there had been significant progress.
Approximately 175 measurements have now been defined, applicable to and encompassing quantifiable paragraphs and sub-paragraphs in all four Consent Decree categories: Use of Force, Citizen Complaints, Management & Supervision, & Training. Approximately 120 measures are new, having been developed since submission of the last Audit, First Quarter, 2015. For each measure, data can be collected for each quarter, going forward. Historical data is available for Use of Force. Legacy data is not otherwise available. Some measurements yield only to yes/no decisions. Next steps will include IMT review of proposed measurements, and should include beta-testing by the VIPD, followed by appropriate revisions.
At some point in the future, to exit the Consent Decree, the VIPD will have to demonstrate sustained implementation. Accordingly, it would be useful to examine and array the data by quarter to explore patterns to show, for example, sustained positive quarters or interruptions.
34

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 35 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
At this moment, a quarterly drill down effort would not produce sufficient value because of limited numbers of events (force investigations) in the VIPD within individual quarters. Ten (10) events per quarter (or other qualitative assessments) are needed to achieve the 95% threshold in any/every quarter. There are too many instances when the base of ten (10) is not reached. This is likely to remain a feature of the VIPD experience. An alternative measurement period will probably have to replace quarters to gauge sustained implementation.
While the IMT is encouraged by some of the recent Audit progress, much remains to be done. As stated in earlier reports, the IMT strongly encourages the VIPD to enhance the Audit staff, prepare annual audit plans, and complete /submit audits in a timely fashion.
Both EIP and the Audit function are essential components for a well managed police agency. At this time, it may be possible for the VIPD to reach compliance in 2016, but this will be challenging. For this to happen, the VIPD needs to dedicate additional resources, very soon, and maintain a high standard for managerial and supervisory accountability, a condition it has not promoted and maintained sufficiently since the earliest days of the Consent Decree. Short of this, we cannot be optimistic that this entire management and supervision component of the Consent Decree will reach total compliance.
Training Paragraphs Written IMT records, including Quarterly Reports, have consistently shown Training paragraphs compliance to be materially less successful than all other groupings. Work toward substantial compliance with Paragraphs 73-81 of the Consent Decree continues to be woefully inadequate. Critical systemic problems continue to retard VIPD efforts. Problems sort themselves into two categories, those that are Consent Decree mandate-specific and those that demonstrate/have demonstrated inattention and absence of recognition of basic principles of training and education, such as adult learning concepts, effective instructional design, and training process and outcome evaluations. The recent T&M Report specifies some of the very same concerns that the IMT raises.
35

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 36 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Several of the Consent Decree training requirements are those which the IMT believed would be among the first to come into compliance: training records, for example. Most if not all training mandates reflect policies and practices that are common in similarly organized police agencies. That “routine” policies and practices are not in place and/or operationally dysfunctional is alarming and does not bode well for the future, immediate and longer term.
That the Training Director, for all purposes, works without the real supervision and oversight typically found in a department the size of VIPD is troubling and the root of several organizational problems that have all come to the fore during the life of this Consent Decree. We emphasized this “across-the-Consent Decree” problem in the previous global assessments.
Training Paragraph Issues
Several Consent Decree paragraphs require review and analysis of training processes and outcomes. In most organizations, these responsibilities are managed by command staff functioning as a committee or by a more formally instituted training committee which, in either case, functions under general Police Officer Standards and Traiing (POST) guidelines. No such function previously existed in the VIPD. The IMT recommended organizing a Training Advisory Committee more than a year ago. We felt this committee would mirror the tasks and responsibilities of its counterparts throughout the industry. We believed that a training committee would facilitate many of the requirements of Paragraphs 73, 74, 75 and 78, which call for analysis of the effect of training in the field, needs assessment and oversight of curricula and lesson plan development. We additionally expected that a number of allied requirements like best-practice instructor selection and roll call training would be facilitated by a Training Advisory Committee. The VIPD has now established its Training Advisory Committee, however the IMT has made numerous comments on the policy and believes it is not appropriately structured nor focused with regard to actually improving training. Additionally it has not met frequently enough. While the VIPD appears to be close to initiating substantive activities, the IMT expects that it may take time for the Committee to become acclimated to its new duties. Because of this, we have recommended that the Committee meet monthly for at least the next year.
36

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 37 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Paragraph 73 requires the VIPD to conduct a semi-annual review of use of force training to ensure quality, consistency and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy. From the outset, the VIPD has interpreted this requirement to refer only to a companion requirement that use of force policy be reviewed semi-annually. To that end, the VIPD has ensured only that use of force training is consistent with, and in compliance with, applicable law and VIPD policy. However, any use of force policy or training review requires assessment and analysis of how well force outcomes reflect training objectives. The VIPD has yet to assess its force policies and training accordingly.
Substantial Compliance with Paragraph 74 requires performance of several activities. These include ensuring the quality of all use of force training, evaluation of all training curricula and procedures and a regular use of force training needs assessment. Several of these requirements repeat mandates in Paragraph 73. Paragraph 74 also calls for in-service and roll call training. These requirements, just like those of Paragraph 73, need coordination, evaluation and analysis, best approached in a manner more independent from the Training Bureau conducting its own self-analysis or making its own judgments without consulting with field units. Again, the VIPD has not yet implemented the necessary measures.
The remaining requirement of Paragraph 74 involves selection and training of VIPD trainers. The directive that now outlines the selection process took over a year to finalize, due largely to actions of the VIPD which resisted standard selection and vetting policies that resemble those used universally by similarly situated police agencies. Primary sticking points had to do with the autonomy of the training staff to ignore standard practices related to review and consideration of disciplinary and performance records of trainer candidates. This amounted to the training staff being able to waive standard disqualifiers without the check and balance of meaningful oversight. It would have meant that training was evaluating its own selections. This activity prevented compliance in an area of standard practice throughout the industry and speaks directly to the lack of substantial progress in areas that are among the simplest of the Consent Decree requirements. Now that the directive has been finalized, the VIPD must successfully implement its selection and training requirements. We, the IMT, need to verify that the directive is
37

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 38 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
followed. Our very cursory review of instructor files uncovered expired instructor certification, poorly constructed files and no evidence of a vetting process for current instructors.
Paragraph 75 replicates parts of Paragraphs 73 and 74 which require the VIPD to provide training that is consistent with VIPD policy, law and proper police practices. There is also a provision that makes reference to approved lesson plans. We have been critical of the quality of lesson plans which, in some cases, are little more than a cover sheet with inadequately defined learning objectives placed on top of an applicable policy. The VIPD has begun to update and revise Consent Decree related lesson plans to add meaningful objectives and adult learning exercises. We are afraid that if a review and revision process is not initiated very soon, we will be forced to take this paragraph out of compliance.
Paragraphs 76 and 77 outline training records requirements, as well as others. Paragraph 76 states that basic training records, including lesson plans, be kept in centrally accessible files. While we awarded compliance for this paragraph, issues remain that might cause this paragraph to be moved out of compliance. Initially, records were maintained separately in each district and they were organized and maintained in a different fashion. Acquisition of PowerDMS has largely eliminated this problem. However, compliance was awarded with the understanding that “adequate records of lesson plans” meant presence of a plan or system for revision that raised the standard of curricula and lesson plan development. We had found inconsistent lesson plan development since most were written by several instructors, with little or no oversight from the Training Bureau. A current goal calls for the revision and updating of all lesson plans. This project should be a priority.
Reaching compliance with Paragraph 77 has been a much bigger problem. Compliance has been elusive and a source of contention between the VIPD and IMT. The primary mandate refers to officer training attendance records. Additional requirements remain unmet. Each officer training record must also reflect:
1. the course description and duration, 2. the curriculum; and 3. the instructor(s) for each officer.
38

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 39 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Since Power DMS has been brought online, attendance records with course description and duration are being captured in a department-wide database. Current curricula, much of which is being updated, are also being entered into the database. Current instructor records are also being entered but obtaining historical data is proving to be difficult at best.
The problem is twofold. We established a two-year standard for accumulating historical training data. The accuracy of the curricula database content for the past two years is spotty. A two-year history of instructor histories does not exist. Second, instructor files contain little more than the certificates that trainers received upon the satisfactory completion of certification. No evaluations or listings are included that contain the instructional history of each instructor. We’ve not yet agreed upon an approach to clearing this hurdle to paragraph compliance but need to soon.
Paragraph 78 is largely a repeat of Paragraph 73 with the additional caveat that regular review of use of force training be conducted in conjunction with the Attorney General’s Office. As is the case in Paragraph 73, the VIPD has misinterpreted this to be in compliance based on the AG’s review of use of force policy. As is also the case with Paragraph 73, this is a very simple requirement that should have been in compliance for some time.
Paragraph 79 is composed of a comprehensive list of requirements for annual use of force training. The VIPD has satisfactorily complied with the mandates relating to use of force policy training. We recently concentrated on expanding use of force and use of force reporting training to include more practical and situational exercises. While scenario based and practical and simulator use of force training remains a work in progress, the VIPD has come a long way. The highest priority at this point surrounds de-escalation techniques. In an allied area, we have recommended that the VIPD expand Crisis Intervention Training. A small number of VIPD personnel attended a CIT class during 2015. There needs to be an expanded effort to make officers more aware of signs that they may be dealing with an emotionally disturbed person.
Paragraph 80, In-Service Training on policies regarding the Citizen Complaint process and protocols, is in substantial compliance.
39

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 40 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Paragraph 81 poses a unique set of problems. This paragraph calls for classroom and/or roll call training. The VIPD has trained supervisors on burdens of proof and complainant and witness credibility, to promote recommendations that are unbiased, uniform and legally appropriate. We still find errors in use of force and citizen complaint investigations that lead us to believe that the training has not been effective enough when we compare the VIPD investigations to those of other agencies we have served.
There has been and still is ongoing disagreement with the VIPD purporting that the Training Bureau’s responsibility ends with the delivery of training with no regard for actions that ultimately play out in the field. We have a very different view. We contend that it is necessary to evaluate the participant learning at the time of training, again at 60-90 days following training and to evaluate the effects of training by polling operations supervisors and managers.
Paragraph 81 calls for leadership and command accountability training for supervisors. There is a real need for all police agencies to train field supervisors to investigate use of force incidents and citizen complaints and to competently perform an assortment of core supervisory duties like performance appraisal and counseling and managing the troubled and/or problem employee. There is a companion need to send middle and senior managers to executive development and leadership training for system-wide management and the command staff role in administration of discipline and good order, among a broad range of additional competencies.
Very little attention has been given to either executive development or leadership training by the VIPD. Beyond a first line supervision class for newly promoted sergeants, there has been little field supervision training. One in-service training class was held for supervisors last year. It appears that no in-service training was offered to supervisors this year that focused on areas we have consistently indicated need improvement, including the investigation of uses of force and citizen complaints and the role of the supervisor in the early intervention system. Moreover, sergeants and lieutenants appear to attend the same in-service training as officers. The need for both in-service and roll call training designed specifically for supervisors is clear, with special attention to competencies that our reviews, audits and the T&M Report indicate are deficient.
40

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 41 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Executive development training is tougher to supply because it typically means sending command staff members to a specialized course, e.g., the FBI National Academy (FBINA), Southern Police Institute (SPI), or to a certificate program conducted by a local college or university. It appears only that a small percentage of VIPD members have attended the FBINA, not enough to create “critical mass.” Recently, selected members of the VIPD have been attending professional police conferences. There is no system in place, however, to package information so that it gets passed on to others who are unable to attend.
The IMT considers the outcomes of training including its effect on VIPD management and supervision to be central and critical elements of this Consent Decree. As such, compliance must be measured on the impact of training and education on the policies, practices and procedures of the organization. Counsel for the VIPD argues that training outcomes should be assessed in some other paragraph of the Consent Decree. We’re not sure that there is another paragraph that is more appropriate than this one. More important, the placement of the paragraph is of little significance compared to achieving compliance.
We strongly recommend that VIPD closely examine the parameters of Paragraph 81 and establish a detailed plan to implement a departmental training, education and career development program.
Going Forward While we are enjoying the best relationship we have had with a VIPD Training Bureau administration, we do not believe that the current staff can bring about substantial compliance for the unmet training paragraphs without additional help – resources and skills, particularly in view of the Court’s declared aspiration that Consent Decree compliance be accelerated. Whether help comes from in-house staff or a consulting resource, there is no mistaking the need for someone with requisite professional experience in a police training academy, to assist with day-to-day management and oversight of the Training Bureau.
41

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 42 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Mr. Tony Emanuel, VIPD’s Director of Office of Professional Standards, has the kind of necessary experience but we believe that his primary and collateral duties would not allow him to devote the time and energy it will take to significantly impact the effectiveness of VIPD training, coordinate training classes and instructors and manage the training records. The IMT is not aware of the presence of required skill sets and experience among other members of the VIPD. A limited term contractual professional (or team of professionals) seems to be a more predictably successful option at this time.
42

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 43 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
III. THE GOALS PLANNING SUMMIT
On November 12 and 13, 2015, DOJ, IMT and VIPD professionals collaborated to "…develop a comprehensive and predictably successful plan for complying with both outstanding goals and paragraphs." (Summit Memorandum, 11-12-15.) Responding to a 15 months absence of compliance achievement on 20 outstanding Consent Decree paragraphs (since August of 2014), the IMT set the following expectations for the Summit:
□ Objective One: Review the status of six (6) goals for the Third Quarter of 2015.
□ Objective Two: Review remaining court-ordered and Consent Decree non-completed goals (59) using the IMT developed Goals Monitoring System (GMS) software.
□ Objective Three: Review the draft 3Q2015 Report by/with the Parties.
□ Objective Four: Review paragraphs not specifically linked to listed Action Plans/GMS goals components.
□ Objective Five: Review policy/practice on goals setting, specifically what constitutes a goal and how incremental goals are to be used within goals.
An expected Work Product was defined for each objective. The most important - declared as such was for Objective Two:
WORK PRODUCT: Completed compliance plan for all goals that use the format of the GMS software and identified steps, step action officer, priority choices, and step suspense dates, as well as suspense dates for the goal itself that are reasonable and most important possible to comply with!
The Work Sessions
Hosted, led and facilitated by the VIPD Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, the Department of Justice, Consent Decree Monitor, and the IMT, the Summit included several plenary sessions, but mainly featured VIPD Work Group work sessions. Over eight of ten available work hours were scheduled for Work Group activity. Work Groups invested hours
43

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 44 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
beyond scheduled activity on Day 2, and several hours the next day. The VIPD has been refining step-plans since the Summit. The January 5 VIPD-IMT Monthly Call concentrated on a pre-arranged update on Step Plans.
Status & Accomplishments Work to date is documented in the VIPD’s Goals Monitoring System. Our overall judgment on the value of the work product (for Objective Two) is mixed. VIPD participants exhibited professionalism and diligence. For many, the Summit activities (and preparatory activities) represented a hands-on strategic planning experience that can and will have to be built upon as the action-step planning process continues. These cultural dimensions are offset by the condition of the work product – not yet good enough. During the February 2016 Summit, the IMT conducted a review of observed deficiencies in the proposed action steps in the VIPD GMS software for completion of goals. Examples of these included too many assignments for one person to handle, unrealistic suspense dates, an over-reliance on training as a solution, and at the base of most, a failure to really determine what the compliance problem was. After some group work, the IMT held a feedback session where the VIPD presented examples of their step plans and the group made suggestions for improvement. Some improvements were seen, but understanding and competency with the planning process needs improvement. We understand that this is the first time many if not most members in the VIPD have had exposure to developing a document to plan major organizational change. The IMT has suggested to the VIPD that they obtain some training on the planning process from external sources, such as the University of the Virgin Islands or other venues.
Next Steps
We are expecting the Professional Standards Unit staff to review and strengthen the action plans, paragraph-by-paragraph and through each subparagraph. The IMT and Professional Standards Unit Director and VIPD Compliance Coordinator have agreed upon this step. The "scrubbed" product will be passed on to the IMT and DOJ for reaction and approval. Iterations will occur. Time is of the essence for several reasons, the most important, operationally, the IMT and VIPD
44

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 45 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
have to employ the action plans to achieve the intent of the Compliance Priority & Monitoring Plan, as described in the next section.
45

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 46 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

IV. 2016 PRIORITIES
With conscious regard to the reinforcing objectives of (1) responding to the stated "aspiration" of the Court that the VIPD achieve additional CD compliance by August, 2016, (2) singling out the paragraphs and sub-paragraphs and goals most essential to satisfying that aspiration, and (3) maximizing return on resource investment of all parties, the IMT and the VIPD have established a Compliance Priority & Monitoring Plan for 2016 (January-June). The Plan was developed with VIPD representation at the table, and subsequently endorsed by VIPD executive staff, including the Commissioner. Declaring a focus on selected priorities does not signal intent to relax attention to paragraphs and goals not enumerated in the Plan, or inattention to maintenance of the status of paragraphs and goals in compliance. The IMT expects the VIPD to bring the following paragraphs into compliance and meet the following goals before or by June 2016:

□ 32b. □ 34b.
□ 34c.
□ 35b.
□ 36b. □ 44i.
□ 4Q5-1. □ 4Q5-2. □ 72a. □ CC17. □ 74c. □ 74e.

RRRs indicate each and every type of force used (95%).
Supervisor completes narrative description of RRR as required by Consent Decree Paragraph 34 (90%).
Supervisor completed evaluation according to VIPD Use of Force policy and justified or failed to justify officer conduct (90%).
All relevant evidence is documented, considered, and credibility determination is made (90%).
All witnesses are interviewed (90%).
All complaints are documented, resolved in writing, and investigations comport with provisions of Consent Decree (90%).
SOP for FRB.
SOP for FIT.
Discipline is imposed when called for by Matrix (90%).
Protocols to disseminate directives.
Process to select and evaluate trainers.
Process to develop, implement, and approve Roll Call training curricula.

46

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 47 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

□ 72b.

Evidence that VIPD has also considered non-disciplinary correction action (90%).

□ M&S16. Audit Unit protocols.

□ 4Q5-8. More effective adult learning.

□ 35c.

Resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements (90%).

□ 32f.

Reports will include audio/video statement, except lowest level (95).

Methodologically, the selection exercise was non-exclusionary. The IMT and VIPD participants were free to prioritize any currently unmet paragraph or goal, from a total of 78 options. It is notable that a consensus on the 17 priorities selected emerged very readily. There was a high level of consistency among the choices of PPE’s and others from the outset. Notable also is that the emphasis is overwhelmingly on Use of Force mandates. These focus areas are shown in Table 1, below.
Goals Plan
The success of the priorities focus is heavily dependent on immediate/and forward movement on the paragraph action plans being crafted. The inter-dependent, pre-requisite nature of the VIPD’s Action Plan and the Monitoring Priorities must remain omnipresent. Functionally, the action plan is/must be the "driver."

47

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 48 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

Table 1 IMT Monitoring Priorities

Paragraph, Sub-Paragraph, or
Goal 32b 34b 34c 35b 36b 44i 4Q5-1 4Q5-2 72a CC17 74c 74e 72b M&S 16 4Q5-8 35c 32f

Priority
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Focus Month
Apr 2016 May 2016 May 2016 Jun 2016 Mar 2016 Apr 2016 Feb 2016 Feb 2016 Mar 2016 May 2016 Mar 2016 Mar 2016 Apr 2016 Mar 2016 Feb 2016 Jun 2016 Jun 2016

48

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 49 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
V. RECOMMENDATIONS The IMT has included recommendations for the next quarter in each report since the First Quarter 2015. As this current report is the final one for this reporting year, it seems appropriate to review the VIPD response to previous recommendations before listing new ones for the next quarter, 1Q2016. Recommendations were somewhat general in the beginning, tending to become linked more specifically to established goals as the year unfolded. Our review indicates quite compellingly that much remains to be done with regard to implementing the recommendations to position the VIPD to move forward toward compliance. Paralleling our recommendations are recommendations produced during the year by the Audit and Inspections Unit (AIU). These have been published in each quarterly audit and in summary form in an AIU document, Unresolved Audit Recommendations (an internal VIPD document available from the VIPD AIU; undated – 2015). This was discussed in detail in the IMT Second Quarter 2015 report in Section IV, C., page 73. What is disturbing is that, like many of our recommendations, only a limited number from the AIU have been acted upon by the VIPD administration. They have squandered a significant opportunity to move the department forward both professionally as well as for Consent Decree compliance purposes. The following table depicts the IMT recommendations in sequential manner, with an assessment of implementation activity next to each recommendation. If a recommendation was made in the first quarter there are several evaluations of implementation.
49

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 50 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

Recommendations Summary Quarters 1-3 2015

1Q2015 1. Engage supervisors in an examination of their primary concerns.
2. Concentrate mutual attention on the primary dissatisfiers, the disciplinary process, including the Matrix, the Alert System, and citizen complaint "repeaters."

2Q2015 IMT Review 2Q2015 The first related to comments gleaned from IMT interviews of supervisors and managers and synthesized within the report. During the Fourth Quarter we continue to hear the same complaints on subjects ranging from training to inclusion in the management process. From this we must consider that the problems identified within our surveys conducted in Dec 2014 and January 2015 remain needing attention. IMT Review 2Q2015 The EIP Alert System continues to resent problems and from our interaction with the VIPD and review of its components and outputs, does not seem to be achieving its mission. To a great degree this appears to be the result of managers and supervisors failing to support the system’s objectives with cogent and well developed remedial plans that are then followed through on.

The Disciplinary system, and

3Q2015 IMT Review 3Q2015 We did not discover any change in this issue.

4Q2015 IMT Review 4Q2015 To our knowledge this issue remains unaddressed by VIPD management, with the exception of some early work on a revised promotional exam.

IMT Review 3Q2015 We have included in this quarter’s report a section that details the EIP situation and issues since the program was initiated. It appears there are lingering problems especially with remedial action plans.

IMT Review 4Q2015 As with previous quarters we have seen little action in this area from the department, with the possible exception of recent activity to review and improve the promotional process. We applaud the VIPD for this effort and believe it may ultimately help their staffing problems which have been, from their perspective, at the heart of their ability to improve compliance with both Use of Force and Citizen

50

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 51 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

specifically the associated punishment matrix, are not only central to complaints from personnel, but management seems to agree that it needs review and revision, However despite an initial effort which included some union participation, the effort seems to have stagnated and little or no action has been seen, with the exception of the very recent, but preliminary efforts, by the new Director of the Office of Professional Responsibility to move this issue forward. This issue has broad impact on how well the entire Consent Decree is perceived in terms of workload and the impact on officer’s performance. It deserves immediate attention,
The issue of “repeat citizen complaint” filers relates to the reality or perception that some number of those people filing citizen complaints do so repeatedly and in most cases, the cases end up unfounded. Whether true or a perception, it is an issue that needs at least some research and subsequent feedback to VIPD personnel on

Complaint processing. This is, however, tempered, with our other observations regarding the lack of adequate staffing data and position allocation information upon which to confirm this lack of supervisory personnel.

51

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 52 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

3. Get the answers to the "how many sergeants" question.
4.Continue to professionalize training practices.

the results to gain their buy in with the department’s efforts in handling citizen complaints. IMT Review 2Q2015 This is one that has perplexed the IMT since the beginning and addresses a critical question for not only the IMT, but also for VIPD managers, especially when asking for more sworn supervisory personnel. At the end of the Fourth Quarter we are no closer to having a firm picture of the VIPD staffing than when this recommendation was written. In order to understand, develop responses and better assist the VIPD in overcoming supervisory deficients that impact Consent Decree operations, as clear, up to date, and comprehensive staffing allocation charts and supporting system is necessary. IMT Review 2Q2015 As each issue arises, regardless of from what work group, more training seems to be the group answer to audit and IMT identified problems. 2Q2015 Recommendations 1. Address the Audit Unit’s selfreported portfolio of the Unresolved

IMT Review 3Q2015 No movement on this issue.

IMT Review 3Q2015

IMT Review 4Q2015

This, like all compliance matters, is The IMT continues to note that

52

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 53 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

Audit Recommendations.
2. Continue to position the Citizen Complaint, Management & Supervision and Training Work Groups to conduct Metrics-Centered Auditing.
3. Build on the Annual RRR Report prototype to produce comprehensive and outcome focused body of force patterns, trends and analytics.

a primary responsibility of, first, the Commissioner and second, the Deputy Commissioner and is a repeat recommendation from previous Quarterly Reports. The IMT would like a report that summarizes movement with regard to the Unresolved Audit Recommendations set forth in the VIPD’s (undated) document.
IMT Review 3Q2015 We noted that impressive and significant progress was being made to transform what was data thin audit and analysis into a more robust, data driven assessment of the Citizen Complaint reporting and investigative process. IMT Review 3Q2015 We reported that The IMT is not aware of any progress/action on this recommendations, however there were some indications that the

too little follow-up or action has been taken by management to address the ever-growing list of audit recommendations by the Audit Unit. The IMT has always stressed and continues to do, that the Audit Unit is a critical and significant support operation to management and specifically to compliance with the Consent Decree. Yet as indicated in our Third Quarter report, we have yet to see management begin to capitalize and exploit these recommendations. We cannot stress strongly enough that these recommendations have merit and deserve attention all the way up the management ladder. IMT Review 4Q2015 We have seen no significant improvements in this area.
IMT Review 4Q2015 VIPD commanders simply do not produce formal documented force patterns. Zero progress here, as far as

53

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 54 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

4. The VIPD must reengineer its training practices to ensure that courses of instruction comply with best learning practices and adult/student-centered learning principles.

Audit Unit is working on developing the ability to assess this information. IMT Review 3Q2015 Until base changes are made in the design, delivery and evaluation of training, the progress of the Consent Decree compliance will certainly remain stagnant. The VIPD exhibits greater awareness of the values of recommended actions but the "base changes" are not nearly in reach.

we know.
IMT Review 4Q2015 We continue to note deficiencies in developing well designed adult learning based instructional materials. During the quarter the IMT noted that the UVI was being contacted to provide some assistance here. The proof will be the redesigned lesson plans, which currently lack usable performance objectives or adult learning techniques of delivery and practical work. They appear to be primarily lecture oriented and comments from supervisors and managers in the surveys discussed in 1Q2015, identified this absence of adult learning opportunities as a problem. The Training Division established a 4Q2014 goal of identifying where in these lesson plans such insert could be made, but the IMT has not seen any work products from that goal or an indication of compliance.

54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 55 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

5. Review and restructure as needed the recruit curriculum to ensure that Consent Decree values, objectives, and policies and practices are consistently imparted.

IMT Review 3Q2015 The IMT has no evidence of progress/action.

6. Strengthen the level of oversight, guidance, and collaboration between command staff and the Training Bureau staff to ensure that goals and objectives are understood and shared.

IMT Review 3Q2015 The IMT has no evidence of progress/action.

7. Revisit, all parties and the Court, the calendar proposed earlier which presented a process for collaborating on goal setting and quality real-time quarterly reporting overall.

IMT Review 3Q2015 The IMT conducted a Summit in November 2015 and participated, with DOJ, in some goal setting and compliance planning exercises with the VIPD. The results of this exercise were deemed successful and it was agreed that the IMT would host similar Summits at the end of each quarter to review the quarter’s accomplishment and failures and set compliance goals for the next quarter. 3Q2015 Recommendations
1. Acquire immediate strategic planning capacity to facilitate completion of the court required plans for both the goals and paragraph compliance.

IMT Review 4Q2015 Based on the success of the November Summit, the 4Q2015 Summit was held Feb 11-12, 2016 and was organized to review goal and paragraph compliance, determine goals for the next quarter, and provide an opportunity for the parties to discuss the draft Fourth Quarter report.
IMT Review 4Q2015 The IMT supplied the GMS software and provided training in its use to enable the VIPD to create detailed step oriented planning for goal and paragraph compliance. While the VIPD is becoming

55

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 56 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

2. Prioritize use-of-force trends and outcome measurements data collection. Appoint a Territorial Force Coordinator.

acclimated to this software the strategic or operational planning process that the software supports, initial work products have much to improve upon. The plans produced so far do not indicate an understanding of step planning and the plans need some review and updating to better describe the process toward compliance. Management needs to take an increased oversight role and become active partners with the workers with in the work groups that are attempting to use the software to manage their compliance And management needs to become comfortable using the software as a management tool and not look at it as a paper producer to somehow satisfy the IMT. IMT Review 4Q2015 Progress has been slow in this area and as of the end of the quarter the VIPD has failed to officially appoint a Territorial Force Coordinator although the IMT has been informed that one has unofficially been assigned. The IMT has not received any official

56

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 57 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

3. Prioritize correction to the EIP shortfalls itemized above and in numerous preceding Quarterly reports.

documentation to this effect. Additionally, problems still remain in terms of management focus and control of use of force reporting; accountability still remains central to the problem.
IMT Review 4Q2015 IMT monitoring and work with the Management and Supervision work group indicates that issue still remain with follow-up on remedial action plans as well the development of same. Numerous instances have surfaced that seem to indicate many of the required remedial plans just don’t exist. This certainly still requires management attention and focus.

4. Accelerate FIT/FRB development.
-Develop Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Force Investigation Team (FIT).
-Develop Standard Operation Procedure (SOP) Force Review Board (FRB).

IMT Review 4Q2015 The IMT will be working with the VIPD during the week of Feb 7 to develop and get approved SOPs for both the FRB and FIT units, As part of that effort , the IMT will assist the FRB on both islands to conduct their first two case reviews in response to 4Q5-1 through 4Q5-3 goals.

57

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 58 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

-Chiefs of Police will hold at least two (2) Use of Force Review Boards for the quarter.
-Develop Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)/Commissioner Directive to identify and provide for an on-call supervisor(s) to respond to Use of Force incidents when no other supervisor is available.
5. Ensure the Action Plan is completed in a timely and quality manner.

The SOPs, in draft format, were completed during the Summit week and are currently out for comment to the Parties. No cases were reviewed but briefings were provided to members of the FIT and FRB on both islands by IMT staff. The IMT has reviewed and commented on the recent Commissioner’s Directive regarding On-Call Supervisors and has raised some issues regarding standardized formats for the associated schedules. IMT Review 4Q2015 In our Third Quarter report, we reported on the Goals Management System software that was supplied by the IMT to the VIPD to assist with their planning process for producing an action plan for compliance with both the goals and paragraphs. Early in the Fourth Quarter IMT staff spent several days training the VIPD personnel on how to use the software and begin imputing specific step oriented plans for each goal and sub-paragraph associated with the Consent Decree. Recently, several

58

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 59 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
shortcomings in those plans have been noticed, including a lack of thoughtful steps, proper sequencing of steps, and lack of understanding on how to use the software to actually manage the compliance process. The IMT has offered further assistance and works daily with the OPS personnel to further effective use of the software. During the January Monthly Meeting, the missed suspense date focused report generated by the system was used as the agenda for the meeting and clearly confirmed some of the above noted deficiencies.
59

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 60 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Recommendations for First Quarter 2016 The IMT submits the following recommendations for priority attention by the VIPD during the First Quarter of 2016:
1. The VIPD command and management should review, prioritize, and begin immediate implementation of the AIU recommendations. (An internal VIPD document available from the VIPD AIU; undated – 2015). Discussed in Second Quarter 2015 report, page 73.
2. The VIPD should seek assistance to conducting the step planning process and hire/contract for an expert to assist the Working Groups and chairs to improve their initial compliance plans in the GMS software and transform those plans into operational action by the department. We emphasize the need for understanding by management that these plans are action tools not just documents that managers must use daily to monitor the progress of compliance.
3. Address the continuing training deficiencies noted with the addition of professional contract staff to restructure, rejuvenate, and refocus the Training Division from a training scheduling operation to one that is fully integrated, supportive, and responsive to the adult learning needs of the agency members. The IMT fully believes that much of the problem with the Use of Force and Citizen Complaint investigative processing can be traced to the manner in which the previous training was conducted. Learning did not take place because of the lack of adult focused training initiatives.
4. Ensure that leadership renews and demonstrates more intensely its commitment to satisfy Consent Decree requirements. This can be done by visits by the Commissioner and senior staff to roll calls where the Consent Decree-related material is discussed – as a strategy to enhance police professionalism. Until the work force is convinced of the commitment to compliance with the Consent Decree it will languish.
60

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 196 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 61 of 61
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
APPENDICES See Separate Appendix Package
61

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 1 of 184
FIRST QUARTERLY REPORT OF 2016 FROM THE
INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT
CHARLES A. GRUBER CONSULTING INC. INDEPENDENT MONITOR
www.imt-policemonitor.org May 20, 2016

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 2 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 3 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
INDEPENDENT MONITORING TEAM
Independent Monitor Chief Charles A. Gruber
Elgin, Illinois Police Department (retired)
Police Practices Experts Superintendent Ann Marie Doherty
Boston, Massachusetts Police Department (retired) Chief Chet Epperson
Rockford, Illinois Police Department (retired) Chief Robert L. Stewart
Ormond Beach, Florida Police Department (retired)
CAG Staff & Consultants Jerome A. Needle, Project Manager
Director of Programs & Research, International Association of Chiefs of Police (retired) Palmer D. Wilson, Technical Manager Lieutenant, Commander, Office of Audits & Inspections, Montgomery County, Maryland Department of Police (retired) Leon A. Casey, Sr., Field Coordinator Resident Agent in Charge, U.S. Customs Service (retired)
CHARLES A. GRUBER CONSULTING INC. INDEPENDENT MONITOR www.imt-policemonitor.org
3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 4 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 5 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………………….……7 I. COMPLIANCE STATUS ………………..……………… …...………………………..16 II. COMPLIANCE STATUS – PRIORITIES 2016 …………...…………………….….....26 III. USE OF FORCE PARAGRAPH COMPLIANCE: SEVEN QUARTERS…………......31 IV GOALS ACTION PLANS UPDATE …………………………………………………..43 V. MANAGING FORCE: THE FIT & FRB TRAINING INITIATIVE…………...,.….....46 VI. USE OF FORCE CASE ANALYSIS..………………………………...………………...58 VII. FORCE REPORTING: A SPECIAL STUDY..………………………………………....64 VIII. CITIZEN COMPLAINTS & MANAGEMENT & SUPERVISION ……………….…..72 IX. TRAINING ………………………………………………………………………….......76 X. ENGAGING THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT……………………………….... 79
APPENDICES (See Separate Package) APPENDIX A – PARAGRAPHS AND SUB-PARAGRAPHS NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE REPORT APPENDIX B – COURT ORDERED GOALS NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE STATUS REPORT APPENDIX C – PARAGRAPH 100 SUB-PARAGRAPH LINKAGE TO ORIGINAL PARAGRAPHS APPENDIX D – SUB-PARAGRAPHS NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH NO GOALS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM APPENDIX E – GOALS MEETING COMPLIANCE DURING QUARTER
5

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 6 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 7 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mindful of the District Court’s expressed desire that the Consent Decree be positioned for a final, sustained assessment stage by August, 2016, IMT monitoring and technical assistance was especially aggressive during the First Quarter of 2016. Augmenting our standard quarterly program of VIPD paragraph, sub-paragraph and court-ordered goal compliance activity – site visits, monthly, weekly and at times daily calls with command and work group members, as well as our scheduled weekly telephone conferences with the Compliance Coordinator and the Audit & Inspections Unit Commander, IMT concentrations included:
□ The IMT-VIPD-DOJ February Goals Compliance Action Plans Development Summit.
□ Development of Force Investigation Team (FIT) and Force Review Board (FRB) standard operating procedures (SOPs).
□ Design and delivery of SOP training to members of the FIT and FRB, two courses.
□ Continuous evaluation of VIPD-crafted Goals Action Plans.
□ Evaluation of VIPD policies, new and revised.
□ Update of our previous Five-Quarters use of force compliance measurements, now Seven-Quarters measurement.
We prioritized engagement with the Office of Professional Standards on Disciplinary Matrix revisions/development; the Training Advisory Committee to further develop the evaluations requirement of the Consent Decree; the Citizen Complaint Work Group to address the citizen complaint case backlog; and reviewed several shooting incidents and a misconduct case filing.
The IMT initiated three special studies to enable and position us to sharpen and solidify our quantitative and qualitative grasp of considerations of central consequence to VIPD Consent Decree progress, compliance and VIPD operational practices, completing two of three.
□ Use of Force Case Analysis. Twenty-two (22) Use of Force cases were examined, with specific focus on whether (a) supervisors or designated investigative officers/units conducted timely reviews, (b) if not, were appropriate non-disciplinary corrective and/pr disciplinary actions taken, and (c) if discipline was used, did it comport with
7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 8 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
Matrix requirements. This endeavor also enabled us to compare, broadly, consistency of IMT findings with those of Compliance Audits, for a subset of cases. (Auditing the Audit.)
□ Force Reporting Audit. Using an arrest report-based methodology, the IMT determined the compliance rate for submission of RRRs, a basic Consent Decree mandate. As we move to production of outcome measurements, which starts with a baseline force level profile, having a valid force and reporting rate is an absolute. This study also offered the corollary benefit of comparison to/validation of similar findings of VIPD compliance audits. (Auditing the Audit.)
□ Misconduct Accountability. The Case Analysis and Force Reporting studies were completed during the Quarter. The third special study is still in an early design state. We are going to review everything about misconduct findings, the discipline process, validity of findings, compliance to matrix, appeals, final outcomes and enforcement of penalties. It will also determine if accountability actually occurs, whether VIPD misses dates of compliance per contract, lowers penalties to effectively eliminate accountability, or mitigates a penalty that would allow the inference that no actual remedial impact has occurred or resolved the behavior that lead to the misconduct. The sampling timeframe and projected completion of the study are not yet firm.
Of special value was a productive interchange of views and confirmation of shared Consent Decree objectives with Territorial political leadership. At that meeting the Territory made special note of the appointment of a Senior Policy Advisor for Justice & Law Enforcement on the Governor’s staff and the Territory’s eagerness that the IMT and DOJ work closely with the Advisor, Eugene Farrell, on Consent Decree matters. We are very eager to do so.
Compliance Status
Despite the aggressive First Quarter 2016 program of work and the development of what were labeled "potential momentum changers" during the previous quarter (Fourth, 2015), namely summit-driven Goal Action Planning and Priorities 2016, a collaborative VIPD-IMT exercise that produced a prioritization of reachable goals for compliance during the now-ended First Quarter of 2016, and the second, the First Quarter of 2016 ended fundamentally where it began. Twenty (20) Consent Decree paragraphs remain short of compliance, while 31 paragraphs remain in substantial compliance. The sub-paragraph profile remains essentially the same as last quarter, 73 sub-paragraphs are not in compliance. Of the 73, 22 are associated with Paragraph 100, which is has an implementation focus and one is associated with Paragraph 101. That leaves 50 that are found within the 20 remaining non-compliant paragraphs. The IMT is able to report
8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 9 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
incremental progress and VIPD accomplishment with regard to court-ordered goals. Five (5) court-ordered goals from previous quarters were brought to compliance during the First Quarter of 2016, however 61 remain unmet. Moreover, 32 goal-compliance dates due within this quarter were missed, a staggering number. Using paragraph compliance as the primary measurement, the VIPD is now one quarter short of two calendar years without bringing a paragraph into substantial compliance. This chronic failure, coupled with the observations that follow, have to be interpreted to suggest that the Court’s desire for compliance achievements by August are simply unrealistic and at this time beyond the capacity of the VIPD. There are not enough personnel with the time and skill sets to bring about the reforms ordered by the Court. Capacity is steadily growing and more personnel are being engaged in the process but only incrementally.
The current command staff of VIPD is the most cooperative and engaged that we have worked with during the life of this Consent Decree. IMT is pleased and encouraged by the establishment of the Audit Unit, the Professional Responsibility Unit and the addition of a new, energized Consent Decree Compliance Coordinator. We believed that these steps would accelerate the pace of compliance and improve the overall command accountability and responsibility among management personnel throughout the entire agency.
While several incremental steps have occurred during this current quarter which move the VIPD in the direction of increased paragraph compliance, we have not seen the anticipated improvements in supervisory and management responsibility that we expected to find at this point in attainment of Substantial Compliance.
Compliance Prospects – Near Term The 2015 Fourth Quarterly Report could not have been more direct regarding the pivotal strategic and technical importance of the Goals Action Plans requested by the Court. At several points in that report the IMT emphasized the predictable consequences of failure to fashion a "comprehensive and predictably successful plan for complying with outstanding goals and
9

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 10 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
paragraphs." The Executive Summary stated that "…the Priorities cannot/are not likely to be met if the Action Plan initiative fails."
Six months have expired since work began on an Action Plan at the November, 2015 Goals Planning Summit. VIPD work on goals action plans has continued, at a pace and with resource investments that are somewhat unclear, frequent IMT reminders to VIPD compliance staff notwithstanding. The Fourth Quarterly Report, 2015, documented the IMT’s assessment of the adequacy of the plans, as of February, 2016, to propel compliance. It declared the work product "not yet good enough." Now, three months later, the IMT is forced to repeat the earlier assessment – still not good enough. Prospects for the VIPD to be positioned to satisfy the Court’s August "aspirational" date are dim. There are, after all, only three months until that date. More compelling with regard to any dramatic compliance movement in the next three months or so, the IMT is increasingly convinced that the VIPD has exhausted its technical capability to bring plans to operational readiness/implementation-worthy condition. A decisive intervention needs to be taken to fill this capacity gap. Absent a bold stroke, the forthcoming quarter, Quarter 2, 2016 is most likely to mirror Quarter 1, 2016 in many respects with regard to Consent Decree compliance. This view notwithstanding, we devoted much of the May Summit to strengthening goals action plans as we continue to strive with the VIPD to meet the Court’s desired date. We received updated action plans (as this document was going to press) for eight (8) paragraphs or sub-paragraphs selected by the Work Groups at the May Summit, but have not had time to conduct a review of same. We will report on these during 2Q2016.
To be clear, our observation that the VIPD seems to have exhausted its technical ability to produce compliance priority action plans should not in any way be interpreted to discredit the performance of VIPD compliance professionals, including Work Group members. The reality is that unlike so many law enforcement agencies, the VIPD has ignored the need to staff itself or otherwise acquire the services of educated, trained, and experienced management analysts, research and evaluation specialists, data management specialists, and other classes of professionals best suited for constructing goals actions plans. While the IMT has tried via technical assistance in the form of training, facilitation, and software to shortstop these deficiencies, the VIPD should add these assets immediately. For the past three quarters the IMT has recommended that the Training Bureau create a relationship with a local college to assist in
10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 11 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
developing lesion plans, especially for use of force curricula, at all levels, recruit to in-service, as well development of training evaluation capacity. Some movement has occurred including a contract with the University of the Virgin Islands for instructor development, but little in the arena of training evaluation.
The capacity condition and the remedies offered notwithstanding, the VIPD has not completed the action plan previously ordered by the Court. The VIPD still must develop plans that are based on identification of root causes of the non-compliance, best solutions selected and with the individuals currently assigned – and hold them accountable – not merely for overall responsibility but for specific required actions.
Compliance Prospects – A Longer View
Last year the IMT analyzed Five-Quarters of VIPD Compliance Audit measurements of Use of Force paragraphs, our first longitudinal retrospective of this nature. The Audits covered Paragraphs 32 through 36, and the associated sub-paragraphs. Results of that analysis were used primarily internally for IMT evaluation purposes. We have now updated this previous work with two more quarters of VIPD Compliance Audit Findings, the last two of 2015. The results of the Seven Quarters Analysis are published in this document. We find that for the 11 Use of Force Paragraphs in the Settlement Agreement (and the 22 sub-paragraphs); the overall pattern of compliance performance has not changed significantly since the first analysis. Generally, what the VIPD was complying with well in earlier reviews, they have sustained. What they were not doing well – getting it right operationally, they still are not.
Of 22 Use of Force sub-paragraphs – the building block components of paragraphs, that the VIPD has historically measured, fourteen (14) do not/could not meet a 95% compliance threshold. Eight (8) sub-paragraphs can/do meet the threshold. Four (4) of the fourteen (14) that do not are "reachable."
Considering the foregoing and additional findings of our examination, it is more accurate than not, to state with regard to the compliance failures (some with historical compliance rates as low as 20-40%) the interventions which the VIPD has introduced, including hours and hours of training, some application of discipline, and the continuing call for command accountability,
11

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 12 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
simply are not producing required compliance outcomes. The interventions that are being administered, individually or in combination, which should be bringing about better results, need to be reanalyzed, rethought, and re-administered to be more effective. We know, for example, training does not meet best practice standards in many instances. We know that many very sensible recommendations from VIPD Compliance Audits have not been implemented. (Unmet Audit Recommendations. [See IMT 2d/3rd/4th Quarter 2015 Reports]) Belief that failure to hold personnel sufficiently accountable for performance failure is widespread among VIPD professionals and the IMT. The Misconduct Study to be completed will illuminate the situation with data. Above all, the VIPD functions without a suitable level of contemporary research, program planning, and organizational transformation resources assets. New, additional interventions may be called for as well.
The implication of the inability of the VIPD to move the Use of Force mandates examined toward threshold requirements for at least the past two years are clear. Most cogent in the context of this report is the likelihood that compliance with unmet Use of Force Consent Decree paragraphs is not likely by August 2016.
Force Management Capacity
In contrast to areas of under achievement during the First Quarter, positive and important progress occurred with regard to positioning the VIPD to manage force more effectively. The VIPD, IMT, and DOJ worked intensely to produce Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for the Force Investigation Team (FIT) and the Force Review Board (FRB). The successful SOP initiative enabled the VIPD to comply with Goals 4Q5-1 and 4Q5-2, which required the VIPD to develop the two SOPs.
In early April, the IMT trained members of the VIPD who have been selected by the VIPD to compose Force Investigation & Force Review Board membership, along with a cadre of command officers. Designed in parallel with SOP development work, the training concentrated on a broad range of force-related KSAs (knowledge, skills and abilities). Formal evaluation and verbal feedback indicated that the VIPD training was well received. The performance and impact of the FIT and FRB operations will be monitored by the IMT, going forward. This is where the real evaluation of the training will be made. Additional reviews of cases by the FIT
12

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 13 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
and FRB was conducted at the Summit. The DOJ had staff present to observe the VIPD progress.
These training experiences can and hopefully will benefit the VIPD, beyond the intrinsic and direct value for force consideration. In design and delivery they embody the best in adult learning and training practices and the IMT will donate the complete instructional packages for both future training of the FIT/FRB members as well models of training development. The VIPD now possesses two best practice models to guide its own training activities going forward, Consent Decree-related and beyond.
We are pleased to note that the VIPD is finalizing a Video-Recording Policy. Borrowing heavily from the IACP’s Recording Police Activity Model Policy (revised December 2015), therefore based on the latest industry standard, issuing this policy is a noteworthy step in progression to legal (constitutional), transparent, and procedurally just policing. The video policy focuses on recording by members of the public. More work remains to be done on the police, VIPD side of the equations.
The IMT has made recommendations for many months asking for the VIPD to implement invehicle and body camera policies. The VIPD has the equipment, already purchased and on site, to enhance the capability of its staff in both oversight and review. It lacks only digital storage capacity and policy to implement use of these tools.
Work Group Activity & Accomplishments
The IMT thought it useful to ask the VIPD for a brief statement of most pertinent quarterly activity and accomplishments, in essence their view of highlights.
The Use of Force Work Group reported: participation in the February, 2016 Summit; five (5) meetings focused on strategies to achieve paragraph, subparagraph compliance; two (2) meetings with commanders and sergeants on each Island on Roll Call Training for Citizen Complaint Investigations; attendance at FIT/FRB Training; an audit to determine whether supervisors are traveling to Use of Force incidents; the newly inaugurated Use of Force Review Board procedure. Of significance, the Group increased their number of members, from three to five.
13

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 14 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
The Managements & Supervision/Citizen Complaint Work Group highlighted: design of an Investigative Case Management Log; directive for the Case Management Log issued; development of a Non-Training Issue Support Form; and training at commander’s call, both districts. The Group noted reassignment of Lieutenant Jones to the Audit & Inspections Unit.
The Training Work Group reports: designation for evaluation of Use of Force Policy & Training letter from AG; assembly and evaluation of the In-Service Training Survey; revision of Instructor Selection Process Directive; revision of Roll Call Policy and preparation of Roll Call Training schedules; created in-service training evaluation forms for course and instructor evaluations; completed Power DMS training on records upload (officers and instructor files); established system to capture instructor and curriculum time accounting during recruit and inservice.
On May 16, 2016, the IMT received a draft of VIPD’s Status Report for Quarter Ending May 6, 2016. This document adds detail to the foregoing activity and accomplishments summary, marginal in nature.
A Territorial View
At the All-Parties conference in February, Territorial leadership expressed their positions on a range of consequential Consent Decree matters, collectively positive. Of greatest interest:
□ The August "deadline" will remain a focus and a target that the Territory wants to meet. □ Selection, plans for, and implementation of T&M Report recommendations will be
reconciled with intents and requirements of the Consent Decree. □ A Senior Policy Advisor for Justice & Law Enforcement has been appointed to the
Governor’s staff. The Territory is anxious for the IMT and DOJ to work with the Advisor. The IMT is particularly eager to exploit this opportunity to, among other possibilities, ramp-up Territorial engagement and integration in Consent Decree compliance work.
14

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 15 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
Finally, of general Consent Decree cultural interest, Territorial leaders noted that with the presence of numerous crime and justice problems throughout the Territory, forward Consent Decree compliance progress may be slower than the USDOJ would like, but efforts are being made. Next Quarter An All-Parties Summit was held May 9 through 13, 2016. It concentrated on Goals Actions Planning work and VIPD capacity-building, primarily strategic planning. We also worked with the Audit & Inspections Unit to future develop their upcoming audits, outline with the Force Working Group our proposed plan to study OIS (Officer Involved Shootings) and review the instructor and training files with the VIPD Training Staff. In the upcoming weeks we will assist in the completion of the Disciplinary Matrix. The IMT will conduct the Misconduct Special Study we have already initiated, a review of previous incidents of OIS, and further support of force evaluations by the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs in both districts.
15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 16 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
I. COMPLIANCE STATUS:
The following 8 charts document Paragraph Status at the end of the First Quarter of 2016. Compared to Quarter One, Two, Three and Four of 2015, and Quarters Three and Four, 2014, there has been no change at all with regard to Overall Status (Chart 1), and therefore with regard to Overall Compliance by Paragraph Groups (Charts 4-8). Trending is depicted in Charts 2-3.
A. Overall Status The VIPD has achieved Substantial Compliance for 31 paragraphs. Twenty paragraphs (20) are not yet in Substantial Compliance. These paragraphs are detailed in Appendix A to this report.
Compliance/Non-Compliance patterns vary among Consent Decree paragraph groupings. Charts 4-8 show that three groupings have a majority of paragraphs in Substantial Compliance: Citizen Complaints, 15 of 17, Management & Supervision, 7 of 12, Training, 5 of 9, two of these reflect a bare majority. The Use of Force group remains at only 4 of 11 paragraphs in Substantial Compliance. The Use of Force grouping has the majority of steps and checkpoints for compliance within the reporting and investigation processes and thus a significant number of problem areas which continue to exist, thwarting compliance, even at the sub-paragraph level.
B. Compliance at the end of Quarter One, 2016: 1. Consent Decree Paragraphs That Came Into Compliance during the 1st Quarter 2016 No Consent Decree Paragraphs came into compliance during the 1st Quarter2016. One subparagraph (69-A) came into compliance.
2. Paragraphs in Substantial Compliance at the end of the 1st Quarter, 2016 are: 31, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 , 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 70, 75, 76, 78, 79 and 80.
(NOTE: Bolded/underlined paragraphs have training evaluated under paragraph 75 and implementation under paragraph 100)
16

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 17 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance: 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 44, 58, 59, 60, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 81, 100, 101. (NOTE: Bolded/underlined paragraphs have a sub-paragraph evaluated as to implementation under paragraph 100) Paragraphs Having Not Applicable (NA) Status 67, 68 NOTE: (These paragraphs as considered NA as they deal with adopting and using IAPro as a risk management system, as well as approval for subsequent modifications; none have been requested and no further compliance is required unless a modification is requested): The IMT issued a memorandum on November 13, 2014 that displays the linkage between paragraph 100 sub-paragraph compliance requirements or items (a-w) and their original location in another paragraph of the Consent Decree. This is included as Appendix C to this report. The following charts display this status information.
17

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 18 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
CHART 1

Paragraphss

Overall Compliance 1Q2016

35

31

30

25

20

20

15

10

5

2

0

Substantial

Not in

NA

Compliance Substantial

Compliance

Substantial Compliance Not in Substantial Compliance NA

Paragraphs

CHART 2
Substantial Compliance Trend 1Q2013‐1Q2016 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1Q20 2Q20 3Q20 4Q20 1Q20 2Q20 3Q20 4Q20 1Q20 2Q20 3Q20 4Q20 1Q20 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 16 Series1 0 5 11 12 16 19 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 Series2 52 46 40 39 35 32 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Series3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

18

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 19 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
CHART 3

Paragraphs

60

Substantial Compliance Trend 1Q2013‐1Q2016

50

40

30

20

10

0 1Q201 2Q201 3Q201 4Q201 1Q201 2Q201 3Q201 4Q201 1Q201 2Q201 3Q201 4Q201 1Q201 3333444455556
Series1 0 5 11 12 16 19 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 Series2 52 46 40 39 35 32 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Series3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

CHART 4

Paragraphs

Overall Compliance for Group 1 Use of Force 1Q2016

8

7

6

4

4

2

0

0

Substantial Not in

NA

Compliance Subtantial

Compliance

Substantial Compliance
Not in Subtantial Compliance NA

19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 20 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
CHART 5

Paragraphs

Overall Compliance for Group 2 Citizen Complaints 1Q2016

15 15

10

5

2 0

0

Substantial Not in

NA

Compliance Subtantial

Compliance

Substantial Compliance
Not in Subtantial Compliance NA

CHART 6

Overall Compliance for Group 3Management & Supervision
1Q2016

8

7

6

5

4

2

2

0

Substantial Not in

NA

Compliance Subtantial

Compliance

Substantial Compliance
Not in Subtantial Compliance NA

Paragraphs

CHART 7
20

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 21 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department

Paragraphss

Overall Compliance for Group 4 Training 1Q2016

5

5

4

4

3

2

1

0

0

Substantial Not in

NA

Compliance Subtantial

Compliance

Substantial Compliance
Not in Subtantial Compliance NA

CHART 8

Overall Compliance for Group 5 Implementation 1Q2016

2 2

1.5

1

0.5

0

0

0

Substantial Not in

NA

Compliance Substantial

Compliance

Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance NA

Paragraphss

C. Court Ordered Goals for the 1st Quarter 2016
The VIPD submitted the following eight (8) goals for compliance during the 1st Quarter 2016 and all were approved by the Court. Their status as of the end of the 1st Quarter 2016 is as follows:
21

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 22 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
1Q6-1 Goal Statement: Comply entirely with Paragraph 32 IMT Evaluation The VIPD did not produce an Action Plan to address this or other 1Q2016 goals as required by the Court. The efforts of the VIPD to address deficiencies with non-compliant sub-paragraphs are detailed in the Use of Force compliance sections and Appendices to this report.. Their efforts have not resulted in compliance with the goal. Not Completed
1Q6-2 Goal Statement: Comply entirely with Paragraph 33 IMT Evaluation The VIPD did not produce an Action Plan to address this or other 1Q2016 goals as required by the Court. The efforts of the VIPD to address deficiencies with non-compliant sub-paragraphs are detailed in the Use of Force compliance sections and Appendices to this report... Their efforts have not resulted in compliance with the goal. Not Completed
1Q6-3 Goal Statement: Comply entirely with Paragraph 44 IMT Evaluation The VIPD did not produce an Action Plan to address this or other 1Q2016 goals as required by the Court. The efforts of the VIPD to address deficiencies with non-compliant sub-paragraphs are detailed elsewhere in this report. Their efforts have not resulted in compliance with the goal. See Section VIII, in this report, for additional information. Not Completed
1Q6-4 Goal Statement: Comply entirely with Paragraph 69 IMT Evaluation
22

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 23 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
VIPD gained compliance with sub-paragraph 69-a with the full time assignment of two senior members of the VIPD to the Audit and Inspections Unit. They did not gain compliance with subparagraph 69-b, the audit schedule. In addition, the VIPD did not produce an Action Plan to address this or other 1Q2016 goals as required by the Court. The efforts of the VIPD to address deficiencies with non-compliant sub-paragraphs are detailed elsewhere in this report. Their efforts have not resulted in compliance with the goal. Not Completed
1Q6-5 Goal Statement: Comply entirely with Paragraph 58 IMT Evaluation The VIPD did not produce an Action Plan to address this or other 1Q2016 goals as required by the Court. The efforts of the VIPD to address deficiencies with non-compliant sub-paragraphs are detailed elsewhere in this report. Their efforts have not resulted in compliance with the goal. Not Completed
1Q6-6 Goal Statement: Comply entirely with Paragraph 70 IMT Evaluation The VIPD did not produce an Action Plan to address this or other 1Q2016 goals as required by the Court. This paragraph deals with the Disciplinary Matrix and has been in Substantial Compliance since 12/18/13. The parties have indicated a need to review the current relevancy of the matrix components to current trends and experience by other agencies and to update it as necessary. The VIPD did not complete its review process, thus the goal was not met. The IMT has chosen to continue the original Substantial Compliance of the paragraph pending both the VIPD review and an IMT special study on the implementation of discipline compared to case adjudication. The efforts of the VIPD to address deficiencies with non-compliant sub-paragraphs are detailed elsewhere in this report. Their efforts have not resulted in compliance with the goal. Not Completed
1Q6-7
23

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 24 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
Goal Statement: Comply entirely with Paragraph 73 IMT Evaluation The VIPD did not produce an Action Plan to address this or other 1Q2016 goals as required by the Court. The efforts of the VIPD to address deficiencies with non-compliant sub-paragraphs are detailed elsewhere in this report. Their efforts have not resulted in compliance with the goal. Not Completed
1Q6-8 Goal Statement: Comply entirely with Paragraph 77 IMT Evaluation The VIPD did not produce an Action Plan to address this or other 1Q2016 goals as required by the Court. The efforts of the VIPD to address deficiencies with non-compliant sub-paragraphs are detailed elsewhere in this report. Their efforts have not resulted in compliance with the goal. Not Completed
NOTE: Appendix A, to this report, provides additional details on the paragraphs referenced above.
D. Other Court Ordered Goals Completed During the First Quarter 2016.
A total of five (5) goals were completed during the quarter, including 4Q5-1, 4Q5-2, 4Q5-5, 4Q5-9 and 69-a. The analysis of those goals, along with other goals can be found at Appendix E to this report as well as elsewhere in this report.
D. Current Status of All Other Court Approved Goals
All remaining Court Order Goals, not noted above, remain non-compliant. To view a detailed listing of these goals, the reader is directed to Appendix B to this report, which includes a total of 61 goals non-compliant.
E. Sub-Paragraphs Not Associated With a Goal
24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 25 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
There are a total of twelve (12) sub-paragraphs monitored by the IMT that are not associated with a specific Court Ordered Goal. These are listed in Appendix D to this report. During the First Quarter of 2016 there was no work done by the VIPD to prepare compliance plans within their GMS software, nor any work done and reported to the IMT, toward compliance with these sub-paragraphs. The IMT has, on several occasions, reminded the VIPD of the need to complete these work plans and to begin work in response to same towards compliance. The IMT will continue to place emphasis on these sub-paragraphs during 2Q2016. F. Current Status of Consent Decree Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance Detailed listing of Consent Decree paragraphs Not in Substantial Compliance, along with their sub-paragraphs, can be found in Appendix A to this report. There are a total of 73 subparagraphs located within 20 paragraphs that remain non-compliant. Two of these paragraphs are 100 and 101, which taken together comprise 23 of these sub-paragraphs. Both of these paragraphs are considered implementation paragraphs, so the net number of non-compliant subparagraphs, other than those in paragraphs 100 and 100, is 50.
25

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 26 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
II. COMPLIANCE STATUS – PRIORITIES 2016
During the IMT’s January team meetings in Miami, the IMT reviewed all non-compliant paragraphs and goals and developed a set of priority area goals for enhanced monitoring in 1Q2016 and 2Q2016. These 17 priority areas, which were first identified in the IMT 4Q2015 Report, included the following:

Table 1 IMT Monitoring Priorities
Paragraph, Sub-Paragraph, Goal 32b 34b 34c 35b 36b 44i 4Q5-1 4Q5-2 72a CC17 74c 74e 72b M&S 16 4Q5-8 35c 32f

Priority or
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Focus Month
Apr 2016 May 2016 May 2016 Jun 2016 Mar 2016 Apr 2016 Feb 2016 Feb 2016 Mar 2016 May 2016 Mar 2016 Mar 2016 Apr 2016 Mar 2016 Feb 2016 Jun 2016 Jun 2016

NOTE: Shaded areas were 1Q2016 priorities; non-shaded 2Q2016 priorities.

Of these, 11 were selected for review during 1Q2016 (highlighted in grey) and each was awarded a priority of either 1 or 2, based upon the IMT estimate of VIPD compliance capacity, with the remainder set for 2Q2016. The IMT, both in person or via telephone, met throughout the quarter with the work groups responsible for each of the identified areas and monitored their compliance activity. Despite this enhanced oversight as well as increased attention to them by the VIPD, they were able to come into compliance with only two of the goals or sub-paragraphs, 4Q5-1 Develop Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the Force Review Board (FRB) and 4Q5-2 (Develop

26

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 27 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
SOP for Force Investigation Team (FIT) which dealt with FIT/FRB SOPs. Both of these resulted in compliance after the IMT delivered training in late April 2016.
Issues preventing compliance with the other goals or sub-paragraphs included:
32-b
Focusing on requiring RRRs to indicate each and every type of force that was used in force incidents, the VIPD has increased its compliance rate, but still falls short of meeting the established goals of 95% or better compliance. Using the IMT Five Quarter Analysis View they were at 69%, while when using the IMT Seven Quarter Analysis, we found them to be at 63.3%, all data based on VIPD internal audits. Both the VIPD audits and IMT case reviews confirm this status. The UOF Working Group has been reviewing each investigation and included RRRs to ensure compliance with requirements and returning deficient ones back to the investigating officers, via the chain of command, for corrective action at all levels. The IMT will continue to monitor during the next quarter.
36-b
This goal has been illusive for a variety of reasons, although the VIPD has increased its emphasis on ensuring all witnesses are interviewed and those interviews detailed in the case reports. In some cases non-police witnesses have refused to cooperate, but in others available police witnesses are just left out. The Working Group has been returning these cases to the investigating officers, via the chain of command, for corrective action and compliance at all levels. The IMT will continue to monitor in 2Q2016.
44-i
This sub-paragraph based goal focuses on timeliness of completion of Consent Decree mandated investigations.. IMT evaluation, during the current quarter, of these efforts was limited to the actual reduction of outstanding cases as of January 1, 2015. While St Croix showed a significant reduction in outstanding cases for this period of time, the efforts on St Thomas did not show progress. When queried as to what those efforts were, the STT Chief stated that the supervisors continued to receive weekly reminders of overdue cases and were reminded to complete same. This was the same approach which had been utilized for the last few quarters without significant
27

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 28 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
results. Most recently, when IMT requested of a number of supervisors/managers what the current outstanding numbers were, no one could provide a definitive answer.
{It should be noted that, although VIPD was focusing on cases since 1/1/15 in order to not continue to dig themselves into a larger hole, IMT has made clear that VIPD is responsible for successfully closing all cases as of 1/1/12}
The sub-paragraph is the only one preventing compliance for the paragraph 44, itself, so once the current backlog has been corrected and future case processing is on track in compliance with the standard, the paragraph should be able to come into compliance.
72-a
This goal and sub-paragraph, is concerned that in cases where the matrix calls for discipline, discipline is imposed by the VIPD. The parties concluded last year that the current matrix was not working nor had it been positively accepted by the rank and file of the department. The VIPD has undertaken a review of matrixes from other departments and most recently has focused on that used by Portland, OR. Both the DOJ and the IMT have provided technical assistance to the VIPD’s efforts to replace the current matrix with a better performing and more widely accepted model. That effort continues and until such time as a new matrix is approved, discipline based on the old version will continue to be questioned. The IMT hopes that this issue will be settled during 2Q2016.
72-b
This goal is concerned with determining that where discipline is imposed, there is evidence that the VIPD has also considered non-disciplinary corrective action. As reflected in the VIPD’s own internal audits, this sub-paragraph has not reached compliance 74-c
This goal requires that the Director of Training and/or his/her staff develop a process to continually select and evaluate VIPD officer trainers. This issue is also related to the uploading of instructor qualification records into Power-DMS. Recently the VIPD reissued a directive governing instructor selection and qualification. IMT, during the 1Q2016 Summit (May 9th
28

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 29 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
through May 13th), reviewed these records to determine if compliance has improved. During this review IMT viewed the newly created “instructor files” which contained several documents, including certificates and sign in sheets for the most recent classes that the associated instructors had taught. They were instructed to create summaries or listings of the classes taught, instructor evaluations and documentation that instructors were vetted initially and updated annually. As is the case with several other training related requirements, the upcoming training cycle will provide their best opportunity to demonstrate and document a complete in-service training experience including evaluations and post classroom testing. If this work is completed, VIPD should move Paragraphs 73, 74 and 77 into compliance in the quarter.
The Training Advisory Committee should review the selection process (vetting) and should take an interest in the instructor certifications. We also recommend that AIU conduct an audit of these files for compliance.
74-e
The Training Director and/or his/her staff, in conjunction with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs, have created a process for the development, implementation and approval of all Roll Call training curricula. The Training Director and/or his/her staff, in conjunction with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs, have developed, implemented and approved all Roll Call training curricula. The Training Director and/or his/her staff have maintained written documentation of this process. The VIPD has submitted a revised Roll Call policy documents to the IMT for review and it has been returned with several significant comments and suggestions, including separation of the policy into two separate policies, one for Roll Calls and the other for Roll Call Training. The IMT looks forward to compliance with is goal during 2Q2016.
M&S 16 (Re: Paragraph 69)
Finalize the development of additional protocols for the Audit unit; Paragraph 69. As noted in our 4Q2015 Report, we have reviewed and approved a draft SOP (protocol) for the AIU but have never received a signed and published copy from the VIPD. We look forward to this goal being complied with in 2Q2016.
29

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 30 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
4Q5-8 (A goal not directly paragraph related as impacts across the CD, that was established to energize the Training Division to assume ma more active role in supporting Consent Decree work group identified training requirements.) Training Division will collaborate with the other three (3) working groups to identify and respond with training support to Consent Decree issues and areas identified by the working groups. Training Division’s support will include assessment of the needs; identification of the trainees; development of the curricula; delivery of training; and, in conjunction with the audit unit, evaluation of the training effectiveness. The IMT continues to work with the Training Division to implement a training support system with broader application. We look forward to seeing this goal compliant in 2Q2016. The IMT will continue to work with the VIPD in the remaining non-compliant focus or priority areas during 2Q2016.
30

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 31 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
III. USE OF FORCE PARAGRAPH COMPLIANCE: SEVEN QUARTERS
The accumulating body of quantified VIPD-provided Compliance Audit measurements enables the Parties to the Consent Decree to examine Consent Decree compliance progress in new ways and with increasing confidence and clarity. The IMT’s first longitudinal retrospective on Use of Force paragraph compliance was completed in 2015. It examined Five Quarters of performance/compliance measurements, all four of 2014 and the first of 2015. A second examination is reported here.
The Table (2) below updates the Five Quarters Use of Force Compliance Status & Progress Measurements analysis completed late last year, with an additional two tables from the latest VIPD Compliance Audit, 2015 Third and Fourth Quarters.
WHAT IT SHOWS
The Seven Quarters data are useful for observations and diagnostics far beyond what we have selected to comment on here, as the VIPD Audit itself. We single out the following for emphasis.
 What strikes us first off is that the overall pattern of compliance performance has not changed significantly since the first analysis – completed about nine months ago. (It reported through the First Quarter 2015.) Generally, what the VIPD was complying with well before, they have sustained. What they were not doing well, they still aren’t. The pattern of what field officers and supervisors are getting right and not getting right with regard to Consent Decree force paragraph mandates has remained essentially unaltered for almost two years, as measured by the Audits and our reviews. The Performance Detail section immediately below arrays subparagraph compliance and non-compliance. With regard to the failures to meet compliance standards, applied interventions, including hours and hours of training, some degree of disciplinary actions, and pledges to intensify command accountability, have not produced substantial compliance outcomes.
 Comparing the percentages in the "Five Quarters" and "Percent Cumulative" columns shows change in only one (1) of twenty-two (22) subparagraphs, using a criterion of 10%. The 10% criterion is arbitrary, used only as a gauge to consider data points movement.
31

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 32 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
 Were a 95% threshold applied to the cumulative averages for seven quarters, eight (8) sub-paragraphs comply; fourteen (14) sub-paragraphs do not (of 22). If the comparison considers Quarter 7 alone, eight (8) subparagraphs meet the 95% threshold.
 Of 41 sub-paragraphs audited in 3Q/4Q 2015, including a series of first-time measures reported on in the 3Q/4Q 2015 Audit, only thirteen (13) meet a 95% and/or Yes/No threshold.
 Sixteen (16) measures fell below 50% compliance for the Seven Quarters period, including several core essentials such as 32.c, 34.d, 35.c, 37.b.1, 37.c, and 37.d.
PERFORMANCE DETAIL
Drilling into the performance compliance profile reveals three clusters/patterns of compliance and non-compliance: subs which consistently meet/have met; threshold standards; those on-thecusp of meeting standards; and those that are not remotely close to meeting standards.
Sustained Compliance: A total of eight (8) requirements have met the 95% threshold for the seven-quarters period. (The new Yes-No, non-quantified, two-quarters measurements are not included in this analysis.)
 32.a Force documented in writing.  34.c Investigator/reviewer had no part in the force incident.  34.f Investigator/reviewer had no part in authorizing conduct that led to force
allegations.  34.g Investigator/reviewer was not present during force incident.  35.d All supervisors and officers trained to conduct UOF investigations.  36.a Supervisors investigate all uses of force by officers in their commands.  36.b All officer witnesses to use of force were interviewed.  36.d All officers involved in or on-scene of incidents were identified.
Reachable Compliance: There are a handful of subparagraphs that are/have been within realistic reach of the 95% threshold. These fall roughly in an 85, but below the 95% performance.
 32.d Supervisors review includes a narrative description of events preceding use of force (87%).
 32.e Investigation package includes RRR (91.1%).  35.a Supervisors ask officers or witnesses leading questions (88.4%).
32

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 33 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department

 36.c All witnesses provided a statement regarding the incident (93.1%).
 37.a UOF investigation was reviewed by officer’s commander and commander of Investigative unit (83.0%).

There are a total of four (4) Consent Decree requirements in this set.

Compliance Barriers: Eleven (11) subparagraphs have consistently remained below
established thresholds, some remarkably below.
 32.c Supervisor evaluated each type of force used (44.1%).  33.a Officer notified supervisor of use of force or allegation of use of force
(49.6%).  33.b Supervisor responds to scene (55.0%).  33.c Subject examined for injury (21.6%)  33.d Supervisor interviewed subject for complaints of pain (20.8%).  33.e Supervisor ensured subject received medical attention if necessary (73.4%).  34.a Supervisor reviewed, evaluated, and documented each use of force (44.1%).  34.b Narrative description section of use of force report was completed (38.6%).  34.c Narrative included a precise description of the facts and circumstances that
either justify or fail to justify officer conduct (37.8%).  34.d Supervisor evaluated the basis for use of force and determined whether the
officer’s Actions were within VIPD policy (44.1%).  36.e Investigations indicate whether injuries occurred (43.0%).

PRIORITIES 2016

Cumulative averages for the UOF Priorities selected are:

 32.b  34.b  34.c  35.b  36.b

63.3% 38.6% 37.8% 65.0% 94.9%

Results for the last two quarters are not much different than the cumulative. Consider these numbers a "reality check." On the plus side, compliance with 4Q5-1, 4Q5-2, FIT/FRB SOPs and
4Q5-5, FRB Hearings, have been achieved.

AUDIT GROWTH & UTILITY
The audit data is changing shape, expanding and becoming increasingly useful for measurement, analytics, planning, and decision-making. To audit use of force, the VIPD has added new

33

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 34 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
measures, quantitative and qualitative (the Yes/No measure). For these, there is now a developing two-quarters data base that will become more useful as future quarters are added. Newer measures are moving audits deeper into important Consent Decree areas and operational outcomes, discipline (the Matrix) for example.
The cautionary note is that while we are very pleased and excited with the audit capacity building, we repeat our concern about the degree to which audit findings remain underutilized. Audit measurements could and should have greater compliance consequences if the VIPD exploited the data/measurements for analysis and decision-making to a greater extent. To service this objective, it is important that audits remain up to date. Timeliness of completion remains a serious IMT concern.
JUMP-STARTING UTILITY The IMT had a plan to start to address the underutilization condition. The May, 2016 Summit included an examination of the Seven Quarters data, an adult learning exercise regarding how the data can be used for compliance operations, and reporting out by the Work Groups. This learning bloc integrated smoothly with the scheduled strategic planning bloc and the Force Review Boards work. No more than a "starter," we plan to repeat the exercise in the future.
BUILDING ON THE SEVEN-QUARTERS DATA The Seven Quarters database can support a variety of additional analyses. For example, the DOJ has expressed interest in comparison between the Five Quarters here and the Seventh Quarter (or, soon, the Eighth Quarter). This is now easy to accomplish. We will do so during the next Quarter.
34

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 35 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
USE OF FORCE PARAGRAPH COMPLAINCE SEVEN QUARTERS (2014, 2015) Table 2

PARAGRAPH REQUIREMENT & MEASURE

32: DOCUMENTATION

32.a: Force documented in writing

32.b: RRR indicates every type of force used

32.c:

Supervisor evaluated each type of force used

32.d: 32.e:

Supervisor’s review includes a narrative description of events preceding use of force
Investigations package includes narrative description of events (RRR)

32.e.1: Investigation package includes audio/videotaped statement

33: NOTIFICATION/SUPERVISOR RESPONSE

33.a:

Officer notified supervisor of use of force or allegation of excessive force

33.b: Supervisor responds to scene

33.c:

Subject examined for injury

1 Three Quarters only.

PERCENT MET 95% REQUIREMENT
5 QUARTERS

PERCENT MET 95% REQUIREMENT
QUARTER 6

PERCENT MET 95% REQUIREMENT
QUARTER 7

PERCENT MET CUMULATIVE

94% 69% 46% 90% 95% (Data Error)
44%
(Data Error) 18%1

100% 46% 46% 89% 82% 57%
64%
43% 31%

100% 55% 36% 73% 82% 33%
64%
67% 23%

95.3% 63.3% 44.1% 87.1% 91.1% 45.0%
49.6%
55.0% 21.6%

35

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 36 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

USE OF FORCE PARAGRAPH COMPLAINCE SEVEN QUARTERS (2014, 2015)

PARAGRAPH REQUIREMENT & MEASURE

PERCENT MET 95% REQUIREMENT
5 QUARTERS

PERCENT MET 95% REQUIREMENT
QUARTER 6

PERCENT MET 95% REQUIREMENT
QUARTER 7

PERCENT MET CUMULATIVE

33: NOTIFICATION/SUPERVISOR RESPONSE (Cont’d.)
33.d: Supervisor interviewed subject for complaints of pain
33.e: Supervisor ensured subject received medical attention if necessary
34: SUPERVISORY EVALUATION
34.a: Supervisor (designee reviewed, evaluated, and documented each use of force
34.b: Narrative description section of use of force report was completed
34.c: Narrative included a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer’s conduct
34.d: Supervisor (designee) evaluated the basis for use of force, and determined whether officer’s actions were within VIPD policy
34.e: Did investigator/reviewer have any part in the force used during the incident (calls for negative finding)

18% 66%
46% 38%
36%1
46% 100%

32% 93%
46% 46% 46% 46% 100%

18% 92%
36% 36% 36% 36% 95%

20.8% 73.4%
44.1% 38.6% 37.8% 44.1% 95.6%

36

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 37 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
USE OF FORCE PARAGRAPH COMPLAINCE SEVEN QUARTERS (2014, 2015)

PARAGRAPH REQUIREMENT & MEASURE

PERCENT MET 95% REQUIREMENT
5 QUARTERS

PERCENT MET 95% REQUIREMENT
QUARTER 6

PERCENT MET 95% REQUIREMENT
QUARTER 7

PERCENT MET CUMULATIVE

34: SUPERVISORY EVALUATION (Cont’d)
34.f: Did investigator/reviewer have any part in conduct that led to injury, or authorize conduct leading to use of force allegation of excessive force (calls for negative finding)
34.g: Was investigator/reviewer present during use of force incident (calls for negative finding)
35: LEADING QUESTIONS
35.a: Supervisor or designee asked officers or witnesses leading questions that improperly suggested legal justifications for officer’s conduct
35.b: All relevant evidence considered and credibility determinations made
35.c: Supervisor made all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements
35.d: VIPD has trained all supervisors and officers to conduct UOF investigations

95% 95%
92%
2
2 2

100% 100%
71% 71% 25% 100%

95% 95%
92% 59% 0% 100%

95.6% 95.6%
88.4% 65.0% 12.5% 100.0%

2 Three Quarters only, from 3/4Q2015 Audit
37

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 38 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
USE OF FORCE PARAGRAPH COMPLAINCE SEVEN QUARTERS (2014, 2015)

PARAGRAPH REQUIREMENT & MEASURE

PERCENT MET 95% REQUIREMENT
5 QUARTERS

PERCENT MET 95% REQUIREMENT
QUARTER 6

PERCENT MET 95% REQUIREMENT
QUARTER 7

36: INVESTIGATION OF ALL USE OF FORCE (Except Lowest Level)
36.a: Supervisors (designee) investigated all uses of force or injury resulting from a use of force by any officer under their command 36.b: All officer witnesses to a use of force or injury were interviewed 36.c: All witnesses provided s statement regarding the incident 36.d: All officers involved in or on-scenes of incidents were identified 36.e: Investigations indicate whether injuries occurred
36.e.1: Medical care was provided 36.e.2: Subject refused medical treatment 36.f: Investigations included photos/videotapes of injuries
36.g: Photos/videos were obtained at earliest practicable opportunity

95%
78% 100% 100% 28% (Data Issue) (Data Issue)
2
2

100%
85% 92% 100% 89%
----75%
50%

100%
50% 60% 95% 73%
----20%
10%

PERCENT MET CUMULATIVE
100%
94.9% 93.1% 99.3% 43.0%
----47.5% 30.0%

38

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 39 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
USE OF FORCE PARAGRAPH COMPLAINCE SEVEN QUARTERS (2014, 2015)

PARAGRAPH REQUIREMENT & MEASURE

PERCENT MET 95% REQUIREMENT
5 QUARTERS

PERCENT MET 95% REQUIREMENT
QUARTER 6

PERCENT MET 95% REQUIREMENT
QUARTER 7

37: COMMANDER/DIRECTOR REVIEW

37.a: UOF investigation was reviewed by officer’s commander

2

and commander of investigative unit

37.b: Review found investigation free of deficiencies

2

37.b.1: Deficiencies were corrected

2

37.b.2: Appropriate corrective and/or disciplinary action was

2

taken

37.b.3: Discipline comported with Matrix

2

37.c: Supervisor/investigator conducted a timely review

2

37.c.1: If not, appropriate corrective and/or disciplinary action

2

was taken

37.c.2: Discipline comported with Matrix

2

93% 68% 17% 0% 0% 29% 0% 0%

73% 73% 0% 0% 0% 32% 0% 0%

PERCENT MET CUMULATIVE
83.0% 70.5%
8.55 ----30.55 -----

39

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 40 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
USE OF FORCE PARAGRAPH COMPLAINCE SEVEN QUARTERS (2014, 2015)

PARAGRAPH REQUIREMENT & MEASURE

PERCENT MET 95% REQUIREMENT
5 QUARTERS

PERCENT MET 95% REQUIREMENT
QUARTER 6

PERCENT MET 95% REQUIREMENT
QUARTER 7

37: COMMANDER/DIRECTOR REVIEW (Cont’d)

37.d: Did supervisor/investigator conduct a thorough

2

investigation/review

37.d.1: If not, were appropriate corrective and/or disciplinary

2

action taken

37.d.2: Did discipline comport with Matrix

2

37.e: Did supervisor/investigator recommend appropriate

2

corrective action

37.e.1: If not, was appropriate corrective and/or Disciplinary

2

action taken

37.e.2: Did discipline comport with Matrix

2

37.f: Did supervisor/investigator properly implement appropriate

2

corrective action

37.f.1: If not, were appropriate corrective/disciplinary actions

2

taken

46% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0%

36% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

PERCENT MET CUMULATIVE
41.0% -----
75.0% ---------

40

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 41 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
USE OF FORCE PARAGRAPH COMPLAINCE SEVEN QUARTERS (2014, 2015)

PARAGRAPH REQUIREMENT & MEASURE
37: COMMANDER/DIRECTOR REVIEW (Cont’d) 37.f.2: Did discipline comport with Matrix
37.g.: Was there a further review of commander/director review 38: FIREARMS DISCHARGES 38.a: Were all critical firearms discharges investigated
38.b.: Did the investigation account for: -all shots (38.b.1) -all officers who discharged their firearms (38.b.2) 38.c: A ballistic/crime scene analysis was included in the investigation package
41: INTERMEDIATE FORCE DEVICE 41.a: IFD has been provided

PERCENT MET 95% REQUIREMENT
5 QUARTERS

PERCENT MET 95% REQUIREMENT
QUARTER 6

PERCENT MET 95% REQUIREMENT
QUARTER 7

PERCENT MET CUMULATIVE

2

0%

0%

---

2

93%

70%

81.5%

2

---

---

---

2

---

2

---

---

---

---

2

---

---

---

2

Yes

Yes

Yes

41

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 42 of 184
First Quarterly Report of 2016 – From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
USE OF FORCE PARAGRAPH COMPLAINCE SEVEN QUARTERS (2014, 2015)

PARAGRAPH REQUIREMENT & MEASURE
37: INTERMEDIATE FORCE DEVICE (Cont’d) 41.b: Device is carried by officers at all times while on duty 41.c: VIPD has continued it policy regarding IFD 41.d: IFD is incorporated into force continuum 41.e: All officers receive training on annual basis

PERCENT MET 95% REQUIREMENT
5 QUARTERS

PERCENT MET 95% REQUIREMENT
QUARTER 6

PERCENT MET 95% REQUIREMENT
QUARTER 7

PERCENT MET CUMULATIVE

2

Yes

Yes

Yes

2

Yes

Yes

Yes

2

Yes

Yes

Yes

\Yes

2

Yes

Yes

42

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 43 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
IV. GOALS ACTION PLANS UPDATE
The IMT’s Fourth Quarterly Report for 2015 referenced the November 12 and 13 (2015) Goals Planning Summit, the principal objective of which was a DOJ, IMT, VIPD collaboration to develop a "comprehensive and predictably successful plan for complying with outstanding goals and paragraphs." The Fourth Quarterly Report presented the IMT’s assessment of the value of the Plans as of the beginning of February, 2016, about 2-1/2 months after the Summit, declaring the work product "not yet good enough." Finally, the Fourth Quarterly Report emphasized in a priority fashion the pivotal technical and strategic importance of the Plans to Consent Decree progress. Linking the Plans to the aspirational expressions of the Court at the December, 2015 hearing regarding an August, 2016 Consent Decree compliance target and to achievement of the Priorities 2016 goals, our 4Q2015 Quarterly stated:
Next steps
We are expecting the Professional Standards Unit staff to review and strengthen the action plans, paragraph-by-paragraph and through each subparagraph. The IMT and Professional Standards Unit Director and VIPD Compliance Coordinator have agreed upon this step. The "scrubbed" product will be passed on to the IMT and DOJ for reaction and approval. Iterations will occur. Time is of the essence for several reasons, the most important, operationally, the IMT and VIPD have to employ the action plans to achieve the intent of the Compliance Priority & Monitoring Plan, as described in the next section. (From Section III.)
□ To be successful for Priorities 2016 as well as other unmet mandates, the Goals & Actions Plans must be well crafted and carried out in a timely manner. (From the Executive Summary.)
Approximately three months have passed since the Fourth Quarterly Report was filed, bringing the VIPD Goals Plans production effort to the six months mark. At this juncture, the IMT is forced to repeat its first, earlier assessment – not yet good enough! In fact it appeared that the 1Q2016 Goals were not entered into the system until late in the quarter.
Condition of the Plans
43

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 44 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
VIPD’s action plans are recorded in its Goals Management System (GMS). IMT members reviewed the plans periodically during the past Quarter. On March 15, 2015 the Director of Professional Standards forwarded an “Action Plan”, directing the IMT to the GMS as well. All members of the IMT were directed by Independent Monitor Gruber to review this “Action Plan” document. On March 21st, Independent Monitor Gruber contacted the professional Standards Director and conveyed and explained the consensus position of the IMT. Principal points of conversation:
 the plans lacked details about who was responsible
 the plans lacked details about what was to be accomplished and when it was to be finished
 the plans lacked specific deadlines of both goals and sub goals for each specific objective
On March 22, 2015 the DOJ forwarded a short memorandum to the IMT summarizing its thoughts on the VIPD document. The tone and specifics were not positive. Among them:
□ VIPD’s own February 26 Goals filing, Document 200, stated that the Plan must include action steps associated with each goal as well as individuals responsible for completing action steps.
VIPD’s action plan contains no incremental action steps and lists no individuals responsible for completing the goals. The "Plans" beneath each goal lack detail and specificity. The Plan references the GMS system, but VIPD has not provided DOJ with any GMS document that meets the requirements set out in the February 26 filing.
□ Of the eight paragraphs the VIPD committed to complying within its February 26 filing, VIPD omitted two of them (Paragraphs 69 and 70) from its plan. It also included several paragraphs not mentioned in its February 26 filing.
□ Finally, even though all goals must be completed by May 6, the Plan states that three of the paragraphs to be completed this quarter do not have a deadline until June 30.
44

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 45 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
While evident for some time, the goals and actions plan development process reflects the poverty of the VIPD’s business skills capacity. Accordingly, we devoted several hours of the next Summit to compliance planning, problem solving, and data diagnostics instruction, however the results were disappointing and only reinforced are previously stated opinion of the VIPD capacity for compliance. As an example, the IMT attempted to generate internal leadership and ownership by allowing the VIPD to facilitate the feedback session of the compliance planning segment on the Summit’s second day and to evaluate its own action plan product. The products of that session were to be consolidated by the VIPD Office of Professional Standards and forwarded to the DOJ and the IMT for review by May 18th, however as this report is being finalized no such complied action plan has been received.. Recommendations Speaking exclusively to production of technically sufficient goals action plans, and not to policy, practice, and cultural reform and progress, the VIPD needs an immediate (as in "tomorrow") infusion of technical skills. In our last Quarterly we recommended/recommend partnering with the Territory’s University as an avenue. We have suggested contracting. It may be possible to leverage skills from another government agency.
45

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 46 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
V. MANAGING FORCE: THE FIT & FRB TRAINING INITIATIVE
Concerns about investigation and review of Level 1 Use of Force incidents prompted the IMT initiative in the summer of 2015 to accelerate formation of a Force Investigation Team, to investigate Level 1 Use of Force in the Virgin Islands, and a Force Review Board, to review and recommend action by the Commissioner pursuant to these investigations. In developing the policies for these two elements, additional investigative responsibility and authorizations were included, In-Custody deaths and other cases as directed by the Commissioner. After much discussion and intense interaction among the Parties, two Department Policies, 3.15, Force Investigation Team and 3.3 Use of Force Review Board were developed, and signed by the Commissioner and published in September 2015. The policies, and requirements represent a distinct change from past. It was clear to all that training for its FIT and FRB members was needed.
The October Delivery
As a first step, the IMT developed and co-delivered an initial training seminar, two days on each island early in October 2015. This training consisted of one day provided by members of the New Orleans Monitoring Team and a second day delivered by IMT staff. The material covered varied on each day.
Day One Course Coverage Learning objectives and course coverage included:
1. Recognize the purpose and value of a comprehensive investigation into critical firearms discharges and/or serious uses of force.
2. Understand the importance of conducting an expanded review of a use of force that is broader than simply determining if the application of force by the officer was justified.
3. Know the requirements of the Consent Decree related to use and investigation of use of force.
46

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 47 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
4. Understand and explain the standards set out in Graham v. Connor and ensuing relate cases.
5. Know and be able to apply the preponderance of evidence standard as it applies to use of force investigations.
6. Be able to make witness credibility assessments, including being able to articulate the rational for each determination.
7. Include in the scope of the investigation the actions of all members involved in the use of force incident, not just the actions of the member(s) who used force.
8. View a use of force incident as potentially consisting of a series of decisions by multiple actors.
9. Demonstrate the ability to review and identify each key decision point preceding and following the use of force event.
10. Demonstrate the ability to assess the quality of each decision while keeping in mind that such assessment has to consider what the officer knew or could have known at the moment the decision was made.
11. Demonstrate the ability to reach a decision on whether a serious use of force by a member of the Department was justified based upon a preponderance of evidence.
12. Demonstrate the ability to identify policy, training, supervision and/or equipment implications attendant to the incident.
Day Two Course Coverage
Learning objectives and course coverage included:
1. Describe the concept that use of force is necessary in law enforcement; that is it lawful to use force; and the use force that is legal, moral and ethical, is acceptable.
2. Identify how proper and complete use of force investigations can enhance policy development, become an information resource to management in analyzing force incidents, and ultimately facilitating the identification of at-risk officers.
3. Attendees will be able to identify and define Use of Force terms and definitions.
47

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 48 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
4. Attendees will identify the FIT investigator’s duties (generally) related to :
- On scene actions, - Follow-Up interaction, and - Submission of reports
5. Attendees will identify the FRB member’s role (generally) in
- Review of the submitted FIT investigator’s report for completeness and competency - Evaluation of the critical decision points identified or not identified in the FIT report - Application of the “reasonable objectivity” standard to the investigator’s conclusions.
6. Attendees will describe and discuss the impact that agency culture can have on the objective evaluation of use of force incidents.
7. Attendees will identify their understanding of the implications of the statement “There is nothing wrong with using necessary force; what matters is how force is treated by the agency.”
8. Using “mini discussions” and a video, attendees will demonstrate their understanding of relationship between the FIT investigation and the FRB review of that.
9. List and discuss stakeholders and factors that influence a use of force event.
10. List and discuss stakeholders and factors that influence a use of force event.
11. Identify and describe the impact of various judicial rulings and federal statutes that control use of force evaluations, giving specific confrontation examples of each, including:
Tennessee v. Garner 471 US 1 (1985) Graham v. Connor 490 US 386 (1989) Canton v. Harris 489 US 378 (1989) Monell v. Dept. of Social Services 436 US 658(1978) 42 USC §1983 18 USC §242 42 USC §14141
12. Identify and discuss the implications of an officer acting within as versus outside of established laws on his protections for official action.
48

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 49 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
13. Identify how effective training for, monitoring of, investigating, and holding personnel accountable for their use of force can avoid future litigation and sanctions.
14. Identify the five phases of a use of force event, identify the thoughts, behaviors, and influences (internal and external), that impact each phase.
15. Define and discuss the use of decision point analysis.
16 After viewing video scenarios identify and then compare and contrast the officer’s reaction or inactions.
17. Define the term “transparent investigation.”
18. Define the term “Decision Point Analysis” and identify the steps associated with using it to evaluate a use of force confrontation.
19. Describe and provide examples of the use of Decision Point Analysis can impact training and/or policy decisions as well as identify alternative courses of action for the confrontation event.
20. Define the steps in how to process an event from response to report completion by a FIT team (generally).
21 Attendees will identify the components of the investigative report, how to assess the quality of these components, and subsequent testimony.
22. Attendees will describe the function of the FRB Coordinator (generally) and his/her role in the review process.
This training was deemed to constitute 16 hours of the required FIT training of 80 hours per year.
Standard Operating Procedures
While this training set the stage for the VIPD to begin the process of standing up the FIT and the FRB, it was missing one critical element: Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). Policies described general guidelines. SOPs guide the two units through the detail of their tasks. The IMT, working with DOJ and the VIPD, began to develop these SOPs in early 2016. This effort included several on-site sessions with members of the FIT teams going over investigative protocols and administrative processing (February 2016). It also required numerous
49

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 50 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
conversations between the parties with an understanding that actual work by the units may require additions and changes unique to the Territory.
Central to developing the FIT SOP was a standardized case format and investigative process, a need which the IMT noticed over the years. The first order of business was to develop this standardized case reporting format, coupled with an investigative checklist to guide the FIT investigative process, from activation until submission of the completed investigation to the Force Review Board. The result was Appendix B to the FIT SOP, FIT Case Report Format Outline and Appendix C-1 to the same SOP, and FIT Investigative Case Check List (CL-1). The former set the format and sequencing of report results in a standardized format, while the second provides a detailed (15 page) sequential check list where the FIT Supervisors can make investigative assignments and check off completion of those tasks. This second document is keyed back to the base SOP and Appendix B organizational sections.
The concept of SOPs, published as supporting department policy is fundamentally new to the VIPD. While there is a history of some units creating SOPs, these were not universally published nor did/do they directly connect to specific policy through attachment to that policy. The FIT and FRB SOPs change the concept, at least for organizational units that have their own department directives. Having SOPs provides for on-going modification of operational details without the formal and time consuming review process associated with policy. This is not to say that the SOPs are independent of command oversight. The two SOPs provide for review and approval by the IAB Director and Police Commissioner, as well as the IMT and DOJ.
Another shortfall experienced by the IMT was absence of well constructed and detailed job descriptions and associated training requirements for positions. As part of the FIT SOP, the IMT developed basic requirements for assignment to the FIT and suggested training courses. These were reviewed with the assigned VIPD personnel and found to be fairly representative. In addition, two Appendices were constructed, one to list the future specific job descriptions within the SOP and a second to list training courses found to support FIT duties. Both of these
50

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 51 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Appendices need to be completed by the VIPD to further develop team expertise. This should be accomplished in conjunction with the Training Advisory Committee and the Chiefs of Police.
The FRB SOP, by the nature of its function is more concise than the FIT. It discusses roles of the Board, the FRB Administrator and how the Board interacts with the FIT teams. Case flow from the FIT, through distribution to the Board members prior to the hearing, as well as the conduct of the hearing and processing of the Board’s conclusions to the Commissioner are all detailed. Appendices were developed for checking FIT submissions for completeness (Appendix B, Completed Case Investigative File Review Check List- CL-2), Hearing Room requirements (Appendix C, Hearing Room Requirements-HR-1), production of a Hearing Plan to conduct the hearing (Appendix D, Hearing Plan -HP-1), and an Administrative File Control Plan (Appendix E –AFCP-1, [TBP]). This last document, coupled with the requirement for the FRB Administrator to establish a Board Case Management System (Board – CMS) to control the review process from start to finish, provides all necessary control and documentation for Board activities.
One roadblock to working with the actual personnel assigned to the FIT and FRB was the absence of an appointment order naming the members. The Commissioner issued a letter of appointment in February 2016 and discussions were held regarding how to identify the FRB. While the Board chair flexes with the source of the case (e.g., STT will chair STT cases, etc.), remaining members of the Board are to be somewhat permanent. Discussions with the VIPD resulted in including the Board appointments with the FIT document and to have these Board appointments (less the two District Chiefs of Police) be for one year with one member staggered at two years. In the FRB SOP a section was added for the FRB Administrator to be responsible for conducting training for all newly appointed Board members.
51

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 52 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

This process of review and discussion of the SOPs and associated Appendices continued through late March and during that period the IMT agreed to provide more in depth training for both the FIT and FRB. That training was scheduled and delivered during the period April 11-15, 2016.

The April Delivery
Training was designed to provide Team and Board members with an understanding of and competency with the newly developed SOPs for both the FIT and the FRB members, and to provide an opportunity for the VIPD to comply with Court Goal 4Q5-3, which requires VIPD to hold at least two Force Review Boards during the quarter. This was accomplished over a five day period, 04/11/16-04/13/16, for the FIT and 04/14/16-04/15/16 for the FRB, at the Government House-provided venue in St Croix.

The Courses

Lesson plan/coverage and hours for the two courses were:

□

FIT - 24 hours

LP 1 - Course Opening/ Team building exercise LP 2.1 - Review of FIT Policy 3.15 and FIT SOP LP 2.2 - Use Decision Point Analysis to Assist in Case Investigation LP 3 - Review Case Preparation Requirements of FIT SOP LP 4 - Review Sample Cases Using FIT SOP and Policy 3.15 LP 5 - Review and Prepare Investigative Reports for Sample Cases 1-4 LP 6 - Course Closing

□

FRB - 16 hours

LP 1 - Course Opening LP 2.1 - Review of FRB Policy 3.3 LP 2.2 - Review of FRB SOP LP 3 - Review of Hearing Protocol and Robert's Rules of Order LP 4 - Case Review and Preparation of Hearing Plans LP 5 - Conduct FIT Investigation Based Case Hearings by FRB LP 6 - Course Closing

52

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 53 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
A total of 15 attendees participated in the FIT training (constituting the two FIT Teams). Additional personnel sat in at different times and for different periods. The 15 were awarded attendance certificates by the IMT.
There were 25 participants in the FRB training. Neither the assigned Assistant VIAG nor the VIPD Legal Counsel attended as required. They were also awarded certificates for attendance. Copies of the sign in roster for FRB will also be forwarded to the VIPD. The IMT provided complete training course package, including lesson plans, handouts, PowerPoint files, course outlines and team building materials so that the VIPD can replicate the training at later dates as needed.
Several command staff members including Chief Foy, Deputy Chief Corniero, and Lieutenant Benta, were present the entire week and remained engaged throughout.
The Delivery
Throughout, the VIPD participants displayed a high level of interest and consistent engagement with the training and training materials. The cases selected for investigative action by the FIT and review by the FRB were older cases, generally not investigated by most of the team members. The teams identified the shortcomings in the case investigations and learned how cases should be investigated using the FIT Appendix B, FIT Case Report Format Outline and Appendix C-1, FIT Investigative Case Check List . The teams worked well together and kept the activity at a professional level even though they were investigating the other district's cases. The deficiencies discovered in the case reports were identified and the FRB, during its review, took note of these issues. That activity, in turn, should help in their review of future FIT cases. This was also important because there does not appear to be any prior standardized format or template for the IAB to construct case reports nor a template to gauge compliance with policy. Both Appendices should help to standardize investigation in the future. Further, the training was based on a standardized SOP for FIT and FRB, Territory based and applied to both islands and Districts. In the past there might have been two separate SOPs, based on island protocols. The
53

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 54 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
need for territory-wide SOPs was brought home by closing comments by Chief Hector where he made the case for such territorial SOPs across the department.
The presentations by the FIT teams were well developed despite the general weakness of the case files. Critiques of same by both the Boards and the IMT were accepted professionally. The FRB case reviews or hearings were held sequentially. After each one, a 30 minute or more feedback session critique was facilitated by the IMT staff. The actions of the Boards, both in questioning and the conduct of the sessions improved with each one. It was evident that the Board chairs learned a lot from the course, especially in the conduct of the sessions in a more professional manner. Evaluations conducted at the end of each course were positive overall with the singular negative comment that more time was needed to develop case reports. This was expected as participants were only allowed in-class time to produce a report of a case with which they were not familiar and did not originally investigate. The course allocated up to 11 hours for this, but due to other impacts the actual time was closer to 9 hours.
54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 55 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
In addition to the consolidation and unification of Island SOPs and the potential contribution to standardizing IAB investigative protocols, by-product value of the course delivery was the curriculum construction and documentation using the Instructional Systems Design (ISD) process and adult learning components. These components included games and practical exercises, supported by pre-designed handouts and facilitation by the IMT trainers. The course package will be provided to the VIPD. It can serve as a sample of how a course should be designed and documented. Course designing that meets professional training standards has remained a stubbornly resistant compliance issue. In summary, the effort appears to have been well received and positive. This was the first time that the IMT has observed VIPD personnel demonstrating full attention to and participation in the training. More important, it appears they learned valuable lessons and indicated a desire to continue the process in a professional manner. It is noted that there were no absentees except for a one member of the STX FIT team who was not present during the first day and one/half due to court, but who actively jumped in and worked hard in both the case preparation and the presentations. The IMT is more than satisfied that the effort was worth the work that went into development and delivery. We believe change has occurred, at least for the FIT related case
55

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 56 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
reviews. The VIPD possesses greater force management capacity today than it possessed prior
to the training.
Recommendations
1. The FRB SOP requires the FRB Administrator to brief all newly assigned members of the Board. It is recommended that she use the supplied FRB course materials as a framework for this briefing and include practical exercises, as well as the actual review of one case. This will ensure that the Board executes their responsibilities in concert with the requirements of CD approved polices 3.2, 3.15, and 3.3 as well as with the existing SOP.
2. The Training Bureau should review the construction of the courses, the use of adult learning components, and how the material is set to flow against documented course objectives. They can use the courses as models for development of training initiatives to revise required Consent Decree training materials and components associated with required Consent Decree training.
3. The case review work by the two Boards was videotaped by the Training Bureau personnel. The VIPD should use these tape recordings to focus on how they can develop follow-on training for the Board to improve their conduct of the reviews. It is recommended that this be done for at least two more case reviews prior to opening the reviews to the public, It is further recommended that public invitation be preceded by press releases announcing the hearings and the VIPD commitment to transparency. The Commissioner should be present at the first public hearing to add his comments in support of the new initiative. This would be a major change in the department's review of these UOF cases. They should maximize the opportunity to inform the public.
4. Based on the initial and subsequent conduct of the Board's case reviews, the Training Bureau should use the tapes to identify future training needs and adjust the course materials to include responses to these identified needs.
5. The VIPD should, based on the identified investigative successes and failures, develop a case template or format and checklist for all IAB investigations to ensure consistency and completeness of the investigation. During the FIT review of these cases and the subsequent case reports, deficiencies were clearly noted and were a matter of concern to the FIT representatives. The IMT recognizes that these cases were older ones and not investigated by the FIT in the first place, but were none the less demonstrative of the missing steps and components of the investigations. Similar investigative case templates should be helpful for the CID functions.
56

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 57 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
6. The training was delayed on the first day due to travel by the ST Thomas personnel, even though the class start time for Monday was reset at the VIPD request, from a 0800 start to a 1000 start. Training did not commence until 1130 hrs. This could have been avoided by deploying the St Thomas personnel the night before. Even if travel was set for Monday, enrolled personnel could have taken earlier flights and made the class on time. Lack of sufficient concern for starting meetings and training on-time has been a consistent theme in most all of IMT sponsored meetings or training and needs to be addressed by senior management. Even the Consent Decree Monthly Meetings never start on time due to the absence of VIPD personnel. This practice is a waste of resources and professionally disrespectful. This is an area that the Commissioner needs to address and demonstrate leadership in by being prompt and enforcing promptness from all VIPD. It is but one of many attributes of professional policing. 7. Based on lesson learned from the creation of Territory-wide SOPs that govern both the FIT and FRB operations, the VIPD should review all operational units, especially those that interact with CD requirements, and create standardized department or territory wide SOPs for each unit. This will improve service delivery, strengthen and streamline department audit capacity, and most importantly take a large step towards a culture change that now views the department as one unit and not two separate islands.
57

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 58 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

VI. USE OF FORCE CASE ANALYSIS

The Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 noted that "…of major consequence for monitoring and compliance progress, the IMT staffing has been augmented. We have added a Police Practices Expert (PPE) who will augment the IMT and devote time primarily to Use of Force monitoring, technical assistance, and compliance status matters." This has indeed occurred. Case analysis accelerated this Quarter. On-site work increased. Our new PPE was instrumental in SOP development and SOP training. A Shooting Review data collection study is in design stage.

Focus Goal
Goal 45Q5-1 Goal 4Q5-2
Para 36b
Para 32b

1Q2016 Team Focus Areas (Table 3)
Detail
Goal- Develop Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the Force Review Board (FRB); February activity consisted of on-site work with the Force Working Group as well as several members of the FIT and FRB Teams to develop a Standard Operating Procedure for Force Review Board. This goal was met in April. Goal- Develop SOP for Force Investigation Team (FIT); February activity consisted of on-site work with the Use of Force Working Group and several members of the FIT and FRB Teams to develop a Standard Operating Procedure for Force Review Board. This goal was met in April. Goal- In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, all witnesses, to the extent practicable, are interviewed in the investigating supervisor's reports; The Use of Force Work Group met and reviewed all force incident cases prior to being officially approved by management. The Work Group performed well by pointing out deficiencies to submitted investigations and returning them for corrective action. However, the sub-paragraph did not come into compliance. Goal- =>95% of RRRs indicate each and every type of force that was used; Use of Force Work Group met and reviewed all force incident cases prior to being officially approved. The Work Group identified several Paragraph 32 b deficiencies as noted above and re-directed them back to supervisory correction, however, the sub-paragraph did not come into compliance

58

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 59 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Use of Force Working Group Case Reviews
At the February 2016 Summit, the Use of Force Working Group committed to holding a weekly meeting to discuss use of force incidents. Instead of individual force cases going straight into a final review process, a team review was explored as an opportunity for the Use of Force Working Group to expand their capacity and assist with Territory-wide Use of Force Incident review. The group has met and discussed fifteen use of force incidents. It submitted to the PPE 15 cases for follow-on review within their weekly meetings. Issues found with the cases reviewed consisted of:
Failure of officers to complete data entry or review associated with Paragraph 32 and its sub-paragraphs (specifically a, b, c, d, e, and f). Failure to comply with Paragraph 33 sub-paragraphs a, b, c, d, e, and f were noticed. (See Appendix A to this report for details on the paragraph and sub-paragraph requirements) Notifications of supervisors and supervisory response to scenes where force was used, continue to be a problem area for the VIPD. On the positive side, several of the cases were in compliance with all subparagraphs of both paragraph 32 and 33. In all cases, the Working Group returned deficient reports for corrective action.
Analysis of the who, what, how, why, when and where of the failures they detected in their reviews should bolster compliance rates as well.
Analysis of Force Incidents for 1Q2016 vs. Compliance Audit/ 2015 3rd & 4th Quarters
During this Quarter the IMT reviewed twenty-two (22) Use of Force cases. These included the following 2015 cases – UOFT-2015-0015, UOFT-2015-0019, UOFT-2015-0022, UOFT-20150023, UOFT-2015-0032, UOFT-2015-0033, UOFT-2015-0037, UOFX-2015-0002, UOFX2015-0008, UOFX-2015-0014, & UOFX-2015-0017. The VIPD Third (3rd) and Fourth (4th) Quarter Compliance Audit also covered eleven (11) of the 2015 IMT force case reviews. The Audit reviews covered the essential areas of the Consent Decree requirements and the IMT independent reviews supported, for the most part, the work of the VIPD Audit Reviews, displaying very similar findings.
59

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 60 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
As specific areas of concern, both the VIPD Compliance Audit and the IMT examined Paragraph and Sub-paragraphs 37.c, 37.c.1 and 37.c, 2:
□ Did the supervisor or designated investigative officer or unit conduct a timely investigation review?
□ If not, were appropriate non-disciplinary corrective actions and/or disciplinary actions taken?
□ If discipline was used, did it comport with Matrix requirements? The 3rd Quarter audit and IMT Reviews both indicated 20 of the combined total of 28 cases reviewed by the IMT and VIPD, had not met the investigation deadlines. There is no evidence that any supervisors who failed to complete a timely investigation were counseled and or resulted in discipline. The 4th Quarter VIPD audit and IMT reviews both indicated that 15 of the 28 cases had not met the investigation deadlines. There is no evidence that any supervisors who failed to complete a timely investigation were counseled and or that their failures resulted in discipline. The files simply failed to indicate if any action occurred on behalf of management. This failure to respond continues to jeopardize the VIPD’s ability to comply with the Consent Decree and requires immediate and responsible management action to correct. The reader is directed to the 7 Recommendations below for the IMT recommended corrective action.
On the positive side of the ledger the Audit Unit continues to identify the same failures and fact patterns that the IMT has found. This strengthening of the Audit Unit and its personnel is a foundation upon which the VIPD can build compliance on.
Supervisory Response to Use of Force Incidents
Virgin Islands Police Commissioner Delroy Richards signed Order 001-2016, effective December 18, 2015, which requires a supervisory response to ALL uses of force. This is conflict with
60

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 61 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
current VIPD policy. The IMT and the Use of Force Working Group conducted the audit since implementation. This directive is under revision and review by the IMT at the time of this report. We will report on the resolution in the 2Q2016.
Throughout the Territory there were forty-nine (49) force incidents; for the time frame of December 18, 2015 – April 26, 2016. Of these, 27 required a supervisory call-out.
- Of the 49 Use of Force Incidents
 14 of those incidents, the supervisor did not respond to the force incident.  13 of those incidents, the supervisor did respond to the force incident.  22 of those incidents, the supervisor did not need to respond to the force incident. - Deducting the 22 incidents where an on-scene response was not necessary, leaves a total of 27 where a response was required. Of these, 14 of the 27 or in 52% of the incidents, the supervisor did not respond to the force incident. This needs a follow up for compliance and reason(s) for non-compliance to the Commissioner’s Directive. - Additionally, in 13 of the 27, or 48% of the incidents, the supervisor did respond to the force incident consistent with policy.
Four (4) of the supervisory non-responses occurred in the St. Thomas Police District and Ten (10) failures to respond occurred in the St. Croix District. A memo was sent by the IMT to the respective district Police Chiefs to explain why a supervisor failed to respond the use of force incident. Formal response and explanation has not been received and approved by the IMT at the time of this writing. It is however clear that the Commissioner’s directive has moved the VIPD to get supervisors to the use of force scenes about half the time as required by policy. The reasons for failure have to be examined to learn how improvements can be made for compliance. We would recommend that the Chiefs of Police should be tasked to accomplish this review. As noted above, a revised Commissioner’s Directive is currently being reviewed by the IMT on this subject.
61

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 62 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Recommendations:
Our 1Q2016 review demonstrated promising work by the VIPD. The new review procedure for
serious uses of force holds great value. However, despite the Quarter review demonstrating
some progress, significant supervisory and management deficiencies remain pertaining to use of
force. The following recommendations re-cap the current status and provide recommendations
for the future. These recommendations should be incorporated into an updated Action Plan to be
completed by VIPD.
1. Work with the IMT to practice and train on reviewing cases and writing Force Review Board reports. This will prepare the VIPD for the current cases in the pipeline for review. Additionally, the FRB process will enhance over time and ensure the Territory reviews force incidents from a broad and transparent perspective.
2. Continue the weekly meetings of the Use of Force Work Group. The Work Group has done a good job identifying deficiencies in force investigations prior to moving the cases forward to management. This enhancement over time will develop the capacity of mid-level managers to identify mistakes before cases are approved by Deputy Chiefs.
3. The Chiefs of Police need to actively manage and send cases from the Use of Force Work Group to supervisors for timely and properly completed use of force incidents. The Chiefs of Police are ultimately responsible for the work of their supervisory/ command personnel. The Force Work Group is a support arm for the Chiefs of Police and cannot be turned into an enforcement arm that supplants the authority role and responsibility of the Chiefs duty to actively manage their use of force investigations.
4. Chiefs of Police need to actively manage Commissioner’s Directive 001-2016/ On-Call Supervisors to Respond to Use of Force. The Directive specifically covers for disciplinary action against anyone who fails to comply with the Directive. The IMT strongly believes the current policy of using an on-call supervisor list is not the solution to the problem. Allowing police operations to be commanded by a police private during weekends, holidays and late hours does not meet professional policing standards or adequate supervision of an armed force. It also fails the people of the Virgin Islands on a continual basis. Subsequent to the Summit, where the VIPD Use of Force Working Group discovered a 2013 Commissioner’s Directive that differed from the current one, the VIPD submitted
62

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 63 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
to the IMT a revised 2016 Directive that adjusts who will respond to use of force incidents and it is currently under review by DOJ and the IMT. The solution is to adjust the working schedules of supervisors to ensure that at least ONE supervisor is on duty 24/7 on each island. This supervisor does not have to be from patrol, but rather could be any supervisor, including those assigned to day work administrative jobs. They could rotate through such supervisor assignments and still perform their administrative jobs, but at a different hour of the day. Most well managed and responsible law enforcement agencies ensure the presence of supervisors and many actually mount a dutycommander position that assumes command of the department in the absence of the police chief. The IMT believes the VIPD must make this transition now before serious problems occur. The IMT will be commenting on this and the referenced draft directive. during the next scheduled court hearing. 5. The Chiefs of Police need to review and consider the findings of Use of Force Audits. The Audits are a roadmap for Consent Decree Compliance and Constitutional Policing Standards. We have previously asked that the VIPD review the audits and undertake an examination of the recommendations that have been previously made and consider implementing those recommendations. Specifically, VIPD personnel are not being actively managed for the timeliness or completeness of their use of force investigations. 6. The IMT, during the next and follow-on quarters, we will continue to review all 2016 use of force incidents as they are closed in order to actively monitor Consent Decree Compliance for all Use of Force areas in a more active mode. 7. The IMT will continue to support and provide technical assistance/guidance to the Use of Force Working Group and Chiefs of Police.
63

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 64 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
VII. FORCE REPORTING: A SPECIAL STUDY Analysis of Arrest v Use of Force (UOF) Reporting, April 2016 Project Description The IMT was concerned that not all uses of force were being reported in accordance with VIPD Policy 3.2. There is no unified reporting system in place covering incidents, arrests, and use of force and the incident and arrest reporting process may create differences in format (of reports) or numbering by island. The IMT decided to do a case review of arrest reports to sort out those that indicated resistance and try to match them up to the existence of an IA case within the IAPro system.
A review of all arrest reports between 1/1/2015 to 1/25/2016 was undertaken 3/29/2016 to 4/5/2016 at the VIPD records department St. Thomas/St. John (STT/STJ). A similar review was conducted on St Croix (STX) between 04/18/2016 and 04/20/2016. A total of 242 case files were individually examined for use of force/resisted entries on STT/STJ and 438 cases were reviewed on STX. The focus of the review was to determine if all instances where force was used by an officer resulted in case file being opened within the VIPD Internal Affairs system, e.g., IAPro. In addition to determining if the case file was present, a check was also made to see if a Response to resistance (RRR) report was loaded into the system. The IMT review did not include a paper file check for RRRs if none was found in the digital file nor did we check the specific force level involved which could have negated the need for an RRR, e.g., Level 4.
During the review, each arrest was reviewed to see if the check block indicating that the subject resisted was checked. Only those cases where such a check existed were selected for follow-up comparison with existing IAPro case files. On STT/STJ, a total of 49 case files were found to have this box checked, while on STX there were 16 reports found with the referenced block checked.
64

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 65 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

During the review, it was noted that on STT/STJ two different sets of Arrest/Detention Reports were in use during the reporting period. VIPD-ADE (10-12) PD5 (5-84) and Arrest Report, VIPD-ADE (10-12). The older report (5/84) had a check box for (Resisted) and the newer report (10-12) had boxes for Use of Force (UOF). On neither report is a space provided for the date of supervisory approval, a missing critical component of generally accepted police reporting systems and one which could be used to cross check with the IAPro system. On STX, the same two reports were in use during the reporting period. On St Croix, the VIPD-ADE (10/12) appears to be the current form that is computer generated and UOF blocks are noted. The PD 5 (5/84) is a hand written report and as such it was difficult to determine the arresting and approving supervisor name or PDN. On both reports no space is provided for the date of supervisory approval. As usual, the arrest report numbering system for St. Thomas, and St. Croix, are different and are filed differently on each island. As suggested later, this should be a point of interest and focus for the group developing the implementation of the Smart Cop Records Management System (RMS) application. Such consolidation should reduce repeated data entry by officers of the same information on a series of different reports and would achieve one of the cornerstones of modern policing records management.

The following table depicts the results of this review, with corresponding IAPro case numbers
indicated where there was found a linkage between the arrest or incident number and an IAPro
case file, as well as RRR presence:
Arrest Report-RRR Review, April, 2016 Table 4

Arrest Number STT/STJ 0004‐15 0015‐15 0026‐15 0041‐15 0050‐15 0139‐15

Incident Number

Officer Name

STT1500072 STT15‐00549 STT1500865 STT1501368 STT151665 STT152219

J Thomas J Smith S Rhymer l Huyghuel C Ettnoffe S Rachio

Officer

PDN

Date

IAB Number

On IAB RRR In Sheet NBR File

1283 1/1/2015 UOFT2015‐0001

1

1

1221 1/10/2015 UOFT2015‐0002

1

1

1127 1/15/2015

1

1107 1/23/2015 UOFT2015‐0005

1

1

1245 1/28/2015 UOFT2015‐0007

1

1

1146 3/16/2015 UOFT2015‐0015

1

1

65

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 66 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

0140J‐15 STT150329 J Allen

1115 2/28/2015 UOFT2015‐0016

1

1

0140‐15 STT154620 v Carr

1273 3/16/2015 UOFT2015‐0016

1

1

0149‐15 STT154629 J Tumbull

1262 3/18/2015

1

0151‐15 STT154489 E Francis

1235 3/19/2015

1

0168‐15 STT1505361 V Carr

1273 3/30/2015 UOFT2015‐0025

1

1

0178J‐15 STT150590 M Prescool

1207 4/10/2015 UOFT2015‐0025

1

1

0181‐15 STT1506037 T Dowe

1089 4/11/2015

1

0187‐15 STT1506216 C Buchanan

1211 4/13/2015 UOFT2015‐0027

1

1

1

0194‐15 STT1506334 K Monmetio

1189 4/15/2015 UOFT2015‐0028

1

1

0213‐15 STT156359 E Linduist

1103 4/25/2015 UOFT2015‐0029

1

1

1

0217‐15 STT1506919 A Kriggor

1056 4/26/2015 UOFT2015‐0030

1

1

1

0233‐15 STT1507583 A George

1095 5/5/2015 UOFT2015‐0035

1

1

1

0247‐15 STT1503236 M Hodge‐Donovan 1182 5/18/2015 UOFT2015‐0037

1

1

1

0255‐15 STT1508614 J Rey

1241 5/25/2015 UOFT2015‐0038

1

1

0260‐15 STT1508708 R Thomas

17 5/26/2015

1

0267‐15 STT1509113 S Phillips

1127 6/1/2015

1

0268‐15 ST1509154 Molyneaux

6/2/2015

1

0280‐15 STT1509593 Y Loblack

1277 6/10/2015 UOFT2015‐0042

1

1

1

0281‐15 STT1509593 Y Loblack

1277 6/10/2015 UOFT2015‐0042

1

1

0282‐15 STT1509628 V Carr

1273 6/24/2015 UOFT2015‐0041

1

1

1

0305‐15 STT1510554 K Turnbull

111 6/24/2015 UOFT2015‐0044

1

1

0306‐15 stt1510632 S Simon

1281 6/27/2015 UOFT2015‐0052

1

1

1

0307J‐15 STT1501034 L Melendez

1238 6/20/2015 UOFT2015‐0044

1

1

1

0309‐15 STT1501808 A Fret

1212 06/30/15

1

0328‐15 STJ1501146 J Allen

1115 07/19/15 UOFT2015‐0055

1

1

0341‐15 STT1512329 C Espirit

1153 07/27/15 UOFT2015‐0056

1

1

0416‐15 STT155239A D Castro

1269 09/19/15 UOFT2015‐0061

1

1

0421‐15 STT15385

N James

1266 09/22/15 UOFT2015‐0060

1

1

0429‐15 STT1515551 D Castro

1269 09/25/15 UOFT2015‐0062

1

1

0446‐15 STT1516236 J Turnbull

1262 10/07/15 UOFT2015‐0068

1

1

0471J‐15 STT1501560 F Riveria

1219 10/29/15

1

0482‐15 STT1517376 L Schneider

1189 10/29/15 UOFT2015‐0128

1

1

0485‐15 STT15017631 R Dover

1275 11/03/15 UOFT2015‐0072

1

1

0493‐15 STT1511466 A Dorsett

1247 11/09/15

1

0509‐15 STT1518546 L Schneider

1189 11/20/15 UOFT2015‐0075

1

1

0544‐15 STT1519529 S Bachan

1204 12/09/15 UOFT2015‐0080

1

1

0546‐15 STT1519606 S Bachan

1204 12/10/15 UOFT2015‐0081

1

1

0553‐15 STT1520096 D Hyndman

12/19/15

1

0554‐15 STT1520105 M Trant

1047 12/19/15

1

66

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 67 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

0557‐15 0031‐16 0033‐16 0051‐16
49 STX 0001‐15 0004‐15 0041‐15 0073‐15 0089‐15 0100‐15 0139‐15 0140‐15 0174‐15 0210‐15 0292‐15 0256‐15 0374‐15 0002‐16 0040‐16 0040‐16 16
Table 4

STT1520021 STT1600312 STT1601455 STT1601208
15A00015 15A00039 15A001020 15A01758 15A02166 15A02398 15A03242 15A03262 15A04579 15A05197 15A06807 15A05938 15A08780 16A00042 16A00191 16A00583

M Thomas Evans Jackson K Browne Jean‐Baptiste
K Williams D Stevens j Ventura D Marshall k Williams R. Benjamin E. Jefferson A. Poleon W. Hector S Gabriel W Hector M Francis J Gonzales d Francis C Gregory K Benjamin

Analysis

1115 12/21/15 UOFT2015‐0082

1

1

1

01/15/16

1

1236 10/02/15 UOFT2016‐0001

1

1

1203 01/21/16 UOFT2016‐0006

1

1

49 36

10

3177 01/01/15 UOFX2015‐0002

1

1

1

3224 01/02/15 UOFX2015‐0001

1

1

1

3256 02/04/15 UOFX2015‐0032

1

1

1

3194 02/28/15 UOFX2015‐0006

1

1

1

3177 03/14/15

1

3239 03/22/15

1

3246 04/16/15 UOFX2015‐0013

1

1

1

3102 04/20/15

1

3096 06/08/15 UOFX2015‐0017

1

1

1

3218 06/29/15 UOFX2015‐0025

1

1

1

3096 08/29/15 UOFX2015‐0031

1

1

1

3192 07/27/15

1

3042 11/10/15

1

3229 01/02/16 UOFX2016‐0001

1

1

1

3117 01/08/16

1

3178 01/23/16

1

16

9

9

On STT/STJ, 242 Arrest Reports were reviewed with 49 indicating resistance or about 20% of the arrests. On STX, the percentage was quite a bit lower, with 438 cases reviewed with only 16 indicating resistance or about 3.7%. The IMT has not determined the root cause of this discrepancy. When these cases were compared with IAPro data, the results on STT/STJ were 36 out of 49 with a linked IAPro case or about 73%. On STX the review revealed 9 out of 16 had IAPro cases associated with them or about 56%. The percentage between RRR being present or not should be adjusted by the force level (Level 4 does not require one) Arrest number 0041-15 required an RRR and officer was cited for failure to prepare one. Arrest numbers 0260-15, 0031-

67

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 68 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

16, 0033-16, 0260-15, and 0267-15 required no RRR forms due to level of force. Arrest number 0428-15 has a Blue Team Use of Force Report in lieu of an RRR. Arrest number 0181-15 has no IAPRO record. RRR’s are sometimes identified as “Investigative Report” in IAPRO and “Use of Force Report”. When reviewing the case selection for the presence of a Response to Resistance Report (RRR), it was found that on STT/STJ 10 of the 36 IAPro case files had a RRR in file for about 28%. On STX the number was 9 of the 9, for 100%. Overall, Territory-wide, 681 cases were reviewed and it was found that 65 indicated resistance, or about 10%. Of the 65, 45 (69%) were found to have an associated IAB case in file and of the 45, 19 (42%) had RRRs in the case file. (See previous note reference Level 4 RRR requirements.)

The analysis is summarized in Table 5, below: Comparison of STT/STJ v STX Cases Table 5

District
STT/STJ
STX
Totals Table 5

Cases Reviewed
242 439 681

Cases W/ Resistance
49 16 65

Percent 20.25%
3.64% 9.54%

Cases w/IAB Numbers
36 9
45

Percent 73.47% 56.25% 69.23%

Cases W/RRR
10 9
19

Percent (1)32.26%
100.00% (1)47.50%

(1) Percentage adjusted by force level (10/31, 19/40); five cases on STT/STJ no RRR required)

The study was undertaken to determine if UOF compliance reporting was consistently being accomplished on each and every arrest where force or resistance was indicated. Territory-wide one could draw a limited conclusion that about 70% of the time this is the case, using the matching techniques of the review. However it should be noted that the existence of resistance, as checked on the arrest report, did not seem to always equate to force being used by the reporting officer, although it was difficult to differentiate from the event narratives, and thus the ratio could be closer than depicted.

68

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 69 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
The results, however, do raise some concern levels over compliance and management oversight of the entire UOF reporting process. The fact there was a difference, at any level, indicates a need for increased oversight and management of the reporting process. While the UOF workgroup appears to be working on these issues, more needs to be done at the command and management level of the department to apply both leadership and sanctions where necessary to ensure the reporting process is complied with.
Some other conclusions can be made from the results.
 The incidence of resistance appears lower on STX than STT/STJ (3.7% compared to 20% ); the IMT does not know at this time the root cause of this.
 The percentage match up of IA cases to arrests suggests resistance and thus potential use of force by the arresting officer is higher, on STT/STJ than STX.
 Compliance with RRR reporting appears higher on STX than STT/STJ.
 The fact that some percentage of arrests where resistance was checked on the arrest report did not result in compliance with Policy 3.2 and the initiation of required UOF reporting speaks to the quality and consistency of supervision within the department. The fact that differing report formats exist throughout the department, coupled with different numbering systems between the islands, only further complicates the process. The absence of a unified, real-time monitoring of reporting of events, arrests and UOF reporting, will continue to frustrate both management oversight during the process and compliance auditing after the fact. Although only slightly impacting, the external maintenance of dispatch information by VITEMA and their continued reluctance and delay to supply it to the VIPD and the IMT further frustrates the system.
69

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 70 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
 Finally, the completion of a mixed set of paper and computer generated documents at the arrest, incident and other processing points with a further and additional requirement to produce UOF reporting documents that are separate and yet similar in content (data elements) to the original event, may in fact be having an adverse impact on the completeness of all documents, as well as the officer’s energetic compliance with the reporting requirements. In more than one event, the elimination of duplicative reporting efforts has generally increased both compliance and accuracy of the documents. However, this is further complicated by the absence, within the VIPD, of unified policy, SOPs, procedures and work products and a continued reliance on the “two island” system of management.
Recommendations
1. It is the IMT’s understanding that the VIPD is in the process of implementing a computer based Records management System (RMS) called Smart Cop. It is recommended that in doing so the issues with divergent and separate numbering systems be considered in the planning and eliminated so as to institute a Territory-wide standard for incident and arrest numbering and associated reporting formats.
2. In planning for the new system, the VIPD should take into consideration the Use of Force Reporting requirements and reporting formats so as to minimize the duplication of data and thus reduce the number and complexity of the reports requiring completion by VIPD personnel to maintain compliance. This means that if we collect the date of the event, that date should populate itself throughout all levels of and reports associated with the reporting matrix, including that associated with UOF reporting. The same should hold true for both distinct character fields as well as complex narratives and requirements of contemporary UOF reporting should be considered concurrently with that of general police reporting and records management. Time spent thinking the system through now will pay dividends later in reduction of paperwork and increased compliance by officers and manager with the UOF reporting requirements, not to mention the development of statistical and analytic reporting products in the future..
70

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 71 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
3. VIPD should consider placing on the Arrest Report form or data entry screen a series of boxes, one that asks if the subject “RESISTED”, and a second that asks if the arresting officer “USED FORCE” in response and finally one that requires a selection of the level of force used. That would eliminate the current confusion and interpretation on the check blocks encountered during the report. If computer driven, the entry in the “USED FORCE” block should pass much of the information in the arrest report that matches that of the RRR to a RRR and require the reporting officer to generate the RRR to comply with the UOF reporting requirements. While it may not be a completely automated or transparent exchange it would help to link the arrest report with the UOF reporting if force was used.
4. A date and name of approving supervisor, for the supervisory approval of the arrest report should be included and generate a linkage to the supervisory review of the RRR. 5. Consideration should be given to merging the RRR data with both the arrest and incident data to reduce redundancy of data entry and thus frustration on the part of the reporting officer.
6. Supervisor should pay closer attention to the completion and review of arrest reports that indicate resistance and force being used to the completion and review of associated RRR reporting. This should enhance both functions. 7. From the standpoint of UOF reporting, what is apparently increasing compliance on STX should be reviewed and best practices shared with STT/STJ; possibly making territory wide procedural changes.
71

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 72 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
VIII. CITIZEN COMPLAINTS & MANAGEMENT & SUPERVISION
During the Quarter, the Citizen Complaint/Management and Supervision Working Group and the IMT added weekly telephone conferences in an attempt to increase movement towards compliance in these areas. Approximately 10 telephone conferences occurred; in addition to a daylong face to face meeting mid-way through the Quarter; and numerous short conversations necessary for clarification of points. The limited number of members worked diligently to address outstanding paragraphs and sub-paragraphs to move towards compliance. Unfortunately, the movement was not as significant as either the Working Group or IMT hoped.
Once again, regarding Paragraph 44i (this information also applies to paragraph 72) – the VIPD fell short on timeliness of cases. As reported in the last quarterly report, “as a result of the November 2015 summit, the Chief of St Croix reassigned supervisors to his office to complete their overdue cases. St Thomas chose an alternative plan to address the same issue. Originally, the due date for these overdue cases to be completed was mid-January 2016. At the request of VIPD this date was extended to February 1, 2016.”
The IMT evaluation of these efforts during the current Quarter was limited to the actual reduction of outstanding cases as of January 1, 2015. While St Croix showed a significant reduction in outstanding cases for this period of time, the efforts on St Thomas did not show progress. When queried as to what those efforts were, the STT Chief stated that the supervisors continued to receive weekly reminders of overdue cases and were reminded to complete same. This was the same approach which had been utilized for the last few quarters without significant results. Most recently, when IMT requested of a number of supervisors/managers what the current outstanding numbers were, no one could provide a definitive answer.
We should note that although the VIPD focused on cases since 1/1/15 in order to not continue to dig themselves into a larger hole, the IMT has made clear that VIPD is responsible for successfully closing all cases as of 1/1/12.
72

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 73 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
When asked why this sub-paragraph would not reach compliance during the First Quarter, a number of reasons were provided, including: not enough supervisors; special events (Carnival); scheduled training; technical issues (such as systems down); and others. While the IMT does not disagree with the aforementioned reasons, none of these were new or unanticipated when the VIPD identified this Paragraph as an attainable goal for this Quarter.
There were a minimal number of instances where personnel appeared to be held accountable. On St Croix, two individuals were identified as to be disciplined. One has not been available to be served the paperwork yet. A second supervisor had the charges dropped due to what VIPD described as “the complicity of IA actions.” At this time, the IMT has not seen any paperwork that reflects how this issue was addressed by senior management to ensure that it was not repeated nor has the IMT received an explanation of the “complicity of IA actions.” These are but a couple of examples which reflect that, despite the efforts of the working group, the actions (or lack thereof) of senior supervisors/managers are not significant and consistent enough to assist in moving this area into compliance.
The Working Group created an Investigative Case Management Log with an accompanying Directive in an attempt to assist investigators/supervisors to record their actions and be more aware of the time restraints. IMT reviewed and approved same during this Quarter.
To better address the resolution of issues not related to training which are identified through the course of an investigation, the Working Group drafted a Request for Non-Training Issue Support Form with an accompanying Directive. The intent was for this to be formally issued during this Quarter; however the IMT has no record of such implementation. The IMT will assess in future quarters the effectiveness of same. (Paragraph 58)
The IMT is giving compliance to sub-paragraph 69a; which was a result of the VIPD formally assigning two permanent members to the Audit Unit. , During this Quarter the VIPD reassigned a second person to the Audit Unit as her primary responsibility. Although, historically, the IMT has recommended 3-4 people be assigned full-time to the Audit Unit, as a minimum, the IMT
73

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 74 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
will allow compliance at this point and continue to assess whether this is sufficient. The last Audit submitted by the VIPD was their best so far and the IMT wishes to acknowledge that. It is anticipated that the quality will continue to improve with the current full time staffing.
As an additional point regarding the Audits, the IMT has continually recommended to the VIPD to revisit the Unresolved Audit Recommendations (see 4Q2015 IMT Report for a reference to these recommendations generated by the Audit Unit and not responded to by the VIPD.). During this Quarter, the Work Group initiated a project to review and address, if possible, the recommendations. The Work Group has started a binder containing how the recommendations are being, or have been, addressed. While this is an excellent start, it is definitely a work in progress.
Finally, during this Quarter, the IMT had a face to face with the Audit Unit to initiate discussion on the audit function in these areas. This discussion will continue as the Audit function evolves.
Paragraph 69b is still not in compliance as the IMT has not seen the Audit SOP applied in a timely and consistent manner. The 3rd and 4th Quarter 2015 Audits were combined by the VIPD due to lateness.
The VIPD has been attempting to create a revised Disciplinary Matrix for a prolonged period of time (Paragraph 70). During the First Quarter, the IMT provided additional samples of other agencies’ approaches and met with the point person for this project. At this time, the VIPD continues to work on creating a revised Disciplinary Matrix.
Additionally, during this Quarter, the IMT initiated a project which will compare recommended disciplinary actions against the final approved action. The intent is to assess the level of consistency. These efforts will be reported on next Quarter.
In our last Quarterly Report, the IMT stated “At this time, the EIP (Early Intervention Program) is very much a work in progress. While the infrastructure to support EIP has improved, the IMT
74

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 75 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
has not yet seen evidence that managers and supervisors are effectively, and uniformly, utilizing the system. Management and supervisory accountability in this area is an essential step for compliance.” The IMT status assessment remains unchanged.
75

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 76 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
IX. TRAINING
The IMT has seen several small, incremental steps toward substantial compliance in Paragraphs 73, 74, 77 and 78 during 1Q2016. Overall, however, efforts continue to fall short of the requirements set forth in the Consent Decree. Despite the time and effort put forward by the IMT during last quarter’s mini-summit and through telephone conferences with Training Bureau and IT personnel which provided guidance and recommendations, the VIPD has not completed the requisite activities and tasks necessary, to satisfy the Consent Decree mandates nor to establish training programs, procedures and systems typically found in the training environments of similarly constituted police agencies.
Several key activities took place and deserve mention. Requirements within Paragraphs 73, 74 and 78 mandate use of force policy and lesson plan reviews semi-annually. There is also a requirement for semi-annual evaluations of the quality of use of force training. The VIPD enacted several policies and practices that will be employed as a part of this process, namely the development of a training survey tool and an instructor evaluation form. Several critical steps remain that must be taken by the Training Bureau to ensure that evaluation of use of force training adheres to basic rules of reliability and validity. The survey should be created to measure how well the training objectives were met in the field. The survey should produce measurable outcomes that are validated by supervisors and managers and the survey must reach and query enough officers to make the results meaningful.
The IMT believes that the upcoming in-service training cycle, in June 2016, provides an opportunity to demonstrate completion of the full list of tasks that fulfill the aforementioned Consent Decree Paragraphs. For example, while it would appear that a semi-annual review of lesson plans may be taking place, there has not been documentation that it was being completed in accordance with the Consent Decree. IMT asked for documentation of the entire process from appointing the AG’s Designee to documenting the semi-annual review of both policy and lesson plans for consistency with VI Law and VIPD policy.
76

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 77 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Following the documented review of the use of force policies by the AG’s designee; the results of post-training tests and evaluations; post-training knowledge based quiz; and post-training qualitative analysis, a comprehensive report of the entire semi-annual training and evaluation period should be prepared and distributed to command staff. The findings of the report would elicit recommendation for future in-service training, roll call training and supervisory emphasis in management activities. We also expect to see a similar report produced after each recruit academy graduation.
The other focus area involves Paragraph 77. The IMT has requested that the VIPD produce two years of documented records in compliance with this paragraph. We believe that there are two years of records that reliably document in-service participant attendance. The IMT also believes that the VIPD, with some effort, could produce two years of lesson plans that would match the classes taught in the same time period. A two-year chronology of instructors and their subject matter just doesn’t exist. The IMT believes that the VIPD should memorialize processes and procedures that reliably capture instructional data for at least one (1) year to comply with this paragraph.
The IMT continues to work with the VIPD on the standardization and automation of instructor files. We reported two quarters ago on our inspection findings along with recommendations that would ensure the accuracy and completeness of the records. We continued to provide guidance and technical assistance as paper files are organized and entered into PowerDMS.
The IMT’s highest recommended priority remains the engagement of assistance from a local college or university to assist with the development of lesson plans and evaluation methodologies with measurable outcomes. The objectives in lesson plans should correlate to surveys and evaluations in a manner that produces measurable outcomes.
The IMT also recommends that prior to the beginning of the upcoming in-service training period, a detailed plan (which is included in their Action Planning) be prepared that describes the entire training cycle complete with evaluations and reporting requirements. Specifically, the plan
77

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 78 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
should include, but not be limited to the lesson plan, quizzes, class and instructor evaluations, post-training knowledge quiz and qualitative survey and summary.
78

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 79 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
X. ENGAGING THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT
The government of the U.S. Virgin Islands has the ultimate responsibility for compliance with the mandates of the Consent Decree. Accordingly, keeping the Territory’s political leadership apprised of Consent Decree-compliance progress and issues is an important role of all Parties.
On February 24, 2016, representatives from all Parties met for an extensive state-of-the-ConsentDecree discussion. Present from the Justice Department was Laura Coon and Jack Morse, Attorneys for the Civil Rights Division, Emile Henderson, Counsel to Governor Mapp, Eugene D. Farrell, Senior Policy Advisor, Justice & Law Enforcement, Commissioner Richards, Deputy Commissioner Griffin, Police Chiefs Foy and Hector, Charles Gruber and Robert Stewart from the IMT.
The agenda was extensive. Discussion focused on the T&M Report, Compliance Plans for unmet areas of the Consent Decree, status of Consent Decree issues discussed at the previous meeting with Territorial leaders, and a miscellaneous package of additional subjects of interest and importance, including "next steps."
The T&M Report discussion centered on:
 The Territory’s reaction to the findings and recommendations.  Development of plans to address recommendations.  How will introduction of recommendations affect the progress of the Consent
Decree.  How will the Territory fund T&M recommendations and the Consent Decree
operations that are already underway.
The Territory indicated that plans would be developed and that legislation was being designed to give the POST (Peace Officers Standards and Training) more oversight throughout all the police jurisdictions within the Virgin Islands Territory. Ongoing plans for the recommendations would be forthcoming and would be designed to work in concert with the current Consent Decree without disruption to the ongoing and current work of the Consent Decree.
79

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 80 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
With regard to a Compliance Plan for outstanding areas of the Consent Decree, we reported and asked:
 The VIPD still has not completed an adequate compliance plan for outstanding areas of the Consent Decree, including sub-paragraphs not attached to goals. When will that plan be done?
 Is the August 2016 date for substantial compliance of all paragraphs of the Consent Decree realistic in the Territory’s view?
In response the Territorial representatives stated the goals have been challenging to the Territory due, in part, to changes in many positions and leaders. Current leadership believes much progress has occurred even if total compliance has not been reached. Policing in the Territory has changed. It will continue to change and become more compliant with the Agreement as the VIPD is strengthened in both training of personnel and ensuring accountability. The August deadline will remain a focus and a goal that the Territory wants to meet.
Among issues also discussed are:
 Untimely investigation of Citizen Complaints.  Supervisor failures on EIS alerts and inadequate Use of Force investigations.  Force Training not being assessed properly.
During the meeting, Commissioner Richards and Deputy Commissioner Griffin assured that progress is being made to resolve all of these conditions. The Parties have assessed that progress is slow but making forward strides. Territorial leaders noted that given the numerous problems being addressed throughout the Territory, forward progress may be slower than the United States would like to see but that best effort is being given.
Additional items discussed were:
 NYPD Training.  Use of Governor’s emergency powers to add personnel to the VIPD.  Annual Report of VIPD activities.  Civil Asset Forfeiture.  Use of the 1033 Program.
80

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 81 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
 Next Steps. Decisions on these issues have been made by the Territory and some may be under current discussion. When and if formal plans are made and developed, all will be so informed. The Territory made special notice of the appointment of Mr. Eugene D. Farrell as the Senior Policy Advisor for Justice and Law Enforcement on the Governor’s staff. The Territory wanted both the DOJ and the IMT to meet with and work with Mr. Farrell and the VIPD on all of the discussions and Consent Decree related work as we continue to move forward with all plans. The IMT considers this to be a timely and potentially profitable opportunity to cement coordination among the Parties and to add an asset to the compliance team. The IMT takes note that all the parties are fully engaged and participating with vigor to accomplish the consent decree requirements in both word and spirit. Notwithstanding the many roadblocks and obstacles that the parties have faced all are still hopeful that the Territory will accomplish the reforms intended. Delay most probably will continue as the difficulties faced by the territory are varied and many.
81

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 82 of 184
Fourth Quarterly Report of 2015 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
APPENDICES See Separate Appendix Package That Follows
82

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 83 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

032

Not In Substantial Compliance

The VIPD will require all uses of force to be documented in writing. The use of force

report form will indicate each and every type of force that was used, and require the

evaluation of each type of force. Use of force reports will include a narrative description

of the events preceding the use of force, written by a supervisor or by the designated

investigative unit. Use of force reports also will include the officer(s)' narrative

description of events and the officer(s)' statement. Except in cases of use of force

involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, the

officer's statement shall be audio- or videotaped.

Sub-Paragraphs
b Partial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
=>95% of RRRs indicate each and every type of force that was used

4Q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting period. Cases still fail to list all types of force that was used in the event. Paragraph generally This paragraph is still stagnated and progress has been incremental at best. Both VIPD and the IMT have discussed potential actions they can take to drive compliance forward. 1) Identify supervisor weaknesses and meet and counsel them individually. 2) Assess supervisor ability to write, review and analyze force incidents; and improve training delivery, 3) Have Chief's conduct force tracking thru commanders call 4) Train Chief's and D/Chief's on analyzing force patterns and practices 5) Train supervisors on techniques to coach and mentor subordinates on thru force incidents. 6) Use technology to advance the force review and analysis process. Install and operate the in car video system, personal worn cameras etc.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - Focusing on requiring RRRs to indicate each and every type of force that was used in force incidents, the VIPD has increased its compliance rate, but still falls short of meeting the established goals of 95% or better compliance. Using the IMT Five Quarter Analysis View they were at 69%, while when using the IMT Seven Quarter Analysis, we found thmn to be at 63.3%, all data based on VIPD internal

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 1 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 84 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

audits. Both the VIPD audits and IMT case reviews confirm this status. The UOF Working Group has been reviewing each investigation and included RRRs to ensure compliance with requirements and returning deficient ones back to the investigating officers, via the chain of command, for corrective action at all levels. The IMT will continue to monitor during the next quarter. See base report for additional information in Section VI.

c Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
=>95% of RRRs contain an evaluation of each type of force used by a supervisor

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting period. Paragraph generally This paragraph is still stagnated and progress has been incremental at best. Both VIPD and the IMT have discussed potential actions they can take to drive compliance forward. 1) Identify supervisor weaknesses and meet and counsel them individually. 2) Assess supervisor ability to write, review and analyze force incidents; and improve training delivery, 3) Have Chief's conduct force tracking thru commanders call 4) Train Chief's and D/Chief's on analyzing force patterns and practices 5) Train supervisors on techniques to coach and mentor subordinates on thru force incidents. 6) Use technology to advance the force review and analysis process. Install and operate the in car video system, personal worn cameras etc.

1Q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016- Focusing on requiring RRRs to indicate each and every type of force that

was used in force incidents, the VIPD has increased its compliance rate, but still falls

short of meeting the established goals of 95% or better compliance. Both the VIPD

audits and IMT case reviews confirm this status. The UOF Working Group has been

reviewing each investigation and included RRRs to ensure compliance with

requirements and returning deficient ones back to the investigating officers for

corrective action. The IMT will continue to monitor during the next quarter.

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 2 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 85 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

See base report for additional information in Section VI.

f Partial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
=>95% of the reports will include an audio or videotaped statement, unless the level of force used is at the lowest level as described by DOJ approved VIPD policy.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting period. Paragraph generally This paragraph is still stagnated and progress has been incremental at best. Both VIPD and the IMT have discussed potential actions they can take to drive compliance forward. 1) Identify supervisor weaknesses and meet and counsel them individually. 2) Assess supervisor ability to write, review and analyze force incidents; and improve training delivery, 3) Have Chief's conduct force tracking thru commanders call 4) Train Chief's and D/Chief's on analyzing force patterns and practices 5) Train supervisors on techniques to coach and mentor subordinates on thru force incidents. 6) Use technology to advance the force review and analysis process. Install and operate the in car video system, personal worn cameras etc.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016- Focusing on requiring RRRs to indicate each and every type of force that was used in force incidents, the VIPD has increased its compliance rate, but still falls short of meeting the established goals of 95% or better compliance. Both the VIPD audits and IMT case reviews confirm this status. The UOF Working Group has been reviewing each investigation and included RRRs to ensure compliance with requirements and returning deficient ones back to the investigating officers for corrective action. The IMT will continue to monitor during the next quarter. See base report for additional information in Section VI.

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 3 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 86 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

END OF PARAGRAPH 032

033

Not In Substantial Compliance

Officers shall notify their supervisors following any use of force or upon the receipt of

an allegation of excessive force. Except in uses of force involving the lowest level of

force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, supervisors will respond to the

scene, examine the subject for injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain, and

ensure that the subject received needed medical attention.

Sub-Paragraphs
a Partial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In =>95% of the identified use of force incidents, the officer using force notified his/her supervisor immediately as required by VIPD policy.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting period. Paragraph generally 33: This paragraph has received special action by the VIPD in its attempt to reach greater compliance. During this quarter the Chief's in both districts issued orders that zone commanders appoint on call supervisory personnel to respond to use of force incidents when on duty personnel are not available. Both IMT reviews and VIPD audit's disclosed the failure of police supervisory personnel in be available when force events occur. We further recommend 1) That the Chief's work together to create a unified scheduling system throughout the Territory for the call out and regularly audit the call out to ensure compliance. 2) Drive home the importance of leadership oversight thru their Commanders Call 3) Require supervisors to report to VITEMA when they respond to a force event, when they arrive, and when they have completed their work on scene.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - Throughout the Territory there were forty-nine (49) force incidents; for the

time frame of December 18, 2015 - April 26, 2016. Of these, 27 required a

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 4 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 87 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

supervisory call-out.

a. Of the 49 Use of Force Incidents

14 of those incidents, the supervisor did not respond to the force incident. 13 of those incidents, the supervisor did respond to the force incident. 22 of those incidents, the supervisor did not need to respond to the force incident.

b. Deducting the 22 incidents where an on-scene response was not necessary, leaves a total of 27 where a response was required. Of these, 14 of the 27 or in 52% of the incidents, the supervisor did not respond to the force incident. This needs a follow up for compliance and reason(s) for non-compliance to the Commissioner's Directive.

c. Additionally, in 13 of the 27, or 48% of the incidents, the supervisor did respond to the force incident consistent with policy.

Four (4) of the supervisory non-responses occurred in the St. Thomas Police District and Ten (10) failures to respond occurred in the St. Croix District. A memo was sent by the IMT to the respective district Police Chiefs to explain why a supervisor failed to respond the use of force incident. Formal response and explanation has not been received and approved by the IMT at the time of this writing. It is however clear that the Commissioner's directive has moved the VIPD to get supervisors to the use of force scenes about half the time as required by policy. The reasons for failure have to be examined to learn how improvements can be made for compliance. We would recommend that the Chiefs of Police should be tasked to accomplish this review. As noted above, a revised Commissioner's Directive is currently being reviewed by the IMT on this subject.

Recommendation Chiefs of Police need to actively manage Commissioner's Directive 001-2016/ On-Call Supervisors to Respond to Use of Force. The Directive specifically covers for disciplinary action against anyone who fails to comply with the Directive. The IMT strongly believes the current policy of using an on-call supervisor list is not the solution to the problem. The essentially allow police operations to be commanded by a police private during weekends, holidays and late hours does not meet professional policing standards or adequate supervision of an armed force. It also fails the people the of the Virgin Islands on a continual basis.

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 5 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 88 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

The solution is to adjust the working schedules of supervisors to ensure that at least ONE supervisor is on duty 24/7 on each island. This supervisor does not have to be from patrol, but rather could be any supervisor, including those assigned to day work administrative jobs. They could rotate through such supervisor assignments and still perform their administrative jobs, but at a different hour of the day. Most well managed and responsible law enforcement agencies ensure the presence of supervisors and many actually mount a duty-commander position that assumes command of the department in the absence of the police chief. The IMT believes the VIPD must make this transition now before serious problems occur. The IMT will be commenting on this during the next scheduled court hearing.

b Partial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In =>90% of the incidents where the supervisor was required to respond to the scene, he/she responded within a reasonable amount of time.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting period. Paragraph generally 33: This paragraph has received special action by the VIPD in its attempt to reach greater compliance. During this quarter the Chief's in both districts issued orders that zone commanders appoint on call supervisory personnel to respond to use of force incidents when on duty personnel are not available. Both IMT reviews and VIPD audit's disclosed the failure of police supervisory personnel in be available when force events occur. We further recommend 1) That the Chief's work together to create a unified scheduling system throughout the Territory for the call out and regularly audit the call out to ensure compliance. 2) Drive home the importance of leadership oversight thru their Commanders Call 3) Require supervisors to report to VITEMA when they respond to a force event, when they arrive, and when they have completed their work on scene.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 6 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 89 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - Throughout the Territory there were forty-nine (49) force incidents; for the time frame of December 18, 2015 - April 26, 2016. Of these, 27 required a supervisory call-out.

a. Of the 49 Use of Force Incidents

14 of those incidents, the supervisor did not respond to the force incident. 13 of those incidents, the supervisor did respond to the force incident. 22 of those incidents, the supervisor did not need to respond to the force incident.

b. Deducting the 22 incidents where an on-scene response was not necessary, leaves a total of 27 where a response was required. Of these, 14 of the 27 or in 52% of the incidents, the supervisor did not respond to the force incident. This needs a follow up for compliance and reason(s) for non-compliance to the Commissioner's Directive.

c. Additionally, in 13 of the 27, or 48% of the incidents, the supervisor did respond to the force incident consistent with policy.

Four (4) of the supervisory non-responses occurred in the St. Thomas Police District and Ten (10) failures to respond occurred in the St. Croix District. A memo was sent by the IMT to the respective district Police Chiefs to explain why a supervisor failed to respond the use of force incident. Formal response and explanation has not been received and approved by the IMT at the time of this writing. It is however clear that the Commissioner's directive has moved the VIPD to get supervisors to the use of force scenes about half the time as required by policy. The reasons for failure have to be examined to learn how improvements can be made for compliance. We would recommend that the Chiefs of Police should be tasked to accomplish this review. As noted above, a revised Commissioner's Directive is currently being reviewed by the IMT on this subject.

Recommendation Chiefs of Police need to actively manage Commissioner's Directive 001-2016/ On-Call Supervisors to Respond to Use of Force. The Directive specifically covers for disciplinary action against anyone who fails to comply with the Directive. The IMT strongly believes the current policy of using an on-call supervisor list is not the solution to the problem. The essentially allow police operations to be commanded by

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 7 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 90 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

a police private during weekends, holidays and late hours does not meet professional policing standards or adequate supervision of an armed force. It also fails the people the of the Virgin Islands on a continual basis.

The solution is to adjust the working schedules of supervisors to ensure that at least ONE supervisor is on duty 24/7 on each island. This supervisor does not have to be from patrol, but rather could be any supervisor, including those assigned to day work administrative jobs. They could rotate through such supervisor assignments and still perform their administrative jobs, but at a different hour of the day. Most well managed and responsible law enforcement agencies ensure the presence of supervisors and many actually mount a duty-commander position that assumes command of the department in the absence of the police chief. The IMT believes the VIPD must make this transition now before serious problems occur. The IMT will be commenting on this during the next scheduled court hearing.

c Partial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In =>90% of the incidents did the supervisor respond to the scene,he/she examined the person for injury,

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting period. Paragraph generally 33: This paragraph has received special action by the VIPD in its attempt to reach greater compliance. During this quarter the Chief's in both districts issued orders that zone commanders appoint on call supervisory personnel to respond to use of force incidents when on duty personnel are not available. Both IMT reviews and VIPD audit's disclosed the failure of police supervisory personnel in be available when force events occur. We further recommend 1) That the Chief's work together to create a unified scheduling system throughout the Territory for the call out and regularly audit the call out to ensure compliance. 2) Drive home the importance of leadership oversight thru their Commanders Call 3) Require supervisors to report to VITEMA when they respond to a force event,

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 8 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 91 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

when they arrive, and when they have completed their work on scene.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
See 33b above; also 1Q2016- IMT reviewed this area during the quarter and issues

still remain with compliance. See base report for additional.

d Partial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In =>05% of the incidents where a supervisor responded to the scene, he/she interviewed the subject for injury or complaint of pain.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting period. Paragraph generally 33: This paragraph has received special action by the VIPD in its attempt to reach greater compliance. During this quarter the Chief's in both districts issued orders that zone commanders appoint on call supervisory personnel to respond to use of force incidents when on duty personnel are not available. Both IMT reviews and VIPD audit's disclosed the failure of police supervisory personnel in be available when force events occur. We further recommend 1) That the Chief's work together to create a unified scheduling system throughout the Territory for the call out and regularly audit the call out to ensure compliance. 2) Drive home the importance of leadership oversight thru their Commanders Call 3) Require supervisors to report to VITEMA when they respond to a force event, when they arrive, and when they have completed their work on scene.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - See 33 b above; also 1Q2016- IMT reviewed this area during the quarter and issues still remain with compliance. See base report for additional. Issues still remain with compliance and the workgroups are focusing on this area.

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 9 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 92 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

e Partial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In =>90% of the incidents where the Supervisors responded to the scene, he/she ensured that subjects received any necessary medical attention.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting period. Paragraph generally 33: This paragraph has received special action by the VIPD in its attempt to reach greater compliance. During this quarter the Chief's in both districts issued orders that zone commanders appoint on call supervisory personnel to respond to use of force incidents when on duty personnel are not available. Both IMT reviews and VIPD audit's disclosed the failure of police supervisory personnel in be available when force events occur. We further recommend 1) That the Chief's work together to create a unified scheduling system throughout the Territory for the call out and regularly audit the call out to ensure compliance. 2) Drive home the importance of leadership oversight thru their Commanders Call 3) Require supervisors to report to VITEMA when they respond to a force event, when they arrive, and when they have completed their work on scene.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - See 33 b above; also 1Q2016- IMT reviewed this area during the quarter

and issues still remain with compliance. See base report for additional. IMT

continues to monitor this although improvements have been seen.

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

END OF PARAGRAPH 033 NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 10 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 93 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

034

Not In Substantial Compliance

Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, will review, evaluate, and

document each use of force, and will complete the narrative description section of the

use of force report. The narrative description will include a precise description of the

facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer's conduct. As part

of this review, the supervisor or designated investigating officer/unit will evaluate the

basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officer's actions were within VIPD

policy. An officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or

who authorized conduct leading to the use of force or allegation of excessive force, or

who was present during the incident, will not be eligible to review or investigate the

incident.

Sub-Paragraphs
a Partial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In =>95% of the reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he/she was not involved in the use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize or participate in conduct leading to the use of force incident), will review, evaluate, and document each use of force.

4q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting period. Paragraph generally This paragraph has been the most difficult one for the VIPD to come into compliance with. The paragraph primarily deals with the requirements of the inquiry into the use of force including the precise description of the facts and circumstance that either justify or fail to justify the use of force. This analysis has been absent from most supervisors reports to date. During this reporting period the VIPD trained most of its supervisors and management staff from Nov 2-5 2015 in both districts on all of the requirements needed in an inquiry to meet the compliance standard for this paragraph. We further recommend 1) That zone Commanders be held accountable for failing to both timely and completely reviewing their subordinate supervisor force inquiry reports by the D/Police Chiefs. That all items required in the reports are accounted for before they transmit them to the D/Police Chief for approval. 2) That the D/Police Chief & the Police Chief are both required to read, accept and concur that the inquiry reports are complete accurate and reflect a complete substance of the event. They must also write any follow-up that is required and any

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 11 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 94 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

area of the inquiry in which they disagree with that is contained in the event reports.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 N

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - The VIPD has published an on-call schedule but continues ot have

problems getting supervisors to the use of force incident scene. Throughout the

Territory there was forty-nine (49) force incidents where supervisory call-out was

required for the time frame of December 18, 2015 - April 26, 2016.

a. 49 Use of Force Incidents

14 of those incidents, the supervisor responded to the force incident. 13 of those incidents, the supervisor did not respond to the force incident. 22 of those incidents, the supervisor did not need to respond to the force incident.

b. 14/27 = 52% of the incidents, the supervisor did not respond to the force incident. This needs a follow up for compliance and reason(s) for non-compliance to the Commissioner's Directive.

c.

13/27 = 48% of the incidents, the supervisor did respond to the force

incident consistent

with policy.

Four of the supervisory non-responses (4) occurred in the St. Thomas Police District and Nine (9) failures to respond occurred in the St. Croix District. A memo was sent to the Police Chiefs of their respective districts to explain why a supervisor filed to respond the use of force incident. Formal response and explanation has not been received and approved by the IMT at the time of this writing. It is however clear that the Commissioner's directive has moved the VIPD to get supervisors to the use of force scenes about half the time as required by policy. The reasons for failure have to be examined to learn how improvements can be made for compliance. We would recommend that the Chiefs of Police should be tasked to accomplish this review.

b Partial Compliance
Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completes the supervisor's narrative description of the RRR in a manner that comports with the requirements of para 34 of the Consent Decree.

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 12 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 95 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting

components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting

period.

Paragraph generally

This paragraph has been the most difficult one for the VIPD to come into compliance

with. The paragraph primarily deals with the requirements of the inquiry into the use

of force including the precise description of the facts and circumstance that either

justify or fail to justify the use of force. This analysis has been absent from most

supervisors reports to date. During this reporting period the VIPD trained most of its

supervisors and management staff from Nov 2-5 2015 in both districts on all of the

requirements needed in an inquiry to meet the compliance standard for this

paragraph. We further recommend

1) That zone Commanders be held accountable for failing to both timely and

completely reviewing their subordinate supervisor force inquiry reports by the

D/Police Chiefs. That all items required in the reports are accounted for before they

transmit them to the D/Police Chief for approval.

2) That the D/Police Chief & the Police Chief are both required to read, accept

and concur that the inquiry reports are complete accurate and reflect a complete

substance of the event. They must also write any follow-up that is required and any

area of the inquiry in which they disagree with that is contained in the event reports.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - There was no progress on this sub-paragraph during 1Q2016

c Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completed his/her review and evaluation according to VIPD's use of force policies and all other requirements of 31 of the Consent Decree and includeg a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer/s conduct.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting period. Paragraph generally This paragraph has been the most difficult one for the VIPD to come into compliance

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 13 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 96 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

with. The paragraph primarily deals with the requirements of the inquiry into the use of force including the precise description of the facts and circumstance that either justify or fail to justify the use of force. This analysis has been absent from most supervisors reports to date. During this reporting period the VIPD trained most of its supervisors and management staff from Nov 2-5 2015 in both districts on all of the requirements needed in an inquiry to meet the compliance standard for this paragraph. We further recommend 1) That zone Commanders be held accountable for failing to both timely and completely reviewing their subordinate supervisor force inquiry reports by the D/Police Chiefs. That all items required in the reports are accounted for before they transmit them to the D/Police Chief for approval. 2) That the D/Police Chief & the Police Chief are both required to read, accept and concur that the inquiry reports are complete accurate and reflect a complete substance of the event. They must also write any follow-up that is required and any area of the inquiry in which they disagree with that is contained in the event reports.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - There was no progress on this sub-paragraph during 1Q2016. No progress has been made on this goal and the workgroups have this as an action item. The VIPD needs to review its problem solving protocols and revisit the planning stages for compliance with this goal. New strategies need identification and plans for implementing them developed.

d Partial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completed his/her review and evaluation according to VIPD's use of force policies and all other requirements of 31 of the Consent Decree and will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officers actions were within VIPD policy.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The VIPD has not entered any planning steps into the GMS software for this sub-paragraph and the IMT, through its quarterly monitoring efforts, has determined that there was no change in compliance status. Paragraph generally This paragraph has been the most difficult one for the VIPD to come into compliance with. The paragraph primarily deals with the requirements of the inquiry into the use of force including the precise description of the facts and circumstance that either

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 14 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 97 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

justify or fail to justify the use of force. This analysis has been absent from most supervisors reports to date. During this reporting period the VIPD trained most of its supervisors and management staff from Nov 2-5 2015 in both districts on all of the requirements needed in an inquiry to meet the compliance standard for this paragraph. We further recommend 1) That zone Commanders be held accountable for failing to both timely and completely reviewing their subordinate supervisor force inquiry reports by the D/Police Chiefs. That all items required in the reports are accounted for before they transmit them to the D/Police Chief for approval. 2) That the D/Police Chief & the Police Chief are both required to read, accept and concur that the inquiry reports are complete accurate and reflect a complete substance of the event. They must also write any follow-up that is required and any area of the inquiry in which they disagree with that is contained in the event reports.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1q2016 - This sub-paragraph does not have any plans listed in the GMS, nor has any activity been focused on it. It remains non-compliant in 1Q2016..

e Partial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
See a, above.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - There was no progress on this sub-paragraph during 1Q2016. No progress has been made on this goal and the workgroups have this as an action item. The VIPD needs to review its problem solving protocols and revisit the planning stages for compliance with this goal. New strategies need identification and plans for implementing them developed.

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

END OF PARAGRAPH 034 NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 15 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 98 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

035

Not in Substantial Compliance

The parties agree that it is improper interview procedure during use of force

investigations to ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that improperly

suggest legal justifications for the officer's conduct when such questions are contrary to

appropriate law enforcement techniques. In each review/investigation, the VIPD will

consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as

appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. The VIPD will make all

reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. The

VIPD will train all of its supervisors and officers assigned to conduct use of force

investigations in conducting use of force investigations, including in the factors to

consider when evaluating credibility.

Sub-Paragraphs
a Partial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In =>90% of the interviews conducted during use of force reviews, leading questions were avoided.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The VIPD has not entered any planning steps into the GMS software for this sub-paragraph and the IMT, through its quarterly monitoring efforts, has determined that there was no change in compliance status. Paragraph generally This paragraph has been the most difficult one for the VIPD to come into compliance with. The paragraph primarily deals with the requirements of the inquiry into the use of force including the precise description of the facts and circumstance that either justify or fail to justify the use of force. This analysis has been absent from most supervisors reports to date. During this reporting period the VIPD trained most of its supervisors and management staff from Nov 2-5 2015 in both districts on all of the requirements needed in an inquiry to meet the compliance standard for this paragraph. We further recommend 1) With the FIT and UFRB nearing implementation the compliance issues associated with all force paragraphs should increase dramatically. 2) The force training of all personnel needs to be continuous and constantly updated and renewed based on the outcomes learned by management through the above processes. 3) That zone Commanders be held accountable for failing to both timely and completely reviewing their subordinate supervisor force inquiry reports by the D/Police Chiefs. That all items required in the reports are accounted for before they transmit them to the D/Police Chief for approval.

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 16 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 99 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

4) That the D/Police Chief & the Police Chief are both required to read, accept and concur that the inquiry reports are complete accurate and reflect a complete substance of the event. They must also write any follow-up that is required and any area of the inquiry in which they disagree with that is contained in the event reports.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - No progress has been made on this goal and the workgroups have this as an action item. The VIPD needs to review its problem solving protocols and revisit the planning stages for compliance with this goal. New strategies need identification and plans for implementing them developed.

b Partial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In =>90% of the use of force reviews, all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence is documented and appropriately considered, and credibility determinations made, if feasible.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The VIPD has not entered any planning steps into the GMS software for this sub-paragraph and the IMT, through its quarterly monitoring efforts, has determined that there was no change in compliance status. Paragraph generally This paragraph has been the most difficult one for the VIPD to come into compliance with. The paragraph primarily deals with the requirements of the inquiry into the use of force including the precise description of the facts and circumstance that either justify or fail to justify the use of force. This analysis has been absent from most supervisors reports to date. During this reporting period the VIPD trained most of its supervisors and management staff from Nov 2-5 2015 in both districts on all of the requirements needed in an inquiry to meet the compliance standard for this paragraph. We further recommend 1) With the FIT and UFRB nearing implementation the compliance issues associated with all force paragraphs should increase dramatically. 2) The force training of all personnel needs to be continuous and constantly updated and renewed based on the outcomes learned by management through the above processes. 3) That zone Commanders be held accountable for failing to both timely and completely reviewing their subordinate supervisor force inquiry reports by the D/Police Chiefs. That all items required in the reports are accounted for before they

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 17 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 100 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

transmit them to the D/Police Chief for approval. 4) That the D/Police Chief & the Police Chief are both required to read, accept and concur that the inquiry reports are complete accurate and reflect a complete substance of the event. They must also write any follow-up that is required and any area of the inquiry in which they disagree with that is contained in the event reports.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - No progress has been made on this goal and the workgroups have this as an action item. The VIPD needs to review its problem solving protocols and revisit the planning stages for compliance with this goal. New strategies need identification and plans for implementing them developed. See base quarterly report for additional information on this goal area.

c Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In =>90% of investigations where material inconsistencies are present between witness statements, reasonable efforts are made to resolve the inconsistencies. When evaluating witness credibility, appropriate factors are considered and documented.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The VIPD has not entered any planning steps into the GMS software for this sub-paragraph and the IMT, through its quarterly monitoring efforts, has determined that there was no change in compliance status. Paragraph generally This paragraph has been the most difficult one for the VIPD to come into compliance with. The paragraph primarily deals with the requirements of the inquiry into the use of force including the precise description of the facts and circumstance that either justify or fail to justify the use of force. This analysis has been absent from most supervisors reports to date. During this reporting period the VIPD trained most of its supervisors and management staff from Nov 2-5 2015 in both districts on all of the requirements needed in an inquiry to meet the compliance standard for this paragraph. We further recommend 1) With the FIT and UFRB nearing implementation the compliance issues associated with all force paragraphs should increase dramatically. 2) The force training of all personnel needs to be continuous and constantly updated and renewed based on the outcomes learned by management through the above processes.

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 18 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 101 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

3) That zone Commanders be held accountable for failing to both timely and completely reviewing their subordinate supervisor force inquiry reports by the D/Police Chiefs. That all items required in the reports are accounted for before they transmit them to the D/Police Chief for approval. 4) That the D/Police Chief & the Police Chief are both required to read, accept and concur that the inquiry reports are complete accurate and reflect a complete substance of the event. They must also write any follow-up that is required and any area of the inquiry in which they disagree with that is contained in the event reports.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016- No progress has been made on this goal and the workgroups have this as an action item. The VIPD needs to review its problem solving protocols and revisit the planning stages for compliance with this goal. New strategies need identification and plans for implementing them developed.

See base quarterly report for additional information on this goal area.

END OF PARAGRAPH 035

036

Not In Substantial Compliance

Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall conduct an investigation

of all uses of force or injury resulting from a use of force by any officer under their

command. This requirement does not apply to uses of force involving the lowest level

of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ. In an investigation, supervisors

or designated investigating officers or units, shall interview all witnesses to a use of

force or an injury resulting from a use of force. Consistent with the requirements of the

collective bargaining agreement or other applicable law, VIPD supervisors or designated

investigating officers or units shall ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement

regarding the incident. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall

ensure that all use of force reports for all levels of force identify all officers who were

involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred. Supervisors, or

designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports for all levels of

force indicate whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided, and

whether the subject refused medical treatment. Supervisors, or designated

investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports include contemporaneous

photographs or videotapes taken of all injuries at the earliest practicable opportunity,

both before and after any treatment, including cleansing of wounds.

Sub-Paragraphs

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 19 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 102 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

a Partial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
=>90% of the Use of Force reports, the supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, who supervised the officer using the force, conducted the investigation of all uses of force or injury resulting from the use of force by that officer. This requirement does nto apply to the lowest level use of force as defined in DOJ approved VIPD policy.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting period. Paragraph generally This paragraph singles out the requirements to identify all witnesses to a use of force or an injury as a result of a use of force. VIPD has had its issues getting supervisors to the scene and if they don't arrive they can't identify either witnesses or potential evidence associated with the use of force. If the supervisors would completely fill out the check sheet created by VIPD to ensure that this information is captured compliance would soon follow. We would further recommend
1) That zone Commanders be held accountable for failing to both timely and completely reviewing their subordinate supervisor force inquiry reports by the D/Police Chiefs. That all items required in the reports are accounted for before they transmit them to the D/Police Chief for approval.
2) That the D/Police Chief & the Police Chief are both required to read, accept and concur that the inquiry reports are complete accurate and reflect a complete substance of the event. They must also write any follow-up that is required and any area of the inquiry in which they disagree with that is contained in the event reports.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - No progress has been made on this goal and the workgroups have this as an action item. The VIPD needs to review its problem solving protocols and revisit

the planning stages for compliance with this goal. New strategies need identification and plans for implementing them developed. See base quarterly report for additional information on this goal area.

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 20 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 103 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

b Partial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, all witnesses, to the extent practicable, are interviewed in the investigating supervisor's reports.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting period. Paragraph generally This paragraph singles out the requirements to identify all witnesses to a use of force or an injury as a result of a use of force. VIPD has had its issues getting supervisors to the scene and if they don't arrive they can't identify either witnesses or potential evidence associated with the use of force. If the supervisors would completely fill out the check sheet created by VIPD to ensure that this information is captured compliance would soon follow. We would further recommend
1) That zone Commanders be held accountable for failing to both timely and completely reviewing their subordinate supervisor force inquiry reports by the D/Police Chiefs. That all items required in the reports are accounted for before they transmit them to the D/Police Chief for approval.
2) That the D/Police Chief & the Police Chief are both required to read, accept and concur that the inquiry reports are complete accurate and reflect a complete substance of the event. They must also write any follow-up that is required and any area of the inquiry in which they disagree with that is contained in the event reports.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - No progress has been made on this goal and the workgroups have this as

an action item. The VIPD needs to review its problem solving protocols and revisit

the planning stages for compliance with this goal. New strategies need identification

and plans for implementing them developed.

See base quarterly report for additional information on this goal area.

Use of Force Work Group met and reviewed all force incident cases prior to being

officially approved. The Work Group performed well by pointing out deficiencies to

submitted investigations and returning them for corrective action. Both the

sub-paragraph and the related goal continue to be elusive for the VIPD.

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 21 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 104 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

d Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In =>90% of Use of Force reports, Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all use of force reports for all levels of force identify all officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016- No progress has been made on this goal and the workgroups have this as an action item. The VIPD needs to review its problem solving protocols and revisit the planning stages for compliance with this goal. New strategies need identification and plans for implementing them developed. See base quarterly report for additional information on this goal area.

END OF PARAGRAPH 036

037

Not In Substantial Compliance

All investigations into use of force shall be reviewed by the Officer's Commander and/or

Director, or by a Commander and/or Director in the designated investigative unit, who

shall identify any deficiencies in those reviews, and shall require supervisors, or

designated investigative officers or units, to correct any and all deficiencies.

Supervisors, and designated investigative officers or units, will be held accountable for

the quality of their reviews. Appropriate non-disciplinary corrective action and/or

disciplinary action will be taken when a supervisor, or designated investigative officer or

unit, fails to conduct a timely and thorough review, or neglects to recommend

appropriate corrective action, or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective

action. As provided by VIPD policy and approved by DOJ, designated command staff

shall further review the Commander and/or Director's reviews according to the level of

force involved.

Sub-Paragraphs
a Partial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
=>90% of the completed use of force case files contained signed documentation from the Chief and/or Deputy Chief indicating that he/she reviewed the completed investigation and the date of such review. In these cases, were all appropriate deficiencies noted and was corrective action directed or imposed?

4Q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The VIPD has not entered any planning steps into the GMS software for this sub-paragraph and the IMT, through its quarterly monitoring efforts, has determined that there was no change in compliance status.

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 22 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 105 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

Paragraph generally This paragraph requires the D/Chief to identify deficiencies in the force reports. The IMT participated in training with VIPD to teach both supervisors and management personnel in both districts the requirements of the paragraph. Now they must exhibit the ability to carry out those requirements. We further recommend: 1) That zone Commanders be held accountable for failing to both timely and completely reviewing their subordinate supervisor force inquiry reports by the D/Police Chiefs. That all items required in the reports are accounted for before they transmit them to the D/Police Chief for approval. 2) That the D/Police Chief & the Police Chief are both required to read, accept and concur that the inquiry reports are complete accurate and reflect a complete substance of the event. They must also write any follow-up that is required and any area of the inquiry in which they disagree with that is contained in the event reports.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - This sub-paragraph does not have any plans listed in the GMS, nor has any

activity been focused on it. It remains non-compliant in 1Q2016.

b Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, supervisors are held accountable for the quality of their reviews, and documented non-disciplinary and/or disciplinary action has been taken when a supervisor or manager: fails to conduct a timely and thorough review; neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action; or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action. In those cases where discipline was imposed, did the officials imposing the discipline follow the departmental disciplinary matrix?

4Q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
"During the 4th Quarter 2015, there was no change in compliance with this paragraph determined by spot checking of case reports. The IMT met with the associated workgroup and discussed the options available to gain The VIPD has not entered any planning steps into the GMS software for this sub-paragraph and the IMT, through its quarterly monitoring efforts, has determined that there was no change in compliance status. Paragraph generally This paragraph requires the D/Chief to identify deficiencies in the force reports. The IMT participated in training with VIPD to teach both supervisors and management

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 23 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 106 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

personnel in both districts the requirements of the paragraph. Now they must exhibit the ability to carry out those requirements. We further recommend: 1) That zone Commanders be held accountable for failing to both timely and completely reviewing their subordinate supervisor force inquiry reports by the D/Police Chiefs. That all items required in the reports are accounted for before they transmit them to the D/Police Chief for approval. 2) That the D/Police Chief & the Police Chief are both required to read, accept and concur that the inquiry reports are complete accurate and reflect a complete substance of the event. They must also write any follow-up that is required and any area of the inquiry in which they disagree with that is contained in the event reports.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - This sub-paragraph does not have any plans listed in the GMS, nor has any activity been focused on it. Case reviews by the IMT and that of the VIPD AIU seem

to confirm that work remains in order to gain compliance. Workgroup is actively working to increase ability to gain compliance and IMT is engaged with them. It remains non-compliant in 1Q2016.

c Not in Substantial Compliance
Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, the Chief and/or Deputy Chief provided a written, signed and dated finding on whether the use of force was justified under VIPD's DOJ approved use of force policies and all other requirements of 31(a)-(g) of the Consent Decree.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The VIPD has not entered any planning steps into the GMS software for this sub-paragraph and the IMT, through its quarterly monitoring efforts, has determined that there was no change in compliance status. Paragraph generally This paragraph requires the Dep. Chief to identify deficiencies in the force reports. The IMT participated in training with VIPD to teach both supervisors and management personnel in both districts the requirements of the paragraph. Now they must exhibit the ability to carry out those requirements. We further recommend:

1) That zone Commanders be held accountable for failing to both timely and

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 24 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 107 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

completely reviewing their subordinate supervisor force inquiry reports by the Dep. Police Chiefs. That all items required in the reports are accounted for before they transmit them to the Dep. Police Chief for approval. 2) That the Dep Police Chief & the Police Chief are both required to read, accept and concur that the inquiry reports are complete accurate and reflect a complete substance of the event. They must also write any follow-up that is required and any area of the inquiry in which they disagree with that is contained in the event reports.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016_ This sub-paragraph does not have any plans listed in the GMS, nor has any

activity been focused on it. Case reviews by the IMT and that of the VIPD AIU seem

to confirm that work remains in order to gain compliance. Workgroup is actively

working to increase ability to gain compliance and IMT is engaged with them. It

remains non-compliant in 1Q2016.

d Not in Substantial Compliance
Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, supervisors are held accountable for the quality of their investigations, reviews, and documented non-disciplinary and/or disciplinary action has been taken when a supervisor or manager: fails to conduct a timely and thorough review; neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action; or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The VIPD has not entered any planning steps into the GMS software for this sub-paragraph and the IMT, through its quarterly monitoring efforts, has determined that there was no change in compliance status. Paragraph generally This paragraph requires the Dep. Chief to identify deficiencies in the force reports. The IMT participated in training with VIPD to teach both supervisors and management personnel in both districts the requirements of the paragraph. Now they must exhibit the ability to carry out those requirements. We further recommend: 1) That zone Commanders be held accountable for failing to both timely and

completely reviewing their subordinate supervisor force inquiry reports by the Dep.

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 25 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 108 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

Police Chiefs. That all items required in the reports are accounted for before they transmit them to the Dep. Police Chief for approval. 2) That the Dep Police Chief & the Police Chief are both required to read, accept and concur that the inquiry reports are complete accurate and reflect a complete substance of the event. They must also write any follow-up that is required and any area of the inquiry in which they disagree with that is contained in the event reports.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016- This sub-paragraph does not have any plans listed in the GMS, nor has any

activity been focused on it. Case reviews by the IMT and that of the VIPD AIU seem

to confirm that work remains in order to gain compliance. Workgroup is actively

working to increase ability to gain compliance and IMT is engaged with them. It

remains non-compliant in 1Q2016.

e Not in Substantial Compliance
Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In =>95% of the use of force incidents where the Commander's/Director's review and evaluation concluded that improper tactics were used, there is evidence that the involved sworn personnel received and successfully completed remedial training, and, if appropriate, were disciplined.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The VIPD has not entered any planning steps into the GMS software for this

sub-paragraph and the IMT, through its quarterly monitoring efforts, has determined

that there was no change in compliance status.

Paragraph generally

This paragraph requires the Dep. Chief to identify deficiencies in the force reports.

The IMT participated in training with VIPD to teach both supervisors and

management personnel in both districts the requirements of the paragraph. Now

they must exhibit the ability to carry out those requirements. We further

recommend:

1) That zone Commanders be held accountable for failing to both timely and

completely reviewing their subordinate supervisor force inquiry reports by the Dep.

Police Chiefs. That all items required in the reports are accounted for before they

transmit them to the Dep. Police Chief for approval.

2) That the Dep Police Chief & the Police Chief are both required to read, accept

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 26 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 109 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

and concur that the inquiry reports are complete accurate and reflect a complete substance of the event. They must also write any follow-up that is required and any area of the inquiry in which they disagree with that is contained in the event reports.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - This sub-paragraph does not have any plans listed in the GMS, nor has any activity been focused on it. Case reviews by the IMT and that of the VIPD AIU seem to confirm that work remains in order to gain compliance. Workgroup is actively working to increase ability to gain compliance and IMT is engaged with them. It remains non-compliant in 1Q2016.

f Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In =>95% of the use of force incidents deemed unjustified by the Commander's/Director's review and evaluation, the involved sworn personnel were disciplined, including separation from service with the VIPD when appropriate, and, if separation from service was not appropriate, received remedial training.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The VIPD has not entered any planning steps into the GMS software for this sub-paragraph and the IMT, through its quarterly monitoring efforts, has determined that there was no change in compliance status. Paragraph generally This paragraph requires the Dep. Chief to identify deficiencies in the force reports. The IMT participated in training with VIPD to teach both supervisors and management personnel in both districts the requirements of the paragraph. Now they must exhibit the ability to carry out those requirements. We further recommend: 1) That zone Commanders be held accountable for failing to both timely and completely reviewing their subordinate supervisor force inquiry reports by the Dep. Police Chiefs. That all items required in the reports are accounted for before they transmit them to the Dep. Police Chief for approval. 2) That the Dep Police Chief & the Police Chief are both required to read, accept and concur that the inquiry reports are complete accurate and reflect a complete substance of the event. They must also write any follow-up that is required and any area of the inquiry in which they disagree with that is contained in the event reports.

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 27 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 110 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016- This sub-paragraph does not have any plans listed in the GMS, nor has any

activity been focused on it. Case reviews by the IMT and that of the VIPD AIU seem

to confirm that work remains in order to gain compliance. Workgroup is actively

working to increase ability to gain compliance and IMT is engaged with them. It

remains non-compliant in 1Q2016.

END OF PARAGRAPH 037

038

Not In Substantial Compliance

The VIPD will investigate all critical firearm discharges. The VIPD will ensure that the

investigation accounts for all shots and locations of all officers who discharged their

firearms. The VIPD will conduct all ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot

residue or bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate.

Sub-Paragraphs
a Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
=>99% of all critical firearm discharges are investigated and documented.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The VIPD has not entered any planning steps into the GMS software for this sub-paragraph and the IMT, through its quarterly monitoring efforts, has determined that there was no change in compliance status. Paragraph generally This paragraph deals with the investigation of serious uses of force and the evidentiary requirements surrounding the collection of the forensics of the crime scene. The VIPD has trained personnel and implemented the requirements related to this paragraph. It is currently under review by the IMT for compliance.

1QW201

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - This sub-paragraph does not have any plans listed in the GMS, nor has any activity been focused on it. It remains non-compliant in 1Q2016.

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 28 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 111 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

b Not in Substantial Compliance
Substabtial Compliance Requirement
=>95% of all investigations or reviews of critical firearm discharges accounted for all shots.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The VIPD has not entered any planning steps into the GMS software for this

sub-paragraph and the IMT, through its quarterly monitoring efforts, has determined that there was no change in compliance status. Paragraph generally This paragraph deals with the investigation of serious uses of force and the evidentiary requirements surrounding the collection of the forensics of the crime scene. The VIPD has trained personnel and implemented the requirements related to

this paragraph. It is currently under review by the IMT for compliance.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - This sub-paragraph does not have any plans listed in the GMS, nor has any

activity been focused on it. It remains non-compliant in 1Q2016.

c Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
=>95% of all supervisors (or other personnel) have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training on ballistic and crime scene analyses and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or (b) if supervisors (or other personnel) have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test(s), the supervisors (or other personnel) have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s); or Where supervisors (or other personnel) have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The VIPD has not entered any planning steps into the GMS software for this sub-paragraph and the IMT, through its quarterly monitoring efforts, has determined that there was no change in compliance status.

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 29 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 112 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

Paragraph generally This paragraph deals with the investigation of serious uses of force and the evidentiary requirements surrounding the collection of the forensics of the crime scene. The VIPD has trained personnel and implemented the requirements related to this paragraph. It is currently under review by the IMT for compliance.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016- This sub-paragraph does not have any plans listed in the GMS, nor has any

activity been focused on it. It remains non-compliant in 1Q2016.

END OF PARAGRAPH 038

044

Not In Substantial Compliance

Complaints may be filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or

TDD), facsimile or electronic mail. The duty officer at the front desk of each district

station will be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints, which

persons may file at any district station. Complaint intake officers may describe facts

that bear upon a complainant's demeanor and physical condition but May not express

opinions regarding his/her mental competency or veracity. Each complaint will be

resolved in writing. Upon receipt, each complaint will be assigned a unique identifier,

which will be provided to the complainant. Each complaint will be tracked according to

the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, improper search, etc.).

Sub-Paragraphs
i Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
=>90% of complaints are documented and resolved in writing and completed investigations into complaints comport with the provisions of the Consent Decree.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 N

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016- Once again, regarding Paragraph 44i (this information also applies to paragraph 72) - the VIPD fell short on timeliness of cases. As reported in the last quarterly report, "as a result of the November 2015 summit, the Chief of St Croix reassigned supervisors to his office to complete their overdue cases. St Thomas chose an alternative plan to address the same issue. Originally, the due date for these overdue cases to be completed was mid-January 2016. At the request of VIPD this date was extended to February 1, 2016."

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 30 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 113 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

The IMT evaluation of these efforts during the current Quarter was limited to the actual reduction of outstanding cases as of January 1, 2015. While St Croix showed a significant reduction in outstanding cases for this period of time, the efforts on St Thomas did not show progress. When queried as to what those efforts were, the STT Chief stated that the supervisors continued to receive weekly reminders of overdue cases and were reminded to complete same. This was the same approach which had been utilized for the last few quarters without significant results. Most recently, when IMT requested of a number of supervisors/managers what the current outstanding numbers were, no one could provide a definitive answer.

We should note that although the VIPD focused on cases since 1/1/15 in order to not continue to dig themselves into a larger hole, the IMT has made clear that VIPD is responsible for successfully closing all cases as of 1/1/12. When asked why this sub-paragraph would not reach compliance during the First Quarter, a number of reasons were provided, including: not enough supervisors; special events (Carnival); scheduled training; technical issues (such as systems down); and others. While the IMT does not disagree with the aforementioned reasons, none of these were new or unanticipated when the VIPD identified this Paragraph as an attainable goal for this Quarter.

There were a minimal number of instances where personnel appeared to be held accountable. On St Croix, two individuals were identified as to be disciplined. One has not been available to be served the paperwork yet. A second supervisor had the charges dropped due to what VIPD described as "the complicity of IA actions." At this time, the IMT has not seen any paperwork that reflects how this issue was addressed by senior management to ensure that it was not repeated nor has the IMT received an explanation of the "complicity of IA actions." These are but a couple of examples which reflect that, despite the efforts of the working group, the actions (or lack thereof) of senior supervisors/managers are not significant and consistent enough to assist in moving this area into compliance.

The Working Group created an Investigative Case Management Log with an accompanying Directive in an attempt to assist investigators/supervisors to record their actions and be more aware of the time restraints. IMT reviewed and approved same during this Quarter.

4Q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
4Q2015-This goal is under review by the IMT and final action on compliance will be determined after the Feb 2016 Summit.However, despite efforts by the IMT team

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 31 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 114 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

on-site, there was no resolution from the Summit and remains awaiting formalization of schedule formats territory-wide. The IMT continues to stand ready to assist as needed. Appendix A: As reported previously and repeatedly by the IMT, the VIPD has attempted to resolve the timeliness problems by issuing Commissioner's directives in both Districts, which mandate the completion of all outstanding 2013 and 2014 investigations. There has also been a focus on completing 2015 cases. As a result of these directives the number of outstanding cases for both Districts was reduced significantly. More recently, as a result of the November 2015 summit, the Chief of St Croix reassigned supervisors to his office to complete their overdue cases. St Thomas chose an alternative plan to address the same issue. Originally, the due date for these overdue cases to be completed was mid-January 2016. At the request of VIPD this date was extended to February 5, 2016. IMT will assess the effectiveness of these efforts. VIPD needs to clearly identify the specific reasons for the delay and address same. Additionally, VIPD must continue to hold managers and supervisors accountable for inappropriate delays.

END OF PARAGRAPH 044

058

Not In Substantial Compliance

Unit commanders will evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command

to identify underlying problems and training needs. Any such problems or need will be

relayed in the form of a recommendation to the appropriate VIPD entity.

Sub-Paragraphs
c Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
=>90% of any identified problems and/or training needs have been relayed to the appropriate VIPD entity.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting

period. IMT acknowledges that during the second quarter of 2015, VIPD issued a Directive regarding recommendations previously identified dealing with training or other problems. IMT further acknowledges that VIPD has and is currently auditing this directive's requirements for compliance. In that regard, the VIPD has self-identified compliance failures in several previous internal audits. The IMT received a document

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 32 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 115 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

during the first week of 2016 reflecting on going efforts in this area, however the IMT will need to see consistent implementation, through VIPD Audits and IMT review prior to determination of substantial compliance.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - To better address the resolution of issues not related to training which are identified through the course of an investigation, the Working Group drafted a Request for Non-Training Issue Support Form with an accompanying Directive. The intent was for this is be formally issued during this Quarter. The IMT will assess in future quarters the effectiveness of same. See also 44-i

d Not in Substantial Compliance
Substabtial Compliance Requirement
=>90% of the cases where there is a determination that modification to or additional training is required, there is documented evidence that VIPD implemented additional training.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting period. IMT acknowledges that during the second quarter of 2015, VIPD issued a Directive regarding recommendations previously identified dealing with training or other problems. IMT further acknowledges that VIPD has and is currently auditing this directive's requirements for compliance. In that regard, the VIPD has self-identified compliance failures in several previous internal audits. The IMT received a document during the first week of 2016 reflecting on going efforts in this area, however the IMT will need to see consistent implementation, through VIPD Audits and IMT review prior to determination of substantial compliance.

1Q2016
Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 33 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 116 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016- See 58-c

e Not in Substantial Compliance
Substabtial Compliance Requirement
=>90% of the cases where the VIPD identified policy or equipment deficiencies, there is documented evidence that corrective measures were implemented.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting period.

IMT acknowledges that during the second quarter of 2015, VIPD issued a Directive regarding recommendations previously identified dealing with training or other problems. IMT further acknowledges that VIPD has and is currently auditing this directive's requirements for compliance. In that regard, the VIPD has self-identified compliance failures in several previous internal audits. The IMT received a document during the first week of 2016 reflecting on going efforts in this area, however the IMT will need to see consistent implementation, through VIPD Audits and IMT review prior to determination of substantial compliance.

END OF PARAGRAPH 058

059

Not In Substantial Compliance

The VIPD will develop and implement a risk management system to include a new

computerized relational database or paper system for maintaining, integrating, and

retrieving information necessary for supervision and management of the VIPD. Priority

will be given to the VIPD obtaining any established program and system. The VIPD will

regularly use this data to promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk

and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units

and shifts.

Sub-Paragraphs
b Partial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
The VIPD will, in =>95% of the cases, use this data to promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts.

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 34 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 117 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The VIPD has not entered any planning steps into the GMS software for this

sub-paragraph and the IMT, through its quarterly monitoring efforts, has determined

that there was no change in compliance status. Compliance with this sub-paragraph

is contingent on compliance with sub-paragraphs in paragraph 60.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - This sub-paragraph does not have any plans listed in the GMS, nor has any

activity been focused on it. It remains non-compliant in 1Q2016.

END OF PARAGRAPH 059

060

Not In Substantial Compliance

The new risk management system will collect and record the following information:

a. all uses of force;

b. canine bite ratios;

c. the number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers;

d. all injuries to prisoners;

e. all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with "resisting

arrest," "assault on a police officer," "disorderly conduct," or "obstruction of

official business;"

f. all critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty;

g. all complaints (and their dispositions);

h. all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed

with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the Territory and its officers, or agents,

resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel;

i. all vehicle pursuits;

j. all incidents involving the pointing of a firearm (if any such reporting is

required); and

k. all disciplinary action taken against officers.

Sub-Paragraphs
d Partial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
=>95% of all injuries to prisoners will be entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

4Q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 35 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 118 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

During this quarter VIPD has been addressing injuries received by individuals for reasons other than uses of force. The VIPD Audit Unit and IMT to continue to review these ongoing efforts. See also Appendix B, as this sub-paragraph is related to a goal.

END OF PARAGRAPH 060

069

Not in Substantial Compliance

The VIPD will develop a protocol for conducting audits. The protocol will be used by

each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol will establish a

regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency,

and cover all VIPD zones.

Sub-Paragraphs
b Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
The protocol establishes a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all VIPD zones

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status

During early 2015 there was a period of time when the VIPD Audit submissions were

severely delayed The IMT believes that this reflects a change period for the current

administration and will not be repeated. While the Audits continue to improve, the

IMT hopes that these Audits will be completed in a more timely fashion than has

occurred previously. During the last quarter the IMT received a VIPD proposed Audit

SOP. Since the audits had been delayed, the IMT looks forward to assessing to what

level the draft is being appropriately applied.

As stated in earlier reports, the IMT strongly encourages the VIPD to enhance the

Audit staff, prepare annual audit plans, and complete /submit audits in a timely

fashion.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - The VIPD brought sub-paragraph 69-a into substantial compliance during the quarter. IMT is aware of the published audit schedule and is awaiting compliance with that schedule prior to awarding compliance with 69-b.

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

END OF PARAGRAPH 069 NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 36 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 119 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

071

Not In Substantial Compliance

VIPD policy will identify clear time periods by which the various steps of a complaint

adjudication process should be completed, from complaint receipt to the imposition of

discipline, if any. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions will not be granted without

the Police Commissioner's written approval and notice to the complainant. In the

limited circumstances when an extension is necessary, appropriate tolling provisions will

be outlined in the policy.

Sub-Paragraphs
b Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
=>90% of the time, these established time periods are not violated except for in exigent circumstances and with the Police Commissioner's written approval for tolling and notice to the complainant.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting period as timeliness remains an issue. This sub-paragraph is related to a goal (see 60-d) and content in the report body (see Section II, Global Assessment, Citizen Complaints Paragraphs)

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - This continues to be a problem for the VIPD. The assigned workgroup has begun to review and impact this issue by review and return for corrective action,

investigative reports.

END OF PARAGRAPH 071

072

Not In Substantial Compliance

Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD will not take only non-disciplinary

corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix indicates the imposition of

discipline. The VIPD will not fail to consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action

is required in a case because discipline has been imposed on the officer.

Sub-Paragraphs
a Not in Substantial Compliance
Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In =>90% of the cases where the matrix calls for discipline, discipline is imposed.

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 37 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 120 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting

components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting

period.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - The assigned workgroup has begun reviewing this issue and the IMT will

be conducting a special study to analyze compliance during 2Q2016.

b Not in Substantial Compliance
Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In =>90% of the cases where discipline is imposed, there is evidence that the VIPD has also considered non-disciplinary corrective action.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting

components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting

period.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - See 72 a

END OF PARAGRAPH 072

073

Not In Substantial Compliance

The VIPD will continue to coordinate and review all use of force policy and training to

ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy. The

VIPD will conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually.

Sub-Paragraphs
a Partial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
The Training Division has coordinated and reviewed all use of force training. This review occurs: at least semi-annually and needs to be comprehensive and analytical.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
This paragraphs associated goal was established to produce a survey instrument for the evaluation of training. A trial run was made with disappointing results. There is

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 38 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 121 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

also the need to re-address the components of the survey instrument. IMT believes

that VIPD has to re-visit the persons that would be queried in a training survey and

the object of the survey which should match the training objectives. This goal should

be revised to incorporate these issues or combined with one of the other goals that

lend themselves to evaluation of the training product(s).

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - The VIPD did not produce an Action Plan to address this or other 1Q2016 goals as required by the Court. The efforts of the VIPD to address deficiencies with non-compliant sub-paragraphs are detailed elsewhere in the base report. Their efforts have not resulted in compliance with the goal. Requirements within Paragraphs 73, 74 and 78 mandate use of force policy and lesson plan reviews semi-annually. There is also a requirement for semi-annual evaluations of the quality of use of force training. The VIPD enacted several policies and practices that will be employed as a part of this process, namely the

development of a training survey tool and an instructor evaluation form. Several critical steps remain that must be taken by the Training Bureau to ensure that evaluation of use of force training adheres to basic rules of reliability and validity. The survey should be created to measure how well the training objectives were met in the field. The survey should produce measurable outcomes that are validated by supervisors and managers and the survey must reach and query enough officers to make the results meaningful.

END OF PARAGRAPH 073

074

Not In Substantial Compliance

The Director of Training, either directly or through his/her designee(s), consistent with

applicable law and VIPD policy will:

a. ensure the quality of all use of force training;

b. develop and implement use of force training curricula;

c. select and train VIPD officer trainers;

d. develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service training;

e. in conjunction with the Chiefs, develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol

division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in

policies and procedures;

f. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and

g. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive

to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.

Sub-Paragraphs
Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 39 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 122 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

a Not in Substantial Compliance
Substabtial Compliance Requirement
The Director of Training and/or his/her staff reviews all use of force training. The Director of Training and/or his/her staff obtains legal review of all use of force training curricula.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
IMT has not seen a revised directive for the Training Advisory Committee since our

last comments which itemized several issue that IMT had with VIPD's more recent

version.

It took a full quarter to develop a survey instrument to be used to evaluate training.

The form should have been developed, tested and issued in the time it took to

develop it.

Paragraph 73 requires the VIPD to conduct a semi-annual review of use of force

training to ensure quality, consistency and compliance with applicable law and VIPD

policy. Since initiation of the Consent Decree, the VIPD has interpreted this

requirement to refer only to a companion requirement that use of force policy be

reviewed semi-annually. To that end, the VIPD has ensured only that use of force

training is consistent with, and in compliance with, applicable law and VIPD policy.

Our belief is that any use of force policy review requires assessment and analysis of

how well outcomes reflect training objectives.

IMT hopes that upcoming meetings with the Audit Unit may helpful in finalizing training evaluation criteria.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - Requirements within Paragraphs 73, 74 and 78 mandate use of force policy and lesson plan reviews semi-annually. There is also a requirement for semi-annual evaluations of the quality of use of force training. The VIPD enacted several policies and practices that will be employed as a part of this process, namely

the development of a training survey tool and an instructor evaluation form. Several critical steps remain that must be taken by the Training Bureau to ensure that evaluation of use of force training adheres to basic rules of reliability and validity. The survey should be created to measure how well the training objectives were met in the field. The survey should produce measurable outcomes that are validated by supervisors and managers and the survey must reach and query enough officers to

make the results meaningful.

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 40 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 123 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

c Not in Substantial Compliance
Substabtial Compliance Requirement
The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed a process to continually select and evaluate VIPD officer trainers.
>95% of the training staff has received appropriate training and certification in the subject matter(s) that they are assigned to teach.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The Compliance Audit Report addresses this issue in much more detail than the goal report. In the Audit, assessors found several shortcomings in the updated instructor files but substantiate that the most recent certifications have been added to individual trainer records. The paragraph's associated goal calls for a revision of the

Commissioner's Directive which would include the instructor evaluation procedure.

To date, we have not reviewed a draft of the revision.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - Requirements within Paragraphs 73, 74 and 78 mandate use of force policy and lesson plan reviews semi-annually. There is also a requirement for semi-annual evaluations of the quality of use of force training. The VIPD enacted several policies and practices that will be employed as a part of this process, namely the development of a training survey tool and an instructor evaluation form. Several critical steps remain that must be taken by the Training Bureau to ensure that evaluation of use of force training adheres to basic rules of reliability and validity. The survey should be created to measure how well the training objectives were met in the field. The survey should produce measurable outcomes that are validated by supervisors and managers and the survey must reach and query enough officers to make the results meaningful.

d Not in Substantial Compliance
Substabtial Compliance Requirement
The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have reviewed and provided written approval of all curricula, course schedules and lesson plans.
The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have created and maintained a training record system that captures attendance records, instructor and student evaluations, and test results.

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 41 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 124 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting

components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting

period.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - Requirements within Paragraphs 73, 74 and 78 mandate use of force

policy and lesson plan reviews semi-annually. There is also a requirement for

semi-annual evaluations of the quality of use of force training. The VIPD enacted

several policies and practices that will be employed as a part of this process, namely

the development of a training survey tool and an instructor evaluation form. Several

critical steps remain that must be taken by the Training Bureau to ensure that

evaluation of use of force training adheres to basic rules of reliability and validity.

The survey should be created to measure how well the training objectives were met

in the field. The survey should produce measurable outcomes that are validated by

supervisors and managers and the survey must reach and query enough officers to

make the results meaningful.

e Partial Compliance
Substabtial Compliance Requirement
The Training Director and/or his/her staff, in conjunction with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs, have created a process for the development, implementation and approval of all Roll Call training curricula.
The Training Director and/or his/her staff, in conjunction with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs, have developed, implemented and approved all Roll Call training curricula.
The Training Director and/or his/her staff have maintained written documentation of this process.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
The IMT continues to monitor progress with this sub-paragraph and its supporting components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting period. IMT has no idea why it would take until 3-15-16 to complete the revision of the Roll Call Policy 10.4, which has been under review for a over a year. It was first

brought to the attention of the VIPD by the IMT in November of 2014, at which time the VIPD admitted the policy was not working and agreed to review and update it.

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 42 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 125 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

This should be a goal that is completed in a much more shorter period of time than

it is taking.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - Requirements within Paragraphs 73, 74 and 78 mandate use of force

policy and lesson plan reviews semi-annually. There is also a requirement for

semi-annual evaluations of the quality of use of force training. The VIPD enacted

several policies and practices that will be employed as a part of this process, namely

the development of a training survey tool and an instructor evaluation form. Several

critical steps remain that must be taken by the Training Bureau to ensure that

evaluation of use of force training adheres to basic rules of reliability and validity.

The survey should be created to measure how well the training objectives were met

in the field. The survey should produce measurable outcomes that are validated by

supervisors and managers and the survey must reach and query enough officers to

make the results meaningful.

f Not in Substantial Compliance
Substabtial Compliance Requirement
The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have created and maintained a training record system that captures attendance records, instructor and student evaluations, and test results.
For >90% of the conducted Consent Decree related training sessions, evaluation review forms were collected from class participants.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
While VIPD is working on the mechanics of entering records into PowerDMS, there is

no SOP outlining the exact records that must be maintained and the record

components for each record category. This is information that MIS will need to

properly establish the record keeping system. There is some "getting the horse

before the cart" in this paragraph and its associated goal. It might be helpful if there

was protocol on which records need to be maintained and how. While the VIPD

Division of Training "Standard Operating Procedures" is dated, there are sections

which, if not applicable, might be helpful in organizing this kind of protocol.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - Requirements within Paragraphs 73, 74 and 78 mandate use of force

policy and lesson plan reviews semi-annually. There is also a requirement for

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 43 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 126 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

semi-annual evaluations of the quality of use of force training. The VIPD enacted several policies and practices that will be employed as a part of this process, namely the development of a training survey tool and an instructor evaluation form. Several critical steps remain that must be taken by the Training Bureau to ensure that evaluation of use of force training adheres to basic rules of reliability and validity. The survey should be created to measure how well the training objectives were met in the field. The survey should produce measurable outcomes that are validated by supervisors and managers and the survey must reach and query enough officers to make the results meaningful.

g Not in Substantial Compliance
Substabtial Compliance Requirement
The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed a process to review use of force incidents to identify patterns and trends that will influence training needs.
The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have conducted semi-annual reviews of use of force incidents to evaluate training needs.
The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed, reviewed and implemented all use of force training curricula (including lesson plans).

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
A system for assessing patterns in UOF incidents is scheduled to be completed by 2-19-16. We would endorse this as a high priority. The audit unit could lend significant support in the creation of this kind of analysis. IMT is meeting with the Audit Unit personnel in 1Q2016 to address analysis methodology as well as the

mechanism to addressing any deficiencies found. 1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - Requirements within Paragraphs 73, 74 and 78 mandate use of force policy and lesson plan reviews semi-annually. There is also a requirement for semi-annual evaluations of the quality of use of force training. The VIPD enacted several policies and practices that will be employed as a part of this process, namely the development of a training survey tool and an instructor evaluation form. Several critical steps remain that must be taken by the Training Bureau to ensure that evaluation of use of force training adheres to basic rules of reliability and validity. The survey should be created to measure how well the training objectives were met

in the field. The survey should produce measurable outcomes that are validated by

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 44 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 127 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

supervisors and managers and the survey must reach and query enough officers to make the results meaningful.

END OF PARAGRAPH 074

077

Not In Substantial Compliance

The VIPD shall continue to maintain training records regarding every VIPD officer that

reliabily indicate the training each officer has received. The training records shall, at a

minimum, include the course description and duration, curriculum, and instructor for

each officer.

Sub-Paragraphs
a Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
The Director of Training and/or his/her staff has maintained current and substantially complete training records for =95% of VIPD Officers.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status

The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting

components and found this is one area where the VIPD Training Bureau has

accomplished a significant portion of their goal but still has problems with the

quantity and quality of those records associated with instructors. All in-service

training records have been entered into PowerDMS and the records have been

audited.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016-The IMT has requested that the VIPD produce two years of documented records in compliance with this paragraph. We believe that there are two years of records that reliably document in-service participant attendance. The IMT also believes that the VIPD, with some effort, could produce two years of lesson plans that would match the classes taught in the same time period. A two-year chronology of instructors and their subject matter just doesn't exist. The IMT believes that the VIPD should memorialize processes and procedures that reliably capture instructional data for at least one (1) year to comply with this paragraph.

The IMT continues to work with the VIPD on the standardization and automation of instructor files. We reported two quarters ago on our inspection findings along with recommendations that would ensure the accuracy and completeness of the records. We continued to provide guidance and technical assistance as paper files are organized and entered into PowerDMS.

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 45 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 128 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

b Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
=>95% of the training records shall, at a minimum, include the course description and duration, curriculum, and instructor for each officer.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
This paragraph and its associated goal will be extremely hard to attain. While trainee attendance records have been entered into PowerDMS, historic and current lesson plans and instructor records have not. The paragraph requirement is that all three records be accessible. Historically, matching classes with specific instructors and creating an accurate history of lesson plans through the years. There has been a misinterpretation of the IMT's aim with regard to this provision of the CD. As the department migrated to PowerDMS and were encouraged by the IMT to make it the primary repository of training records, the notion was perceived that we were demanding that a "one button push" should create a report with all three components of the requirement. We've tried very hard to explain that we have never demanded such a system. We believe that if all three elements exist in reliable databases, it would be reasonably retrievable which is what we interpret the paragraph requires.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016- The IMT has requested that the VIPD produce two years of documented records in compliance with this paragraph. We believe that there are two years of records that reliably document in-service participant attendance. The IMT also believes that the VIPD, with some effort, could produce two years of lesson plans that would match the classes taught in the same time period. A two-year chronology of instructors and their subject matter just doesn't exist. The IMT believes that the VIPD should memorialize processes and procedures that reliably capture instructional data for at least one (1) year to comply with this paragraph.

The IMT continues to work with the VIPD on the standardization and automation of instructor files. We reported two quarters ago on our inspection findings along with recommendations that would ensure the accuracy and completeness of the records. We continued to provide guidance and technical assistance as paper files are organized and entered into PowerDMS.

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

END OF PARAGRAPH 077 NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 46 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 129 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

081

Not In Substantial Compliance

The VIPD will provide training on appropriate burdens of proof to all supervisors, as

well as the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility (to

ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform, and

legally appropriate). The VIPD will also continue to provide training to supervisors on

leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote

proper police practices. This training will be provided to all officers promoted to

supervisory rank within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities, and will be

made part of annual in-service training.

Sub-Paragraphs
b Partial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
Training should include factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
This sub-paragraph and its associated goal are a subset of a broader training and agency requirement. It is also one of the thornier issues of the CD because, we believe, because it requires more than the provision of training for managers and

command staff but also "implementation" in the form of more accountable behavior on the part of the command staff. While difficult to quantify and/or measure, it is our collective opinion that the command staff of VIPD does not handle command level activities in a manner that we would expect to find in a police organization the size of VIPD. There are significant issues associated with coordination of work between and among units at a command level; command decision making and the administration of policy, procedures and discipline to name a few. VIPD Counsel has indicated that the "implementation" of this paragraph should be measured elsewhere in the CD. We have no objection to the implementation of the parameters of this paragraph being measured elsewhere in the CD but, to date, VIPD has not recommended a different paragraph where we would assess and report on implementation. Until we agree on a different paragraph with which to measure implantation, we feel that we must apply the litmus test to this paragraph

because it goes to the core objective of the consent decree. This specific issue is also addressed in the T&M Report.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016- The IMT's highest recommended priority remains the engagement of

assistance from a local college or university to assist with the development of lesson

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 47 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 130 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

plans and evaluation methodologies with measurable outcomes. The objectives in lesson plans should correlate to surveys and evaluations in a manner that produces measurable outcomes.

The IMT also recommends that prior to the beginning of the upcoming in-service training period, a detailed plan be prepared that describes the entire training cycle complete with evaluations and reporting requirements. Specifically, the plan should include, but not be limited to the lesson plan, quizzes, class and instructor evaluations, post-training knowledge quiz and qualitative survey and summary.

d Partial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
The training shall include techniques designed to promote proper police practices.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
There was a suspense date of 12-12-15, subsequently changed to 05/31/16, for the accomplishment of several important preparatory steps associated with assessment of relevant supervisory and management training. As of yet, we have not seen results of this work. For some time, the IMT was critical of the fact that most, if not all, command staff members did not attend in-service training. The reasons given for this practice were completely unsatisfactory and did not justify the flawed philosophy. During the first in-service training session in 2015, supervisors had their own classes. We were very disappointed when the most recent in-service were general sessions for all ranks. We don't understand this.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016- The IMT's highest recommended priority remains the engagement of assistance from a local college or university to assist with the development of lesson plans and evaluation methodologies with measurable outcomes. The objectives in lesson plans should correlate to surveys and evaluations in a manner that produces measurable outcomes.

The IMT also recommends that prior to the beginning of the upcoming in-service training period, a detailed plan be prepared that describes the entire training cycle complete with evaluations and reporting requirements. Specifically, the plan should include, but not be limited to the lesson plan, quizzes, class and instructor evaluations, post-training knowledge quiz and qualitative survey and summary.

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 48 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 131 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

f Partial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
And will be made a part of annual in-service training.

4q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status

There was a suspense date of 12-12-15, subsequently changed to 05/31/16, for the

accomplishment of several important preparatory steps associated with assessment

of relevant supervisory and management training. As of yet, we have not seen

results of this work.

For some time, the IMT was critical of the fact that most, if not all, command staff

members did not attend in-service training. The reasons given for this practice were

completely unsatisfactory and did not justify the flawed philosophy.

During the first in-service training session in 2015, supervisors had their own classes.

We were very disappointed when the most recent in-service were general sessions

for all ranks. We don't understand this.

1Q2016

Status Changed in 1Q2016 n

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
1Q2016 - see 81-d

END OF PARAGRAPH 081

100

Not in Substantial Compliance

The Territory of the Virgin Islands and the VIPD shall implement each and every

provision of this Agreement as that term is defined in Paragraph 30 of this Agreement.

Sub-Paragraphs
a Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
All uses of force comply with VIPD policies and applicable law.

4Q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
See note at bottom of Appendix A.

b Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
As appropriate, Officers disengaged, contained the area, conducted surveillance, waited out the subject, and/or called in specialized units.

4Q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 49 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 132 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

See note at bottom of Appendix A

c Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
When feasible, an individual is allowed to submit to arrest before force is used.

4Q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
See note at bottom of Appendix A

d Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In use of force incidents, the use of force review concludes that sufficient less lethal alternatives were used where appropriate based on the totality of circumstances.

4Q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
See note at bottom of Appendix A

e Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
Patrol and other applicable officers carry less lethal alternatives at all times.

4Q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
See note at bottom of Appendix A

f Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In use of force incidents, choke holds and similar carotid holds were not used, except where deadly force was authorized.

4Q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
See note at bottom of Appendix A

g Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In use of force incidents where the use of force review concluded that use of choke holds or similar carotid holds were not authorized, the VIPD took corrective and/or disciplinary action against the officer who used a choke hole or other carotid hold.

4Q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
See note at bottom of Appendix A

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 50 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 133 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

h Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
Sworn personnel do not possess or use unauthorized firearms or ammunition.

4Q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
See note at bottom of Appendix A

i Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In cases where an officer is found to be in possession of unauthorized firearms or ammunition, there is evidence that an investigation was conducted and appropriate corrective action was taken.

4Q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
See note at bottom of Appendix A

j Not in Substantial Compliance
Substabtial Compliance Requirement
Critical Firearm Discharges are documented in an RRR.
4Q2015
Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
See note at bottom of Appendix A

Status Changed in 1Q2016

k Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In reported incidents involving off-duty officers taking police action, the off-duty officer's conduct comports with policies regarding off-duty officers taking police action and 31 (a) - (g) of the Consent Decree.

4Q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
See note at bottom of Appendix A

l Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
Off-duty officers notified on-duty sworn personnel or local law enforcement officers before taking police actions, except in exigent circumstances.

4Q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
See note at bottom of Appendix A

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 51 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 134 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

m Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In incidents where an off-duty officer taking police action appeared to have consumed alcohol, the off-duty officer submitted to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.

4Q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
See note at bottom of Appendix A

n Partial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he/she was not involved in the use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize conduct leading to the use of force incident.

4Q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
See note at bottom of Appendix A

o Partial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
Use of force investigations include documented findings of all of the considerations required by 52.

4Q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
See note at bottom of Appendix A

p Partial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
When administrative investigations are referred to the VIAG or other appropriate agency, the VIPD has documentation that it has completed, to the extent possible, its own administrative investigation.

4Q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
See note at bottom of Appendix A

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 52 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 135 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

r Partial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
The VIPD is utilizing the EIP. Underlying documentation should include documentation of EIP meetings, the Early Intervention Unit Action Plan and Early Intervention Unit Assessment, attendance records of VIPD personnel and all follow-up documentation for completed intervention.

4Q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
See note at bottom of Appendix A

s Partial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
Deputy Chiefs, managers and supervisors have initiated EIP interventions based on activity and pattern assessment contained in the RMS.

4Q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
See note at bottom of Appendix A

t Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
EIP interventions are based on all relevant and appropriate information, including the nature of the officer's assignment, crime trends and crime problems, and not solely the number or percentages of incidents in any category of information recorded in the risk management system.

4Q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
See note at bottom of Appendix A

u Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
In instances when officers are transferred to a new section or unit, Deputy Chiefs, managers and supervisors for the relevant section or unit promptly review the RMS records of such officers.

4Q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
See note at bottom of Appendix A

v Not in Substantial Compliance
Substabtial Compliance Requirement
The VIPD has established a protocol for evaluating whether Deputy Chiefs, managers and supervisors are able to use the RMS effectively.

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 53 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 136 of 184

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance

Appendix A To 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

As Of End of 1Q2016

4Q2015
Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
See note at bottom of Appendix A

Status Changed in 1Q2016

w Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement
Disciplinary penalty decisions are consistent with the penalties set forth in the Disciplinary Matrix.

4Q2015

Status Changed in 1Q2016

Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
See note at bottom of Appendix A

END OF PARAGRAPH 100

101

Not In Substantial Compliance

The VIPD shall implement immediately all provisions of this Agreement that involve the

continuation of current VIPD policies, procedures, and practices. The remaining

provisions shall be implemented either by the specified implementation date or, for

those provisions that have no specified implementation date, as soon as is reasonably

practicable and no later than 150 days after this Agreement’s effective date.

Sub-Paragraphs
a Not in Substantial Compliance

Substabtial Compliance Requirement

4Q2015
Quarter Monitoring Activity and Status
See note at bottom of Appendix A.

Status Changed in 1Q2016

END OF PARAGRAPH 101

Sub-Paragraphs Reporting

73

Less Paragraph 100

-22

Less Paragraph 101

-1

Total Sub-Paragraphs Not Compliant

50

Appendix A To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_A_QtrRep

NOTE Paragraph 100 review period pending compliance of preceding paragraphs. Paragraph 101 remains Not In Substantial compliance due to non-compliance of preceding paragraphs.

Page 54 of 54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 137 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

Goal 1Q6-1 Original Order Date05/06/2016 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 14

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

Paragraph 32, All

Status Synopsis
1Q2016 - VIPD did not produce a compliance plan for this goal and did not complete the Court ordered "Action Plan" either. IMT activity for this goal (paragraph) can be found in the base report with noted activity by the Workgroup on case review and return for corrective action when not in compliance with policy or the CD.

Goal 1Q6-2 Original Order Date05/06/2016 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 14

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

Paragraph 33, ALL

Status Synopsis
1Q2016 - VIPD did not produce a compliance plan for this goal and did not complete the Court ordered "Action Plan" either. IMT activity for this goal (paragraph) can be found in the base report with noted activity by the Workgroup on case review and return for corrective action when not in compliance with policy or the CD.

Goal 1Q6-3 Original Order Date05/06/2016 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 14

Description

Action Officer Checf Hector

Paragrpah 44, ALL

Status Synopsis
1Q2016 - VIPD did not produce a compliance plan for this goal and did not complete the Court ordered "Action Plan" either. IMT activity for this goal (paragraph) can be found in the base report with noted activity by the Workgroup on case review and return for corrective action when not in compliance with policy or the CD. In addition, the Workgroup has been steadily reducing the number of incomplete investigations.

Goal 1Q6-4 Original Order Date05/06/0116 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 14

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

Paragraph 69, All

Status Synopsis
1Q2016- the VIPD brought sub-paragraph 69-a into substantial compliance during the quarter. IMT is aware of the published audit schedule and is awaiting compliance with that schedule prior to awarding compliance with 69-b.

Goal 1Q6-5 Original Order Date05/06/0116 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 14

Description

Action Officer Checf Hector

Paragrpah 58

Status Synopsis
1Q2016-The VIPD did not produce an Action Plan to address this or other 1Q2016 goals as required by the Court. The efforts of the VIPD to address deficiencies with non-compliant sub-paragraphs are detailed elsewhere in the base report. Their efforts have not resulted in compliance with the goal.

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 1 of 32

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 138 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

Goal 1Q6-6 Original Order Date05/06/0116 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 14

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

Paragrpah 70, All

Status Synopsis
1Q2016-The VIPD did not produce an Action Plan to address this or other 1Q2016 goals as required by the Court. This paragraph deals with the Disciplinary Matrix and has been in Substantial Compliance since 12/18/13. The parties have indicated a need to review the current relevancy of the matrix components to current trends and experience by other agencies and to update it as necessary. The VIPD did not complete its review process, thus the goal was not met. The IMT has chosen to continue the original Substantial Compliance of the paragraph pending both the VIPD review and an IMT special study on the implementation of discipline compared to case adjudication. The efforts of the VIPD to address deficiencies with non-compliant sub-paragraphs are detailed elsewhere in this report. Their efforts have not resulted in compliance with the goal.

Goal 1Q6-7 Original Order Date05/06/2016 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 14

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

Paragrpah 73, All

Status Synopsis
1Q2016- The VIPD did not produce an Action Plan to address this or other 1Q2016 goals as required by the Court. The efforts of the VIPD to address deficiencies with non-compliant sub-paragraphs are detailed elsewhere in the base report. Their efforts have not resulted in compliance with the goal.

Goal 1Q6-8 Original Order Date05/06/2016 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 14

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

Paragraph 77, All

Status Synopsis
1Q2016-The VIPD did not produce an Action Plan to address this or other 1Q2016 goals as required by the Court. The efforts of the VIPD to address deficiencies with non-compliant sub-paragraphs are detailed elsewhere in the base report. Their efforts have not resulted in compliance with the goal.

Goal 2Q5-5 Original Order Date08/21/2015 Current Suspense Date 11/06/2015 Days OD 196

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

Train investigators and reviewers on the new Summary investigation Report

Status Synopsis
3Q2015-IMT was awaiting copies of the training schedule, curriculum materials (including lesson plans, Power Points, handouts, etc.), Course of Instruction with performance objectives, and other training materials, including attendee rosters, for this course. Submitted materials did not meet IMT standards to justify compliance. IMT will work with VIPD to improve both the quality of the training as well as the documentation needed to prove compliance. VIPD further did not follow IMT Procedure 15-1, VIPD

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016

Quarterly Report

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 2 of 32

IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 139 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

Submission of Paragraph or Goal Completion, dated 08/07/15 when submitting the documentation. 4Q2015- Status remains unchanged as IMT has not been provided appropriate documents and VIPD has not requested compliance review. 1Q2016-Status remains unchanged as IMT has not been provided appropriate documents and VIPD has not requested compliance review.

Goal 2Q5-6 Original Order Date08/21/2015 Current Suspense Date 08/21/2015 Days OD 273

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

Train investigators and reviewers on the new Citizen Complaint Checklist

Status Synopsis
3Q2015-IMT was awaiting copies of the training schedule, curriculum materials (including lesson plans, Power Points, handouts, etc), Course of Instruction with performance objectives, and other training materials, including attendee rosters, for this course. Submitted materials did not meet IMT standards to justify compliance. IMT will work with VIPD to improve both the quality of the training as well as the documentation needed to prove compliance. VIPD further did not follow IMT Procedure 15-1, VIPD Submission of Paragraph or Goal Completion, dated 08/07/15 when submitting the documentation. 4Q2015- same status as 4Q5-5; no receipt of documentation or request for compliance from VIPD. 1Q2016- Status remains unchanged as IMT has not been provided appropriate documents and VIPD has not requested compliance review.

Goal 32-b Original Order Date08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 14

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

=>95% of RRRs indicate each and every type of force that was used.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. Appendix A: The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting period. Cases still fail to list all types of force that was used in the event. Paragraph generally This paragraph is still stagnated and progress has been incremental at best. Both VIPD and the IMT have discussed potential actions they can take to drive compliance forward. 1) Identify supervisor weaknesses and meet and counsel them individually.

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 3 of 32

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 140 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

2) Assess supervisor ability to write, review and analyze force incidents; and improve training delivery, 3) Have Chief's conduct force tracking thru commanders call 4) Train Chief's and D/Chief's on analyzing force patterns and practices 5) Train supervisors on techniques to coach and mentor subordinates on thru force incidents. 6) Use technology to advance the force review and analysis process. Install and operate the in car video system, personal worn cameras etc. 1Q2016 - Focusing on requiring RRRs to indicate each and every type of force that was used in force incidents, the VIPD has increased its compliance rate, but still falls short of meeting the established goals of 95% or better compliance. Both the VIPD audits and IMT case reviews confirm this status. The UOF Working Group has been reviewing each investigation and included RRRs to ensure compliance with requirements and returning deficient ones back to the investigating officers for corrective action. The IMT will continue to monitor during the next quarter.

Goal 32-c Original Order Date08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 14

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

=>95% of RRRs contain an evaluation of each type of force used by a supervisor.

Status Synopsis

4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is

covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report.

Appendix A:

The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting

components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting

period.

Paragraph generally

This paragraph is still stagnated and progress has been incremental at best. Both VIPD

and the IMT have discussed potential actions they can take to drive compliance

forward.

1) Identify supervisor weaknesses and meet and counsel them individually.

2) Assess supervisor ability to write, review and analyze force incidents; and

improve training delivery,

3) Have Chief's conduct force tracking thru commanders call

4) Train Chief's and D/Chief's on analyzing force patterns and practices

5) Train supervisors on techniques to coach and mentor subordinates on thru force

incidents.

6) Use technology to advance the force review and analysis process. Install and

operate the in car video system, personal worn cameras etc.

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016

Quarterly Report

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 4 of 32

IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 141 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

1Q2016- Focusing on requiring RRRs to indicate each and every type of force that was used in force incidents, the VIPD has increased its compliance rate, but still falls short of meeting the established goals of 95% or better compliance. Both the VIPD audits and IMT case reviews confirm this status. The UOF Working Group has been reviewing each investigation and included RRRs to ensure compliance with requirements and returning deficient ones back to the investigating officers for corrective action. The IMT will continue to monitor during the next quarter.

Goal 32-f Original Order Date08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 14

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

=>95% of the reports will include an audio or videotaped statement, unless the level of force used is at the lowest level as described by DOJ approved VIPD policy.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. Appendix A: The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting period. Paragraph generally This paragraph is still stagnated and progress has been incremental at best. Both VIPD and the IMT have discussed potential actions they can take to drive compliance forward. 1) Identify supervisor weaknesses and meet and counsel them individually. 2) Assess supervisor ability to write, review and analyze force incidents; and improve training delivery, 3) Have Chief's conduct force tracking thru commanders call 4) Train Chief's and D/Chief's on analyzing force patterns and practices 5) Train supervisors on techniques to coach and mentor subordinates on thru force incidents. 6) Use technology to advance the force review and analysis process. Install and operate the in car video system, personal worn cameras etc. 1Q2016- Focusing on requiring RRRs to indicate each and every type of force that was used in force incidents, the VIPD has increased its compliance rate, but still falls short of meeting the established goals of 95% or better compliance. Both the VIPD audits and IMT case reviews confirm this status. The UOF Working Group has been reviewing each investigation and included RRRs to ensure compliance with requirements and returning deficient ones back to the investigating officers for corrective action. The IMT will continue to monitor during the next quarter.

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016

Quarterly Report

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 5 of 32

IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 142 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

Goal 33-a Original Order Date08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 14

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>95% of the identified use of force incidents, the officer using force notified his/her supervisor immediately as required by VIPD policy.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. Appendix A: The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting period. Paragraph generally 33: This paragraph has received special action by the VIPD in its attempt to reach greater compliance. During this quarter the Chief's in both districts issued orders that zone commanders appoint on call supervisory personnel to respond to use of force incidents when on duty personnel are not available. Both IMT reviews and VIPD audit's disclosed the failure of police supervisory personnel in be available when force events occur. We further recommend 1) That the Chief's work together to create a unified scheduling system throughout the Territory for the call out and regularly audit the call out to ensure compliance. 2) Drive home the importance of leadership oversight thru their Commanders Call 3) Require supervisors to report to VITEMA when they respond to a force event, when they arrive, and when they have completed their work on scene.

1Q2016 - 1Q2016 - The response by supervisors to use of force incidents remains a problem and is a focus of both the IMT and the VIPD. Based on analysis of recent activity, the IMT suggested the following as a solution: Chiefs of Police need to actively manage Commissioner's Directive 001-2016/ On-Call Supervisors to Respond to Use of Force. The Directive specifically covers for disciplinary action against anyone who fails to comply with the Directive. The IMT strongly believes the current policy of using an on-call supervisor list is not the solution to the problem. The essentially allow police operations to be commanded by a police private during weekends, holidays and late hours does not meet professional policing standards or adequate supervision of an armed force. It also fails the people the of the Virgin Islands on a continual basis.

The solution is to adjust the working schedules of supervisors to ensure that at least ONE supervisor is on duty 24/7 on each island. This supervisor does not have to be

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016

Quarterly Report

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 6 of 32

IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 143 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

from patrol, but rather could be any supervisor, including those assigned to day work administrative jobs. They could rotate through such supervisor assignments and still perform their administrative jobs, but at a different hour of the day. Most well managed and responsible law enforcement agencies ensure the presence of supervisors and many actually mount a duty-commander position that assumes command of the department in the absence of the police chief. The IMT believes the VIPD must make this transition now before serious problems occur. The IMT will be commenting on this during the next scheduled court hearing.

Goal 33-b Original Order Date02/20/2015 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 14

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>90% of the incidents where the supervisor was required to respond to the scene, he/she responded within a reasonable amount of time.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. Appendix A: The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting period. Paragraph generally 33: This paragraph has received special action by the VIPD in its attempt to reach greater compliance. During this quarter the Chief's in both districts issued orders that zone commanders appoint on call supervisory personnel to respond to use of force incidents when on duty personnel are not available. Both IMT reviews and VIPD audit's disclosed the failure of police supervisory personnel in be available when force events occur. We further recommend 1) That the Chief's work together to create a unified scheduling system throughout the Territory for the call out and regularly audit the call out to ensure compliance. 2) Drive home the importance of leadership oversight thru their Commanders Call 3) Require supervisors to report to VITEMA when they respond to a force event, when they arrive, and when they have completed their work on scene. 1Q2016 - 1Q2016 - The response by supervisors to use of force incidents remains a problem and is a focus of both the IMT and the VIPD. Based on analysis of recent activity, the IMT suggested the following as a solution: Chiefs of Police need to actively manage Commissioner's Directive 001-2016/ On-Call Supervisors to Respond to Use of Force. The Directive specifically covers for disciplinary action against anyone who fails to comply with the Directive. The IMT

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016

Quarterly Report

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 7 of 32

IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 144 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

strongly believes the current policy of using an on-call supervisor list is not the solution to the problem. The essentially allow police operations to be commanded by a police private during weekends, holidays and late hours does not meet professional policing standards or adequate supervision of an armed force. It also fails the people the of the Virgin Islands on a continual basis.

The solution is to adjust the working schedules of supervisors to ensure that at least ONE supervisor is on duty 24/7 on each island. This supervisor does not have to be from patrol, but rather could be any supervisor, including those assigned to day work administrative jobs. They could rotate through such supervisor assignments and still perform their administrative jobs, but at a different hour of the day. Most well managed and responsible law enforcement agencies ensure the presence of supervisors and many actually mount a duty-commander position that assumes command of the department in the absence of the police chief. The IMT believes the VIPD must make this transition now before serious problems occur. The IMT will be commenting on this during the next scheduled court hearing.

Goal 33-c Original Order Date08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 14

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>90% of the incidents did the supervisor respond to the scene,he/she examined the

person for injury,

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016- IMT reviewed this area during the quarter and issues still remain with compliance. See base report for additional.

Goal 33-d Original Order Date02/20/2015 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 14

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>05% of the incidents where a supervisor responded to the scene, he/she

interviewed the subject for injury or complaint of pain.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016- Issues still remain with compliance and the workgroups are focusing on this area.

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 8 of 32

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 145 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

Goal 33-e Original Order Date02/20/2015 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 14

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In => 95% of the incidents where medical attention to the subject was need the supervisor ensured that care was provided.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is

covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016 - IMT continues to monitor this although improvements have been seen.

Goal 34-a Original Order Date08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 06/30/2016 Days OD -41

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>95% of the reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he/she was not involved in the use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize or participate in conduct leading to the use of force incident), will review, evaluate, and document each use of force.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016- IMT continues to monitor this area as needed.

Goal 34-b Original Order Date08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 12/18/2015 Days OD 154

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completes the supervisor's narrative description of the RRR in a manner that comports with the requirements of paragraph 34 of the Consent Decree.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is

covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016- See Appendix A to the base report, as well areas within the base report where this is addressed.

Goal 34-c Original Order Date02/20/2015 Current Suspense Date 06/30/2016 Days OD -41

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completed his/her

review and evaluation according to VIPD's use of force policies and all other

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016

Quarterly Report

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 9 of 32

IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 146 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

requirements of 31 of the Consent Decree and include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer/s conduct.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016 - No progress has been made on this goal and the workgroups have this as an action item. The VIPD needs to review its problem solving protocols and revisit the planning stages for compliance with this goal. New strategies need identification and plans for implementing them developed.

Goal 34-e Original Order Date08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 12/18/2015 Days OD 154

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>95% of the reportable use of force incidents, the investigating officer had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he/she was not involved in the use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize or participate in conduct leading to the use of force incident), in order to be able to investigate each use of force.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016 - No progress has been made on this goal and the workgroups have this as an action item. The VIPD needs to review its problem solving protocols and revisit the planning stages for compliance with this goal. New strategies need identification and plans for implementing them developed.

Goal 35-a Original Order Date08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 06/30/2016 Days OD -41

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>90% of the interviews conducted during use of force reviews, leading questions were avoided.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016 - No progress has been made on this goal and the workgroups have this as an action item. The VIPD needs to review its problem solving protocols and revisit the planning stages for compliance with this goal. New strategies need identification and plans for implementing them developed.

Goal 35-b Original Order Date02/20/2015 Current Suspense Date 06/30/2016 Days OD -41

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>90% of the use of force reviews, all relevant evidence, including circumstantial,

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 10 of 32

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 147 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

direct and physical evidence is documented and appropriately considered, and credibility determinations made, if feasible.
Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016 - No progress has been made on this goal and the workgroups have this as an action item. The VIPD needs to review its problem solving protocols and revisit the planning stages for compliance with this goal. New strategies need identification and plans for implementing them developed. See base quarterly report for additional information on this goal area.

Goal 35-c Original Order Date02/20/2015 Current Suspense Date 02/20/2015 Days OD 455

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>90% of investigations where material inconsistencies are present between witness statements, reasonable efforts are made to resolve the inconsistencies.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is

covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016 - No progress has been made on this goal and the workgroups have this as an action item. The VIPD needs to review its problem solving protocols and revisit the planning stages for compliance with this goal. New strategies need identification and plans for implementing them developed. See base quarterly report for additional information on this goal area.

Goal 36-a Original Order Date08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 06/30/2016 Days OD -41

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

=>90% of the Use of Force reports, the supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, who supervised the officer using the force, conducted the investigation of all uses of force or injury resulting from the use of force by that officer. This requirement does not apply to the lowest level use of force as defined in DOJ approved VIPD policy

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016 - No progress has been made on this goal and the workgroups have this as an action item. The VIPD needs to review its problem solving protocols and revisit the planning stages for compliance with this goal. New strategies need identification and plans for implementing them developed. See base quarterly report for additional information on this goal area.

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 11 of 32

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 148 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

Goal 36-b Original Order Date08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 06/30/2015 Days OD 325

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, all witnesses, to the extent practicable, are interviewed in the investigating supervisor's reports.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016 - No progress has been made on this goal and the workgroups have this as an action item. The VIPD needs to review its problem solving protocols and revisit the planning stages for compliance with this goal. New strategies need identification and plans for implementing them developed. See base quarterly report for additional information on this goal area.

Goal 36-d Original Order Date08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 06/30/2015 Days OD 325

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>90% of Use of Force reports, Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all use of force reports for all levels of force identify all officers

who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report.

1Q2016 - No progress has been made on this goal and the workgroups have this as an action item. The VIPD needs to review its problem solving protocols and revisit the planning stages for compliance with this goal. New strategies need identification and

plans for implementing them developed. See base quarterly report for additional information on this goal area.

Goal 44-i Original Order Date08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 14

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

=>90% of complaints are documented and resolved in writing and completed investigations into complaints comport with the provisions of the Consent Decree.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is under review by the IMT and final action on compliance will be determined after the Feb 2016 Summit.However, despite efforts by the IMT team on-site, there was no resolution from the Summit and remains awaiting formalization of schedule formats territory-wide. The IMT continues to stand ready to assist as needed. Appendix A: As reported previously and repeatedly by the IMT, the VIPD has attempted to resolve

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 12 of 32

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 149 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

the timeliness problems by issuing Commissioner's directives in both Districts, which mandate the completion of all outstanding 2013 and 2014 investigations. There has also been a focus on completing 2015 cases. As a result of these directives the number of outstanding cases for both Districts was reduced significantly. More recently, as a result of the November 2015 summit, the Chief of St Croix reassigned supervisors to his office to complete their overdue cases. St Thomas chose an alternative plan to address the same issue. Originally, the due date for these overdue cases to be completed was mid-January 2016. At the request of VIPD this date was extended to February 5, 2016. IMT will assess the effectiveness of these efforts. VIPD needs to clearly identify the specific reasons for the delay and address same. Additionally, VIPD must continue to hold managers and supervisors accountable for inappropriate delays. 1Q2016- Again, the VIPD fall short on timeliness of cases. As reported in the last quarterly report, "as a result of the November 2015 summit, the Chief of St Croix reassigned supervisors to his office to complete their overdue cases. St Thomas chose an alternative plan to address the same issue. Originally, the due date for these overdue cases to be completed was mid-January 2016. At the request of VIPD this date was extended to February 1, 2016."

The IMT evaluation of these efforts during the current Quarter, was limited to the actual reduction of outstanding cases as of January 1, 2015. While St Croix showed a significant reduction in outstanding cases for this period of time, the efforts on St Thomas did not show progress. When queried as to what those efforts were, the STT Chief stated that the supervisors continued to receive weekly reminders of overdue cases and were reminded to complete same. This was the same approach which had been utilized for the last few quarters without significant results. Most recently, when IMT requested of a number of supervisors/managers what the current outstanding numbers were, no one could provide a definitive answer.

We should note that although the VIPD focused on cases since 1/1/15 in order to not continue to dig themselves into a larger hole, the IMT has made clear that VIPD is responsible for successfully closing all cases as of 1/1/12. When asked why this sub-paragraph would not reach compliance during the First Quarter, a number of reasons were provided, including: not enough supervisors; special events (Carnival); scheduled training; technical issues; and others. While the IMT does not disagree with the aforementioned reasons, none of these were new or unanticipated when the VIPD identified this Paragraph as an attainable goal for this Quarter.

On St Croix, two individuals were identified as to be disciplined. One has not been available to be served the paperwork yet. A second supervisor had the charges dropped due to what VIPD described as "the complicity of IA actions." At this time, the IMT has not seen any paperwork that reflects how this issue was addressed by senior

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 13 of 32

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 150 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

management to ensure that it was not repeated nor has the IMT received an explanation of the "complicity of IA actions" These are but a couple of examples which reflect that, despite the efforts of the working group, the actions (or lack thereof) of senior supervisors/managers are not significant and consistent enough to assist in moving this area into compliance.

The Working Group created an Investigative Case Management Log with an accompanying Directive in an attempt to assist investigators/supervisors to record their actions and be more aware of the time restraints. IMT reviewed and approved same during this Quarter.

Goal 4Q5-4 Original Order Date02/06/2016 Current Suspense Date 02/06/2016 Days OD 104

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

Establish process for on-call Supervisor(s) to respond to Use of Force incidents when off duty.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is under review by the IMT and final action on compliance will be determined after the Feb 2016 Summit.However there was no resolution from the Summit and remains awaiting finalization of schedule formats territory-wide. 1Q2016 - Virgin Islands Police Commissioner Delroy Richards signed Order 001-2016, effective December 18, 2015, which requires a supervisory response to use of force incidents. The IMT and the Use of Force Working Group conducted an audit since implementation.

Throughout the Territory there was forty-nine (49) force incidents where supervisory call-out was required for the time frame of December 18, 2015 - April 26, 2016.

a. 49 Use of Force Incidents

14 of those incidents, the supervisor responded to the force incident. 13 of those incidents, the supervisor did not respond to the force incident. 22 of those incidents, the supervisor did not need to respond to the force incident.

b. 14/27 = 52% of the incidents, the supervisor did not respond to the force incident. This needs a follow up for compliance and reason(s) for non-compliance to the Commissioner's Directive.

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016

Quarterly Report

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 14 of 32

IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 151 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

c.

13/27 = 48% of the incidents, the supervisor did respond to the force incident

consistent

with policy.

Four of the supervisory non-responses (4) occurred in the St. Thomas Police District and Nine (9) failures to respond occurred in the St. Croix District. A memo was sent to the Police Chiefs of their respective districts to explain why a supervisor filed to respond the use of force incident. Formal response and explanation has not been received and approved by the IMT at the time of this writing. It is however clear that the Commissioner's directive has moved the VIPD to get supervisors to the use of force scenes about half the time as required by policy. The reasons for failure have to be examined to learn how improvements can be made for compliance. We would recommend that the Chiefs of Police should be tasked to accomplish this review. In the base report, the IMT made the following recommendation regarding this problem of supervisory response to use of force incidents:

"Chiefs of Police need to actively manage Commissioner's Directive 001-2016/ On-Call Supervisors to Respond to Use of Force. The Directive specifically covers for disciplinary action against anyone who fails to comply with the Directive. The IMT strongly believes the current policy of using an on-call supervisor list is not the solution to the problem. The essentially allow police operations to be commanded by a police private during weekends, holidays and late hours does not meet professional policing standards or adequate supervision of an armed force. It also fails the people the of the Virgin Islands on a continual basis.

The solution is to adjust the working schedules of supervisors to ensure that at least ONE supervisor is on duty 24/7 on each island. This supervisor does not have to be from patrol, but rather could be any supervisor, including those assigned to day work administrative jobs. They could rotate through such supervisor assignments and still perform their administrative jobs, but at a different hour of the day. Most well managed and responsible law enforcement agencies ensure the presence of supervisors and many actually mount a duty-commander position that assumes command of the department in the absence of the police chief. The IMT believes the VIPD must make this transition now before serious problems occur. The IMT will be commenting on this during the next scheduled court hearing."

Goal 4Q5-5 Original Order Date02/06/2016 Current Suspense Date 02/06/2016 Days OD 104

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

VIPD will bring backlog of cases current by designating a time period for supervisors

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016

Quarterly Report

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 15 of 32

IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 152 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

responsible for the delinquent cases to complete the investigation of each delinquent case.
Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016- See previous comments under 44-i

Goal 4Q5-8 Original Order Date02/06/2016 Current Suspense Date 02/06/2016 Days OD 104

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

Training Division will collaborate with the other three (3) working groups to identify and respond with training support to Consent Decree issues and areas identified by the working groups. Training Division’s support will include assessment of the needs; identification of the trainees; development of the curricula; delivery of training; and, in conjunction with the audit unit, evaluation of the training effectiveness.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal should be a part of an overall revision of all lesson plans. While there is a priority to revise and update CD related lesson plans; the entire system needs review and revision. There was an Instructor "Retreat" in Nov. 2015; there is a meeting scheduled to take place by 1-29-16 to advance this goal. Another meeting was scheduled for 12-17-15 which IMT believed would produce a lesson plan revision schedule. Progress should be reported during Monthly meeting 2-3-16 but was not. We would very much want to come away from our next "summit meeting" with VIPD with a revision plan. There was progress made but no finalization of the results of this review at the Summit. IMT reviewed initial drafts and made comments. VIPD to finalize and submit for formal review. VIPD in it's 02/12/16 Court filing extended the compliance date to 03/31/16. This goal remains Not Complete. 1Q2016- VIPD submitted a Compliance Request on 02/12/16, The IMT denied compliance on 02/24/16 for several reasons including that not all CD related lesson plans were reviewed, reviews did not include specific references to changes, etc. Additional information is provided within the Compliance evaluation memo and the Training section of the report.

Goal 58-c Original Order Date05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/23/2014 Days OD 728

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

=>90% of any identified problems and/or training needs have been relayed to the appropriate VIPD entity.

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 16 of 32

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 153 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016- To better address the resolution of issues not related to training which are identified through the course of an investigation, the Working Group drafted a Request for Non-Training Issue Support Form with an accompanying Directive. The intent was for this is be formally issued during this Quarter. The IMT will assess in future quarters the effectiveness of same. See also 44-i

Goal 58-d Original Order Date05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/23/2014 Days OD 728

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

=>90% of the cases where there is a determination that modification to or additional

training is required, there is documented evidence that VIPD implemented additional

training.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016- See 58-c

Goal 58-e Original Order Date05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/23/2014 Days OD 728

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

=>90% of the cases where the VIPD identified policy or equipment deficiencies, there is

documented evidence that corrective measures were implemented.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016- See 58-c

Goal 60-d Original Order Date08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 06/30/2016 Days OD -41

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

=>95% of all injuries to prisoners will be entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report.

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 17 of 32

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 154 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

Goal 69-b Original Order Date08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 14

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

The protocol establishes a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all VIPD zones.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. Appendix A: During early 2015 there was a period of time when the VIPD Audit submissions were severely delayed The IMT believes that this reflects a change period for the current administration and will not be repeated. While the Audits continue to improve, the IMT hopes that these Audits will be completed in a more timely fashion than has occurred previously. During the last quarter the IMT received a VIPD proposed Audit SOP. Since the audits had been delayed, the IMT looks forward to assessing to what level the draft is being appropriately applied. As stated in earlier reports, the IMT strongly encourages the VIPD to enhance the Audit staff, prepare annual audit plans, and complete /submit audits in a timely fashion. 030416-VIPD request for compliance was denied based on lateness of audits.

Goal

70

Description

Original Order Date05/06/2016 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 14
Action Officer Chief Hector

Complete revision to Disciplinary Matrix and publish

Status Synopsis
1Q2016- The VIPD has been attempting to create a revised Disciplinary Matrix for a prolonged period of time (Paragraph 70). During the First Quarter, the IMT provided additional samples of other agencies' approaches and met with the point person for this project. At this time, the VIPD continues to work on creating a revised Disciplinary Matrix.

Goal 71-b Original Order Date02/20/2015 Current Suspense Date 06/30/2016 Days OD -41

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

=>90% of the time, these established time periods are not violated except for in exigent circumstances and with the Police Commissioner's written approval for tolling and notice to the complainant.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016- This continues to be a problem for the VIPD. The assigned workgroup has begun to review and impact this issue by review and return for corrective action,

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 18 of 32

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 155 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

investigative reports.

Goal 71-c Original Order Date02/20/2015 Current Suspense Date 02/20/2015 Days OD 455

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

In the limited circumstances when an extension is necessary, appropriate tolling provisions will be outlined in the policy.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is

covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016 - The assigned workgroup has begun a focused review of this issue and has been having some limited impact. They will continue their efforts and iMT will continue

to monitor during 2Q2016.

Goal 72-a Original Order Date02/20/2015 Current Suspense Date 06/30/2016 Days OD -41

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>90% of the cases where the matrix calls for discipline, discipline is imposed.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016 - The assigned workgroup has begun reviewing this issue and the IMT will be conducting a special study to analyze compliance during 2Q2016.

Goal 72-b Original Order Date02/20/2015 Current Suspense Date 06/30/2016 Days OD -41

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>90% of the cases where discipline is imposed, there is evidence that the VIPD has also considered non-disciplinary corrective action.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016 - See 72 a

Goal 73-a Original Order Date05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 14

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

The Training Division has coordinated and reviewed all use of force training. This review occurs: at least semi-annually and needs to be comprehensive and analytical.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-IMT has not seen a revised directive for the Training Advisory Committee since our last comments which itemized several issue that IMT had with VIPD's more recent version.

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016

Quarterly Report

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 19 of 32

IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 156 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

It took a full quarter to develop a survey instrument to be used to evaluate training. The form should have been developed, tested and issued in the time it took to develop it. Paragraph 73 requires the VIPD to conduct a semi-annual review of use of force training to ensure quality, consistency and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy. Since initiation of the Consent Decree, the VIPD has interpreted this requirement to refer only to a companion requirement that use of force policy be reviewed semi-annually. To that end, the VIPD has ensured only that use of force training is consistent with, and in compliance with, applicable law and VIPD policy. Our belief is that any use of force policy review requires assessment and analysis of how well outcomes reflect training objectives.

IMT hopes that upcoming meetings with the Audit Unit may helpful in finalizing training evaluation criteria.

Court Hearing Notes; This is one of the two paragraphs that VIPD proposes to put into compliance during 1Q16. I think that they may have the system in place but it still may be subject to audit and review at the end of the quarter. There needs to be a memo from the AG's Office naming Sherri as his designee for purposes of the CD She semi-annually must produce a memo indicating that she has reviewed UOF policy and lesson plans to ensure that they are consistent with VIPD law and policy. She also needs to attest the completion of a process designed to assess the quality of UOF training. The process of evaluating the quality needs to include:
Quiz at the end of training Evaluation of class and instructor(s) at end of training Quiz 30 days after training to test retention (procedures for failures) Surveys w/I 6 mos to officers and supervisors assessing the results of training objectives in the field(UVI might be helpful) Report to Sherri (for inclusion in her report) Report to Training Advisory Committee for their review.

Each in-service training period should start the cycle over with any needed adjustments built into the next cycle (this also feeds into those topics which become the subject of roll call training - this part still needs some work as does the clear documentation and disposition of remedial training.

1Q2016- Requirements within Paragraphs 73, 74 and 78 mandate use of force policy and lesson plan reviews semi-annually. There is also a requirement for semi-annual evaluations of the quality of use of force training. The VIPD enacted several policies and practices that will be employed as a part of this process, namely the development

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 20 of 32

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 157 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

of a training survey tool and an instructor evaluation form. Several critical steps remain that must be taken by the Training Bureau to ensure that evaluation of use of force training adheres to basic rules of reliability and validity. The survey should be created to measure how well the training objectives were met in the field. The survey should produce measurable outcomes that are validated by supervisors and managers and the survey must reach and query enough officers to make the results meaningful.

Goal 74-a Original Order Date05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/31/2016 Days OD -11

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff reviews all use of force training.

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff obtains legal review of all use of force

training curricula.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal was established to produce a survey instrument for the evaluation of training. A trial run was made with disappointing results. There is also the need to re-address the components of the survey instrument. IMT believes that VIPD has to re-visit the persons that would be queried in a training survey and the object of the survey which should match the training objectives. This goal should be revised to incorporate these issues or combined with one of the other goals that lend themselves to evaluation of the training product(s).
1Q2016 - Requirements within Paragraphs 73, 74 and 78 mandate use of force policy and lesson plan reviews semi-annually. There is also a requirement for semi-annual evaluations of the quality of use of force training. The VIPD enacted several policies and practices that will be employed as a part of this process, namely the development of a training survey tool and an instructor evaluation form. Several critical steps remain that must be taken by the Training Bureau to ensure that evaluation of use of force training adheres to basic rules of reliability and validity. The survey should be created to measure how well the training objectives were met in the field. The survey should produce measurable outcomes that are validated by supervisors and managers and the survey must reach and query enough officers to make the results meaningful.

Goal 74-c Original Order Date05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/31/2016 Days OD -11

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed a process to continually

select and evaluate VIPD officer trainers.

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 21 of 32

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 158 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-The Compliance Audit Report addresses this issue in much more detail than the goal report. In the Audit, assessors found several shortcomings in the updated instructor files but substantiate that the most recent certifications have been added to individual trainer records. The goal calls for a revision of the Commissioner's Directive which would include the instructor evaluation procedure. To date, we have not reviewed a draft of the revision. Court Hearing Notes: VIPD just re-issued the directive governing this process. The Training Advisory Committee should review the selection process (vetting) and should take an interest in the instructor certifications. We and the Audit Unit should review the instructor files again and check their inclusion in PowerDMS. 1Q2016- Requirements within Paragraphs 73, 74 and 78 mandate use of force policy and lesson plan reviews semi-annually. There is also a requirement for semi-annual evaluations of the quality of use of force training. The VIPD enacted several policies and practices that will be employed as a part of this process, namely the development of a training survey tool and an instructor evaluation form. Several critical steps remain that must be taken by the Training Bureau to ensure that evaluation of use of force training adheres to basic rules of reliability and validity. The survey should be created to measure how well the training objectives were met in the field. The survey should produce measurable outcomes that are validated by supervisors and managers and the survey must reach and query enough officers to make the results meaningful.

Goal 74-d Original Order Date05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/31/2016 Days OD -11

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have reviewed and provided written approval of all curricula, course schedules and lesson plans.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-We would think that this goal could have been incorporated into the goal(s) related to the revision and updating of all lesson plans (4Q5-8)

Court Hearing Notes: VIPD asked for compliance on the basis of their submission of

several UOF related lesson plans that were revised by several instructors. We denied

compliance. This is the sub-paragraph most in need of help from UVI - during 2-3

separate occasions, we have recommended that rather than teach a repetitive IDC

course from UVI, it would more advantageous to have a consulting relationship with UVI

and get them to help revise all of their CD related lesson plans. Their practice of having

lesson plans written and re-vised by a squad of instructors is ill-advised. Most

departments this size have all of their lesson plans prepared by a very small group,

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016

Quarterly Report

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 22 of 32

IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 159 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

many of whom also write policy. Their needs to be more symmetry between the policy and lesson plan revisions. This remains a work in progress. 1Q2016- Requirements within Paragraphs 73, 74 and 78 mandate use of force policy and lesson plan reviews semi-annually. There is also a requirement for semi-annual evaluations of the quality of use of force training. The VIPD enacted several policies and practices that will be employed as a part of this process, namely the development of a training survey tool and an instructor evaluation form. Several critical steps remain that must be taken by the Training Bureau to ensure that evaluation of use of force training adheres to basic rules of reliability and validity. The survey should be created to measure how well the training objectives were met in the field. The survey should produce measurable outcomes that are validated by supervisors and managers and the survey must reach and query enough officers to make the results meaningful.

Goal 74-e Original Order Date05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/31/2016 Days OD -11

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

The Training Director and/or his/her staff, in conjunction with the Chiefs and Deputy

Chiefs, have created a process for the development, implementation and approval of all

Roll Call training curricula.

The Training Director and/or his/her staff, in conjunction with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs, have developed, implemented and approved all Roll Call training curricula.

The Training Director and/or his/her staff have maintained written documentation of this process.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-IMT has no idea why it would take until 3-15-16 to complete the revision of this policy. This should be a goal that is completed in a more shorter period of time than it is taking IMT has no idea why it would take until 3-15-16 to complete the revision of the Roll Call Policy 10.4, which has been under review for a over a year. It was first brought to the attention of the VIPD by the IMT in November of 2014, at which time the VIPD admitted the policy was not working and agreed to review and update it. This should be a goal that is completed in a much more shorter period of time than it is taking. This goal remains Not Completed. See also sub-paragraph 74-e, Appendix A.

Court Hearing Notes: This sub-paragraph continues to languish with no concerted effort by VIPD. While the strict interpretation of the paragraph calls for a roll call training policy to be established in conjunction with the Chiefs. The only effort on the table was a policy outlining the conduct of roll call rather than one outlining how roll call training is to be established and delivered. We envisioned that the coordination of roll call training would be coordinated with the Training Advisory Committee. VIPD has been unable to stand

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016

Quarterly Report

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 23 of 32

IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 160 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

up the Training Advisory Committee. Ironically, a 2009 version of the Training Bureau Standard Operating Procedures call for the establishment of a "Training Committee" whose mission and duties mirror most of the very same tasks that we have been asking the Training Advisory Committee to perform. 1Q2016- Requirements within Paragraphs 73, 74 and 78 mandate use of force policy and lesson plan reviews semi-annually. There is also a requirement for semi-annual evaluations of the quality of use of force training. The VIPD enacted several policies and practices that will be employed as a part of this process, namely the development of a training survey tool and an instructor evaluation form. Several critical steps remain that must be taken by the Training Bureau to ensure that evaluation of use of force training adheres to basic rules of reliability and validity. The survey should be created to measure how well the training objectives were met in the field. The survey should produce measurable outcomes that are validated by supervisors and managers and the survey must reach and query enough officers to make the results meaningful.

Goal 74-f Original Order Date05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/31/2016 Days OD -11

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have created and maintained a training record system that captures attendance records, instructor and student evaluations, and test results.

For >90% of the conducted Consent Decree related training sessions, evaluation review forms were collected from class participants

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-While VIPD is working on the mechanics of entering records into PowerDMS, there is no SOP outlining the exact records that must be maintained and the record components for each record category. This is information that MIS will need to properly establish the record keeping system. There is some "getting the horse before the cart" in this goal. It might be helpful if there was protocol on which records need to be maintained and how. While the VIPD Division of Training "Standard Operating Procedures" is dated, there are sections which, if not applicable, might be helpful in organizing this kind of protocol.

Court Hearing Notes: Our sense is that this procedure should be a duty of the Training Advisory Committee much in the way the Policy Review Committee is functioning now. While there are probably several other methodologies for achieving compliance with this

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016

Quarterly Report

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 24 of 32

IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 161 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

sub-paragraph, it is not currently being addressed. 1Q2016- Requirements within Paragraphs 73, 74 and 78 mandate use of force policy and lesson plan reviews semi-annually. There is also a requirement for semi-annual evaluations of the quality of use of force training. The VIPD enacted several policies and practices that will be employed as a part of this process, namely the development of a training survey tool and an instructor evaluation form. Several critical steps remain that must be taken by the Training Bureau to ensure that evaluation of use of force training adheres to basic rules of reliability and validity. The survey should be created to measure how well the training objectives were met in the field. The survey should produce measurable outcomes that are validated by supervisors and managers and the survey must reach and query enough officers to make the results meaningful.

Goal 74-g Original Order Date05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/31/2016 Days OD -11

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed a process to review use of

force incidents to identify patterns and trends that will influence training needs.

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have conducted semi-annual reviews of use of force incidents to evaluate training needs.

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed, reviewed and implemented all use of force training curricula (including lesson plans).

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-A system for assessing patterns in UOF incidents is scheduled to be completed by 2-19-16. We would endorse this as a high priority. The audit unit could lend significant support in the creation of this kind of analysis. IMT is meeting with the Audit Unit personnel in 1Q2016 to address analysis methodology as well as the mechanism to addressing any deficiencies found.

Court Hearing Notes: There should also be a nexus to the semi-annual analysis and evaluation of in-service training which feeds into the decision-making regarding future training. 1Q2016- Requirements within Paragraphs 73, 74 and 78 mandate use of force policy and lesson plan reviews semi-annually. There is also a requirement for semi-annual evaluations of the quality of use of force training. The VIPD enacted several policies and practices that will be employed as a part of this process, namely the development of a training survey tool and an instructor evaluation form. Several critical steps remain that must be taken by the Training Bureau to ensure that evaluation of use of force training adheres to basic rules of reliability and validity. The survey should be created to measure how well the training objectives were met in the field. The survey should

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016

Quarterly Report

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 25 of 32

IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 162 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

produce measurable outcomes that are validated by supervisors and managers and the survey must reach and query enough officers to make the results meaningful.

Goal 77-a Original Order Date05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 14

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff has maintained current and substantially

complete training records for =95% of VIPD Officers.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting components and found this is one area where the VIPD Training Bureau has accomplished a significant portion of their goal but still has problems with the quantity and quality of those records associated with instructors. All in-service training records have been entered into PowerDMS and the records have been audited. Goal remains Not Completed See also sub-paragraph 77-a, Appendix A
Court Hearing Notes: VIPD believes that it has one full year of in-service records that would put this paragraph into compliance. We indicated that we should have two years of records for this paragraph. There is probably only one year of instructor records. If was most important that VIPD initiate a process for re-positing all of the required records in some systematic way. Once VIPD indicates that they have two full years of attendance and lesson plan files and one year of instructor records, we will audit the files and if they are in order, we will award substantial compliance for this paragraph. 1Q2016 - The IMT has requested that the VIPD produce two years of documented records in compliance with this paragraph. We believe that there are two years of records that reliably document in-service participant attendance. The IMT also believes that the VIPD, with some effort, could produce two years of lesson plans that would match the classes taught in the same time period. A two-year chronology of instructors and their subject matter just doesn't exist. The IMT believes that the VIPD should memorialize processes and procedures that reliably capture instructional data for at least one (1) year to comply with this paragraph.
The IMT continues to work with the VIPD on the standardization and automation of instructor files. We reported two quarters ago on our inspection findings along with recommendations that would ensure the accuracy and completeness of the records. We continued to provide guidance and technical assistance as paper files are organized and entered into PowerDMS.

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 26 of 32

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 163 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

Goal 77-b Original Order Date05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 14

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

=>95% of the training records shall, at a minimum, include the course description and duration, curriculum, and instructor for each officer.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal will be extremely hard to attain. While trainee attendance records have been entered into PowerDMS, historic and current lesson plans and instructor records have not. The paragraph requirement is that all three records be accessible. Historically, matching classes with specific instructors and creating an accurate history

of lesson plans through the years. There has been a misinterpretation of the IMT's aim with regard to this provision of the CD. As the department migrated to PowerDMS and were encouraged by us to make it

the primary repository of training records, the notion that we were demanding that a "one button push" should create a report with all three components of the requirement. We've tried very hard to explain that we have never demanded such a system. We

believe that if all three elements exist in reliable databases, it would be reasonably retrievable which is what we interpret the paragraph requires.

Court Hearing Notes: VIPD believes that it has one full year of in-service records that would put this paragraph into compliance. We indicated that we should have two years of records for this paragraph. There is probably only one year of instructor records. If was most important that VIPD initiate a process for re-positing all of the required records in some systematic way. Once VIPD indicates that they have two full years of attendance and lesson plan files and one year of instructor records, we will audit the files and if they are in order, we will award substantial compliance for this paragraph.

1Q2016- The IMT has requested that the VIPD produce two years of documented records in compliance with this paragraph. We believe that there are two years of records that reliably document in-service participant attendance. The IMT also believes that the VIPD, with some effort, could produce two years of lesson plans that would match the classes taught in the same time period. A two-year chronology of instructors and their subject matter just doesn't exist. The IMT believes that the VIPD should memorialize processes and procedures that reliably capture instructional data for at least one (1) year to comply with this paragraph.

The IMT continues to work with the VIPD on the standardization and automation of instructor files. We reported two quarters ago on our inspection findings along with recommendations that would ensure the accuracy and completeness of the records. We continued to provide guidance and technical assistance as paper files are organized and entered into PowerDMS.

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 27 of 32

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 164 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

Goal 81-b Original Order Date05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/31/2016 Days OD -11

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

Training should include factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is a subset of a broader training and agency requirement. It is also one of the thornier issues of the CD because, we believe, because it requires more than the provision of training for managers and command staff but also "implementation" in the form of more accountable behavior on the part of the command staff. While difficult to quantify and/or measure, it is our collective opinion that the command staff of VIPD does not handle command level activities in a manner that we would expect to find in a police organization the size of VIPD. There are significant issues associated with coordination of work between and among units at a command level; command decision making and the administration of policy, procedures and discipline to name a few. VIPD Counsel has indicated that the "implementation" of this paragraph should be measured elsewhere in the CD. We have no objection to the implementation of the parameters of this paragraph being measured elsewhere in the CD but, to date, VIPD has not recommended a different paragraph where we would assess and report on implementation. Until we agree on a different paragraph with which to measure implantation, we feel that we must apply the litmus test to this paragraph because it goes to the core objective of the consent decree. This specific issue is also addressed in the T&M Report. 1Q2016 - The IMT's highest recommended priority remains the engagement of assistance from a local college or university to assist with the development of lesson plans and evaluation methodologies with measurable outcomes. The objectives in lesson plans should correlate to surveys and evaluations in a manner that produces measurable outcomes.

The IMT also recommends that prior to the beginning of the upcoming in-service training period, a detailed plan be prepared that describes the entire training cycle complete with evaluations and reporting requirements. Specifically, the plan should include, but not be limited to the lesson plan, quizzes, class and instructor evaluations, post-training knowledge quiz and qualitative survey and summary.

Goal 81-d Original Order Date05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/31/2016 Days OD -11

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

The training shall include techniques designed to promote proper police practices.

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 28 of 32

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 165 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-There is a suspense date of 12-12-15 for the accomplishment of several important preparatory steps associated with assessment of relevant supervisory and management training. The date has passed and, as of yet, we have not seen results of this work. For some time, the IMT was critical of the fact that most, if not all, command staff members did not attend in-service training. The reasons given for this practice were completely unsatisfactory and did not justify the flawed philosophy. During the first in-service training session in 2015, supervisors their own classes. We were very disappointed when the most recent in-service were general sessions for all ranks. We don't understand this. 1Q2016- The IMT's highest recommended priority remains the engagement of assistance from a local college or university to assist with the development of lesson plans and evaluation methodologies with measurable outcomes. The objectives in lesson plans should correlate to surveys and evaluations in a manner that produces measurable outcomes.
The IMT also recommends that prior to the beginning of the upcoming in-service training period, a detailed plan be prepared that describes the entire training cycle complete with evaluations and reporting requirements. Specifically, the plan should include, but not be limited to the lesson plan, quizzes, class and instructor evaluations, post-training knowledge quiz and qualitative survey and summary.

Goal 81-f Original Order Date05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/31/2016 Days OD -11

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

And will be made a part of annual in-service training.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This is the same as 81-d 1Q2016 - see 81-d

Goal CC17 Original Order Date05/15/2015 Current Suspense Date 07/22/2015 Days OD 303

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

Creation of a standardized protocol to ensure proper dissemination of Directives and other protocols Territory Wide; Paragraph 44 Timeliness of Cases

Status Synopsis
3Q2015-Draft Audit protocols and SOP pending VIPD review. IMT had not received SOP during 2Q2015; Draft SOP received during 3Q2015 and is being reviewed by IMT and goal status could change before court hearing, 4Q2015-Draft was reviewed and deemed compliant by IMT. However, IMT has not

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 29 of 32

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 166 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

received a FINAL published copy or any request for Goal Completion certification from the CD Coordinator. Additionally, IMT has not seen specific implementation of the SOP into VIPD activity. IMT continues to hold this goal as Not Complete 1Q2016- This process continues to be a work in progress. The VIPD proposed and published a directive that established a binder system at each Zone. They then published another directive that established somebody to keep the binder up to date. The personnel without computers would then be able to refer to that binder (one each Zone) for any questions regarding the directives. This however does not solve the real problem which is how does the officer refer to a binder in the station when he is on the road? The IMT suggests that the solution may in fact be to purchase a three ring binder for each field person without a laptop and let them print put copies of policy and file in their own binder which can be readily accessible within the patrol vehicle.

Goal M&S12 Original Order Date05/15/2015 Current Suspense Date 05/15/2015 Days OD 371

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

M&S will with the assistance of 911 create a code for vehicle pursuits and have all vehicles for VIPD listed at 911 so vehicle accidents involving police Vehicles can be track; Paragraph 60i

Status Synopsis
3Q2015-Had meeting with VITEMA; problem is that software at STX allows for secondary entry of pursuit with a robbery etc; STT does not have a similar software function. While we recognize that VIPD continues to work with VITEMA to address this issue, IMT has not been provided/shown how to access pursuit listings territory-wide Acknowledge that VIPD reports providing vehicle listing to VITEMA See also M&S 11 above 1Q2016- the IMT has not been provided with any pursuit reports substantiating the above system this quarter.

Goal M&S16 Original Order Date05/15/2015 Current Suspense Date 06/30/2016 Days OD -41

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

Finalize the development of additional protocols for the Audit unit; Paragraph 69

Status Synopsis
3Q2015-Draft Audit protocols and SOP pending VIPD review. IMT had not received SOP during 2Q2015; Draft SOP received during 3Q2015 and is being reviewed by IMT and goal status could change before court hearing, 4Q2015-Draft was reviewed and deemed compliant by IMT. However, IMT has not received a FINAL published copy or any request for Goal Completion certification from

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 30 of 32

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 167 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

the CD Coordinator. Additionally, IMT has not seen specific implementation of the SOP into VIPD activity. IMT continues to hold this goal as Not Complete 1Q2016- The iMT has yet to receive a signed and approved copy of the AIU SOP.

Goal TRNG22 Original Order Date05/15/2015 Current Suspense Date 08/01/2015 Days OD 293

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

Reorganize the Training Advisory Committee.; Paragraph 74g

Status Synopsis
3Q2015-Pending review of directive 4Q2015-This goal speaks more specifically to the reorganization of the Training Advisory Committee but lists no steps for its achievement. The last version of the directive establishing the TAC was published without the incorporation of our latest revisions. We are also unclear about who is the chair of this committee. 1Q2016- The Training Advisory Committee continues to be a work in progress with several iterations of the policy being reviewed but not approved by the IMT.

Goal TRNG23 Original Order Date05/15/2015 Current Suspense Date 12/18/2015 Days OD 154

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

Create and implement new protocol for monitoring and evaluating UOF training; Paragraph 73a

Status Synopsis
3Q2015-Pending review of Kirkpatrick training and implications for adoption of

components by the VIPD. 4Q2015-See comments in 73a 1Q2016 - see 73-a

Goal TRNG25 Original Order Date05/15/2015 Current Suspense Date 03/31/2016 Days OD 50

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

Revise and implement Roll Call Policy; Paragraph 74e

Status Synopsis
3Q2015-IMT reviewed the submitted directive and finds it did not follow IMT recommendations and needs further refinement and possible separation into two or more separate directives. IMT will work with the Training Division Director to expedite the corrections. 4Q2015-See 74e above

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 31 of 32

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 168 of 184

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix B To
1Q2016 IMT Report

1Q2016- See 74e

Goal TRNG26 Original Order Date05/15/2015 Current Suspense Date 03/31/2016 Days OD 50

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

Development of the Kirkpatrick method of evaluating training; Paragraph 73a

Status Synopsis
3Q2015-Initial training completed in 1Q2015; deadline for completion extended by VIPD to 12/18/15 by the VIPD through court filing. 4Q2015-See 73a above 1Q2016- see 73a

Appendix B To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_B_QtrRep

Total Goals Not in Substantial Compliance 61

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 32 of 32

Some Goals listed herein are also Sub-paragraphs and as such may be commented on in Appendix A. The reader is directed to that Appendix for additional information.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 169 of 184

Paragraph 100 Sub-Paragraph Linkage to Original Paragraphs

Appendix C To
1Q2016 Report

The following lists the Consent Decree paragraph(s) where the Paragraph 100 Sub-Paragraphs were originally located.

Sub-Paragraph a
Sub-Paragraph b
Sub-Paragraph c
Sub-Paragraph d
Sub-Paragraph e
Sub-Paragraph f
Sub-Paragraph g
Sub-Paragraph h
Sub-Paragraph

Substantial Compliance Requirement All uses of force comply with VIPD policies and applicable law.
Substantial Compliance Requirement As appropriate, Officers disengaged, contained the area, conducted surveillance, waited out the subject, and/or called in specialized units.
Substantial Compliance Requirement When feasible, an individual is allowed to submit to arrest before force is used.
Substantial Compliance Requirement In use of force incidents, the use of force review concludes that sufficient less lethal alternatives were used where appropriate based on the totality of circumstances.
Substantial Compliance Requirement Patrol and other applicable officers carry less lethal alternatives at all times.
Substantial Compliance Requirement In use of force incidents, choke holds and similar carotid holds were not used, except where deadly force was authorized.
Substantial Compliance Requirement In use of force incidents where the use of force review concluded that the force was inconsistent with policy or legal standard,, the VIPD took corrective and/or disciplinary action against the officer. (SC Compliance Requirement wording updated 11/12/14; also inked back to paragraphs 33 and 34)
Substantial Compliance Requirement Sworn personnel do not possess or use unauthorized firearms or ammunition.
Substantial Compliance Requirement

Linked Paragraph 031
Linked Paragraph 031C
Linked Paragraph 031D
Linked Paragraph 031F
Linked Paragraph 031F
Linked Paragraph 031G
Linked Paragraph 032
Linked Paragraph 039
Linked Paragraph

Appendix C To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_C_Qtr_rep

Page 1 of 4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 170 of 184

Paragraph 100 Sub-Paragraph Linkage to Original Paragraphs

Appendix C To
1Q2016 Report

The following lists the Consent Decree paragraph(s) where the Paragraph 100 Sub-Paragraphs were originally located.

i
Sub-Paragraph j
Sub-Paragraph k
Sub-Paragraph l
Sub-Paragraph m
Sub-Paragraph n
Sub-Paragraph

In cases where an officer is found to be in possession of unauthorized firearms or ammunition, there is evidence that an investigation was conducted and appropriate corrective action was taken.
Substantial Compliance Requirement Critical Firearm Discharges are documented in an RRR.
Substantial Compliance Requirement In reported incidents involving off-duty officers taking police action, the off-duty officer's conduct comports with policies regarding off-duty officers taking police action and 31 (a) - (g) of the Consent Decree.
Substantial Compliance Requirement Off-duty officers notified on-duty sworn personnel or local law enforcement officers before taking police actions, except in exigent circumstances.
Substantial Compliance Requirement In incidents where an off-duty officer taking police action appeared to have consumed alcohol, the off-duty officer submitted to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.
Substantial Compliance Requirement In reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he/she was not involved in the use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize conduct leading to the use of force incident. (Also found in paragraph 47; Updated 11//12/14)
Substantial Compliance Requirement

039
Linked Paragraph 039
Linked Paragraph 031A-G
Linked Paragraph 040A
Linked Paragraph 040B
Linked Paragraph 047
Linked Paragraph

Appendix C To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_C_Qtr_rep

Page 2 of 4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 171 of 184

Paragraph 100 Sub-Paragraph Linkage to Original Paragraphs

Appendix C To
1Q2016 Report

The following lists the Consent Decree paragraph(s) where the Paragraph 100 Sub-Paragraphs were originally located.

o Sub-Paragraph
p
Sub-Paragraph q
Sub-Paragraph r
Sub-Paragraph s
Sub-Paragraph t

Use of force investigations include documented findings of all of the considerations required by 52.
Substantial Compliance Requirement When administrative investigations are referred to the VIAG or other appropriate agency, the VIPD has documentation that it has completed, to the extent possible, its own administrative investigation.
Substantial Compliance Requirement RMS reports are generated and distributed to appropriate sworn personnel (e.g., Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, and supervisors) on a monthly basis.
Substantial Compliance Requirement The VIPD is utilizing the EIP. Underlying documentation should include documentation of EIP meetings, the Early Intervention Unit Action Plan and Early Intervention Unit Assessment, attendance records of VIPD personnel and all follow-up documentation for completed intervention.
Substantial Compliance Requirement Deputy Chiefs, managers and supervisors have initiated EIP interventions based on activity and pattern assessment contained in the RMS.
Substantial Compliance Requirement EIP interventions are based on all relevant and appropriate information, including the nature of the officer's assignment, crime trends and crime problems, and not solely the number or percentages of incidents in any category of information recorded in the risk management system.

052 Linked Paragraph
053
Linked Paragraph 064C
Linked Paragraph 064F
Linked Paragraph 064K
Linked Paragraph 064G

Appendix C To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_C_Qtr_rep

Page 3 of 4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 172 of 184

Paragraph 100 Sub-Paragraph Linkage to Original Paragraphs

Appendix C To
1Q2016 Report

The following lists the Consent Decree paragraph(s) where the Paragraph 100 Sub-Paragraphs were originally located.

Sub-Paragraph u
Sub-Paragraph v
Sub-Paragraph w

Substantial Compliance Requirement In instances when officers are transferred to a new section or unit, Deputy Chiefs, managers and supervisors for the relevant section or unit promptly review the RMS records of such officers.
Substantial Compliance Requirement The VIPD has established a protocol for evaluating whether Deputy Chiefs, managers and supervisors are able to use the RMS effectively.
Substantial Compliance Requirement Disciplinary penalty decisions are consistent with the penalties set forth in the Disciplinary Matrix.

Linked Paragraph 064H
Linked Paragraph 064I
Linked Paragraph 070

Appendix C To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

Page 4 of 4

IMT System ID: appendix_C_Qtr_rep

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 173 of 184

Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance
With No Court Goals Associated With Them
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix D To
1Q2016 IMT Report

PARAGRAPH CONTENT

STATUSNot In Substantial Compliance

034

Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, will review,

evaluate, and document each use of force, and will complete the narrative

description section of the use of force report. The narrative description will

include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify

or fail to justify the officer's conduct. As part of this review, the supervisor or

designated investigating officer/unit will evaluate the basis for the use of

force, and determine whether the officer's actions were within VIPD policy.

An officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury,

or who authorized conduct leading to the use of force or allegation of

excessive force, or who was present during the incident, will not be eligible to

review or investigate the incident.

SUB PARAGRAPH REQUIREMENT

STATUS Partial Compliance

SUSPENSE 02/20/2015

d

In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor

completed his/her review and evaluation according to VIPD's use of force

policies and all other requirements of 31 of the Consent Decree and will

evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the

officers actions were within VIPD policy.

IMT COMMENTS ON STATUS
The VIPD has not entered any planning steps into the GMS software for this sub-paragraph and the IMT, through its quarterly monitoring efforts, has determined that there was no change in compliance status. Paragraph generally This paragraph has been the most difficult one for the VIPD to come into compliance with. The paragraph primarily deals with the requirements of the inquiry into the use of force including the precise description of the facts and circumstance that either justify or fail to justify the use of force. This analysis has been absent from most supervisors reports to date. During this reporting period the VIPD trained most of its supervisors and management staff from Nov 2-5 2015 in both districts on all of the requirements needed in an inquiry to meet the compliance standard for this paragraph. We further recommend 1) That zone Commanders be held accountable for failing to both timely and completely reviewing their subordinate supervisor force inquiry reports by the D/Police Chiefs. That all items required in the reports are accounted for before they transmit them to the D/Police Chief for approval. 2) That the D/Police Chief & the Police Chief are both required to read, accept and concur that the inquiry reports are complete accurate and reflect a complete substance of the event. They must also write any follow-up that is required and any area of the inquiry in which they disagree with that is contained in the event reports.

Appendix D To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_D_QtrRep

Page 1 of 10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 174 of 184

Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance
With No Court Goals Associated With Them
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix D To
1Q2016 IMT Report

IMT COMMENTS ON STATUS
1q2016 - This sub-paragraph does not have any plans listed in the GMS, nor has any activity been focused on it. It remains non-compliant in 1Q2016..

034 SUB TOTAL

2

PARAGRAPH CONTENT

STATUSNot In Substantial Compliance

037

All investigations into use of force shall be reviewed by the Officer's

Commander and/or Director, or by a Commander and/or Director in the

designated investigative unit, who shall identify any deficiencies in those

reviews, and shall require supervisors, or designated investigative officers or

units, to correct any and all deficiencies. Supervisors, and designated

investigative officers or units, will be held accountable for the quality of their

reviews. Appropriate non-disciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary

action will be taken when a supervisor, or designated investigative officer or

unit, fails to conduct a timely and thorough review, or neglects to recommend

appropriate corrective action, or neglects to properly implement appropriate

corrective action. As provided by VIPD policy and approved by DOJ,

designated command staff shall further review the Commander and/or

Director's reviews according to the level of force involved.

SUB PARAGRAPH REQUIREMENT

STATUS Partial Compliance

SUSPENSE

a

=>90% of the completed use of force case files contained signed

documentation from the Chief and/or Deputy Chief indicating that he/she

reviewed the completed investigation and the date of such review. In

these cases, were all appropriate deficiencies noted and was corrective

action directed or imposed?

IMT COMMENTS ON STATUS
The VIPD has not entered any planning steps into the GMS software for this sub-paragraph and the IMT, through its quarterly monitoring efforts, has determined that there was no change in compliance status. Paragraph generally This paragraph requires the D/Chief to identify deficiencies in the force reports. The IMT participated in training with VIPD to teach both supervisors and management personnel in both districts the requirements of the paragraph. Now they must exhibit the ability to carry out those requirements. We further recommend: 1) That zone Commanders be held accountable for failing to both timely and completely reviewing their subordinate supervisor force inquiry reports by the D/Police Chiefs. That all items required in the reports are accounted for before they transmit them to the D/Police Chief for approval. 2) That the D/Police Chief & the Police Chief are both required to read, accept

Appendix D To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

Page 2 of 10

IMT System ID: appendix_D_QtrRep

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 175 of 184

Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance
With No Court Goals Associated With Them
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix D To
1Q2016 IMT Report

and concur that the inquiry reports are complete accurate and reflect a complete substance of the event. They must also write any follow-up that is required and any area of the inquiry in which they disagree with that is contained in the event reports.

IMT COMMENTS ON STATUS
1Q2016 - This sub-paragraph does not have any plans listed in the GMS, nor has any activity been focused on it. It remains non-compliant in 1Q2016.

SUB PARAGRAPH REQUIREMENT

STATUS Not in Substantial Comp SUSPENSE

b

In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, supervisors are held

accountable for the quality of their reviews, and documented

non-disciplinary and/or disciplinary action has been taken when a

supervisor or manager: fails to conduct a timely and thorough review;

neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action; or neglects to

properly implement appropriate corrective action. In those cases where

discipline was imposed, did the officials imposing the discipline follow the

departmental disciplinary matrix?

IMT COMMENTS ON STATUS
"During the 4th Quarter 2015, there was no change in compliance with this paragraph determined by spot checking of case reports. The IMT met with the associated workgroup and discussed the options available to gain The VIPD has not entered any planning steps into the GMS software for this sub-paragraph and the IMT, through its quarterly monitoring efforts, has determined that there was no change in compliance status. Paragraph generally This paragraph requires the D/Chief to identify deficiencies in the force reports. The IMT participated in training with VIPD to teach both supervisors and management personnel in both districts the requirements of the paragraph. Now they must exhibit the ability to carry out those requirements. We further recommend: 1) That zone Commanders be held accountable for failing to both timely and completely reviewing their subordinate supervisor force inquiry reports by the D/Police Chiefs. That all items required in the reports are accounted for before they transmit them to the D/Police Chief for approval. 2) That the D/Police Chief & the Police Chief are both required to read, accept and concur that the inquiry reports are complete accurate and reflect a complete substance of the event. They must also write any follow-up that is required and any area of the inquiry in which they disagree with that is contained in the event reports.

IMT COMMENTS ON STATUS
Appendix D To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_D_QtrRep

Page 3 of 10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 176 of 184

Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance
With No Court Goals Associated With Them
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix D To
1Q2016 IMT Report

1Q2016 - This sub-paragraph does not have any plans listed in the GMS, nor has any activity been focused on it. Case reviews by the IMT and that of the VIPD AIU seem to confirm that work remains in order to gain compliance. Workgroup is actively working to increase ability to gain compliance and IMT is engaged with them. It remains non-compliant in 1Q2016.

SUB PARAGRAPH REQUIREMENT

STATUS Not in Substantial Comp SUSPENSE

c

In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, the Chief and/or Deputy

Chief provided a written, signed and dated finding on whether the use of

force was justified under VIPD's DOJ approved use of force policies and

all other requirements of 31(a)-(g) of the Consent Decree.

IMT COMMENTS ON STATUS
The VIPD has not entered any planning steps into the GMS software for this sub-paragraph and the IMT, through its quarterly monitoring efforts, has determined that there was no change in compliance status. Paragraph generally This paragraph requires the Dep. Chief to identify deficiencies in the force reports. The IMT participated in training with VIPD to teach both supervisors and management personnel in both districts the requirements of the paragraph. Now they must exhibit the ability to carry out those requirements. We further recommend: 1) That zone Commanders be held accountable for failing to both timely and completely reviewing their subordinate supervisor force inquiry reports by the Dep. Police Chiefs. That all items required in the reports are accounted for before they transmit them to the Dep. Police Chief for approval. 2) That the Dep Police Chief & the Police Chief are both required to read, accept and concur that the inquiry reports are complete accurate and reflect a complete substance of the event. They must also write any follow-up that is required and any area of the inquiry in which they disagree with that is contained in the event reports.
IMT COMMENTS ON STATUS
1Q2016_ This sub-paragraph does not have any plans listed in the GMS, nor has any activity been focused on it. Case reviews by the IMT and that of the VIPD AIU seem to confirm that work remains in order to gain compliance. Workgroup is actively working to increase ability to gain compliance and IMT is engaged with them. It remains non-compliant in 1Q2016.

Appendix D To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_D_QtrRep

Page 4 of 10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 177 of 184

Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance
With No Court Goals Associated With Them
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix D To
1Q2016 IMT Report

SUB PARAGRAPH REQUIREMENT

STATUS Not in Substantial Comp SUSPENSE

d

In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, supervisors are held

accountable for the quality of their investigations, reviews, and

documented non-disciplinary and/or disciplinary action has been taken

when a supervisor or manager: fails to conduct a timely and thorough

review; neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action; or neglects

to properly implement appropriate corrective action.

IMT COMMENTS ON STATUS
The VIPD has not entered any planning steps into the GMS software for this sub-paragraph and the IMT, through its quarterly monitoring efforts, has determined that there was no change in compliance status. Paragraph generally This paragraph requires the Dep. Chief to identify deficiencies in the force reports. The IMT participated in training with VIPD to teach both supervisors and management personnel in both districts the requirements of the paragraph. Now they must exhibit the ability to carry out those requirements. We further recommend: 1) That zone Commanders be held accountable for failing to both timely and completely reviewing their subordinate supervisor force inquiry reports by the Dep. Police Chiefs. That all items required in the reports are accounted for before they transmit them to the Dep. Police Chief for approval. 2) That the Dep Police Chief & the Police Chief are both required to read, accept and concur that the inquiry reports are complete accurate and reflect a complete substance of the event. They must also write any follow-up that is required and any area of the inquiry in which they disagree with that is contained in the event reports.
IMT COMMENTS ON STATUS
1Q2016- This sub-paragraph does not have any plans listed in the GMS, nor has any activity been focused on it. Case reviews by the IMT and that of the VIPD AIU seem to confirm that work remains in order to gain compliance. Workgroup is actively working to increase ability to gain compliance and IMT is engaged with them. It remains non-compliant in 1Q2016.

Appendix D To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_D_QtrRep

Page 5 of 10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 178 of 184

Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance
With No Court Goals Associated With Them
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix D To
1Q2016 IMT Report

SUB PARAGRAPH REQUIREMENT

STATUS Not in Substantial Comp SUSPENSE

e

In =>95% of the use of force incidents where the

Commander's/Director's review and evaluation concluded that improper

tactics were used, there is evidence that the involved sworn personnel

received and successfully completed remedial training, and, if

appropriate, were disciplined.

IMT COMMENTS ON STATUS
The VIPD has not entered any planning steps into the GMS software for this sub-paragraph and the IMT, through its quarterly monitoring efforts, has determined that there was no change in compliance status. Paragraph generally This paragraph requires the Dep. Chief to identify deficiencies in the force reports. The IMT participated in training with VIPD to teach both supervisors and management personnel in both districts the requirements of the paragraph. Now they must exhibit the ability to carry out those requirements. We further recommend: 1) That zone Commanders be held accountable for failing to both timely and completely reviewing their subordinate supervisor force inquiry reports by the Dep. Police Chiefs. That all items required in the reports are accounted for before they transmit them to the Dep. Police Chief for approval. 2) That the Dep Police Chief & the Police Chief are both required to read, accept and concur that the inquiry reports are complete accurate and reflect a complete substance of the event. They must also write any follow-up that is required and any area of the inquiry in which they disagree with that is contained in the event reports.
IMT COMMENTS ON STATUS
1Q2016 - This sub-paragraph does not have any plans listed in the GMS, nor has any activity been focused on it. Case reviews by the IMT and that of the VIPD AIU seem to confirm that work remains in order to gain compliance. Workgroup is actively working to increase ability to gain compliance and IMT is engaged with them. It remains non-compliant in 1Q2016.

SUB PARAGRAPH REQUIREMENT

STATUS Not in Substantial Comp SUSPENSE

f

In =>95% of the use of force incidents deemed unjustified by the

Commander's/Director's review and evaluation, the involved sworn

personnel were disciplined, including separation from service with the

VIPD when appropriate, and, if separation from service was not

appropriate, received remedial training.

IMT COMMENTS ON STATUS
Appendix D To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

Page 6 of 10

IMT System ID: appendix_D_QtrRep

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 179 of 184

Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance
With No Court Goals Associated With Them
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix D To
1Q2016 IMT Report

The VIPD has not entered any planning steps into the GMS software for this sub-paragraph and the IMT, through its quarterly monitoring efforts, has determined that there was no change in compliance status. Paragraph generally This paragraph requires the Dep. Chief to identify deficiencies in the force reports. The IMT participated in training with VIPD to teach both supervisors and management personnel in both districts the requirements of the paragraph. Now they must exhibit the ability to carry out those requirements. We further recommend: 1) That zone Commanders be held accountable for failing to both timely and completely reviewing their subordinate supervisor force inquiry reports by the Dep. Police Chiefs. That all items required in the reports are accounted for before they transmit them to the Dep. Police Chief for approval. 2) That the Dep Police Chief & the Police Chief are both required to read, accept and concur that the inquiry reports are complete accurate and reflect a complete substance of the event. They must also write any follow-up that is required and any area of the inquiry in which they disagree with that is contained in the event reports.

IMT COMMENTS ON STATUS
1Q2016- This sub-paragraph does not have any plans listed in the GMS, nor has any activity been focused on it. Case reviews by the IMT and that of the VIPD AIU seem to confirm that work remains in order to gain compliance. Workgroup is actively working to increase ability to gain compliance and IMT is engaged with them. It remains non-compliant in 1Q2016.

037 SUB TOTAL

12

PARAGRAPH CONTENT

STATUSNot In Substantial Compliance

038

The VIPD will investigate all critical firearm discharges. The VIPD will ensure

that the investigation accounts for all shots and locations of all officers who

discharged their firearms. The VIPD will conduct all ballistic or crime scene

analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate.

SUB PARAGRAPH REQUIREMENT

STATUS Not in Substantial Comp SUSPENSE

a

=>99% of all critical firearm discharges are investigated and

documented.

IMT COMMENTS ON STATUS
The VIPD has not entered any planning steps into the GMS software for this sub-paragraph and the IMT, through its quarterly monitoring efforts, has determined

Appendix D To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

Page 7 of 10

IMT System ID: appendix_D_QtrRep

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 180 of 184

Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance
With No Court Goals Associated With Them
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix D To
1Q2016 IMT Report

that there was no change in compliance status. Paragraph generally This paragraph deals with the investigation of serious uses of force and the evidentiary requirements surrounding the collection of the forensics of the crime scene. The VIPD has trained personnel and implemented the requirements related to this paragraph. It is currently under review by the IMT for compliance.

IMT COMMENTS ON STATUS
1Q2016 - This sub-paragraph does not have any plans listed in the GMS, nor has any activity been focused on it. It remains non-compliant in 1Q2016.

SUB PARAGRAPH REQUIREMENT

STATUS Not in Substantial Comp SUSPENSE

b

=>95% of all investigations or reviews of critical firearm discharges

accounted for all shots.

IMT COMMENTS ON STATUS
The VIPD has not entered any planning steps into the GMS software for this sub-paragraph and the IMT, through its quarterly monitoring efforts, has determined that there was no change in compliance status. Paragraph generally This paragraph deals with the investigation of serious uses of force and the evidentiary requirements surrounding the collection of the forensics of the crime scene. The VIPD has trained personnel and implemented the requirements related to this paragraph. It is currently under review by the IMT for compliance.

IMT COMMENTS ON STATUS
1Q2016 - This sub-paragraph does not have any plans listed in the GMS, nor has any activity been focused on it. It remains non-compliant in 1Q2016.

Appendix D To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_D_QtrRep

Page 8 of 10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 181 of 184

Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance
With No Court Goals Associated With Them
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix D To
1Q2016 IMT Report

SUB PARAGRAPH REQUIREMENT

STATUS Not in Substantial Comp SUSPENSE

c

=>95% of all supervisors (or other personnel) have either: (a) attended

and successfully completed the initial in-service training on ballistic and

crime scene analyses and demonstrated proficiency through a

proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or (b) if supervisors

(or other personnel) have not successfully completed the required

training and passed the proficiency test(s), the supervisors (or other

personnel) have entered and successfully completed a remedial program

designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s); or

Where supervisors (or other personnel) have not successfully completed

training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated

appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action

against the sworn personnel.

IMT COMMENTS ON STATUS
The VIPD has not entered any planning steps into the GMS software for this sub-paragraph and the IMT, through its quarterly monitoring efforts, has determined that there was no change in compliance status. Paragraph generally This paragraph deals with the investigation of serious uses of force and the evidentiary requirements surrounding the collection of the forensics of the crime scene. The VIPD has trained personnel and implemented the requirements related to this paragraph. It is currently under review by the IMT for compliance.

IMT COMMENTS ON STATUS
1Q2016- This sub-paragraph does not have any plans listed in the GMS, nor has any activity been focused on it. It remains non-compliant in 1Q2016.

038 SUB TOTAL

6

PARAGRAPH CONTENT

STATUSNot In Substantial Compliance

059

The VIPD will develop and implement a risk management system to include

a new computerized relational database or paper system for maintaining,

integrating, and retrieving information necessary for supervision and

management of the VIPD. Priority will be given to the VIPD obtaining any

established program and system. The VIPD will regularly use this data to

promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and

to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units and

shifts.

Appendix D To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report

Page 9 of 10

IMT System ID: appendix_D_QtrRep

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 182 of 184

Sub-Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance
With No Court Goals Associated With Them
As Of End of 1Q2016

Appendix D To
1Q2016 IMT Report

SUB PARAGRAPH REQUIREMENT

STATUS Substantial Compliance SUSPENSE

a

The VIPD has developed, codified in policy, and implemented a risk

management system to include a new computerized relational database

or paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information

necessary for supervision and management of the VIPD. Priority will be

given to the VIPD obtaining any established program and system.

IMT COMMENTS ON STATUS

SUB PARAGRAPH REQUIREMENT

STATUS Partial Compliance

SUSPENSE

b

The VIPD will, in =>95% of the cases, use this data to promote civil

rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to

evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units and

shifts.

IMT COMMENTS ON STATUS
The VIPD has not entered any planning steps into the GMS software for this sub-paragraph and the IMT, through its quarterly monitoring efforts, has determined that there was no change in compliance status. Compliance with this sub-paragraph is contingent on compliance with sub-paragraphs in paragraph 60.
IMT COMMENTS ON STATUS
1Q2016 - This sub-paragraph does not have any plans listed in the GMS, nor has any activity been focused on it. It remains non-compliant in 1Q2016.

Appendix D To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_D_QtrRep

059 SUB TOTAL

3

TOTAL

23

Page 10 of 10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 183 of 184

Goals Meeting Compliance During Reporting Quarter

Appendix E To 1Q2016
Quarterly Report

Reporting Quarter is Between 02/07/2016 and 05/06/2016

Goal 4Q5-1

Original Court Date 02/06/2016

Current Suspense
Date 02/06/2016

Develop Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the Force Review Board (FRB).

Compliance Approval Date 02/12/2016

Compliance Comments During the week of Feb 7-12, 2016, the IMT worked with VIPD and developed a final draft of the FIT SOP. It is currently being reviewed by the Parties. As the goal was to develop, the IMT will carry this goal as Completed

IMT Follow-Up Recommendation The IMT-VIPD-DOJ will review the final draft and make any necessary corrections, ending with an approved operational SOP. Although the IMT conducted introductory briefings for FIT personnel during the same period, the VIPD should formalize additional training and begin to schedule the required 80 hours of training specified in the Policy 3.15, FIT. The current draft SOP has recommended training courses listed and they were reviewed and deemed appropriate by assigned FIT personnel.

Goal 4Q5-2
Develop SOP for Force Investigation Team (FIT)
Compliance Comments During the week of Feb 7-12, 2016, the IMT worked with VIPD and developed a final draft of the FRB SOP. It is currently being reviewed by the Parties. As the goal was to develop, the IMT will carry this goal as Completed

Original Court Date 02/06/2016

Current Suspense
Date 02/06/2016

Compliance Approval Date 02/12/2016

IMT Follow-Up Recommendation The IMT-VIPD-DOJ will review the final draft and make any necessary corrections, ending with an approved operational SOP. Although the IMT conducted introductory briefings for FRB personnel during the same period, the VIPD should formalize additional training. The IMT will provide further technical assistance and intends to attend the first iteration of the FRB case hearing and provide appropriate mentoring to the Board.

Goal 4Q5-3

Original Court Date 02/06/2016

Current Suspense
Date 05/06/2016

Compliance Approval Date 04/15/2016

Chiefs of Police will hold at least two (2) Use of Force Review Boards for the quarter. FIT members to observe or participate.

Compliance Comments

IMT Follow-Up Recommendation

Goal
Appendix E To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_E_QtrRep

Original Court Date

Current Suspense
Date

Compliance Approval Date
Page 1 of 2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 206 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 184 of 184

4Q5-9

02/06/2016

02/06/2016

02/24/2016

Training Division will collaborate with the other three (3) working groups to identify and respond with training support to Consent Decree issues and areas identified by the working groups. Training Division’s support will include assessment of the needs; identification of the trainees; development of the curricula; delivery of training; and, in conjunction with the audit unit, evaluation of the training effectiveness.

Compliance Comments This goal was actually based on the establishment of an internal process so that other working groups could convey their training needs to the Training Bureau. It was outside of the activities required by the Consent Decree. It is necessary for the department to have a standardized methodology so that requests for training can be memorialized and acted upon.

IMT Follow-Up Recommendation The Training Division will need to continue to develop the process begun under this goal and strengthen their response with curriculum design and subsequent delivery and evaluation of the training impact. The IMT would like to receive copies of any such initiatives.

Goal 69-a

Original Court Date 08/15/2014

Current Suspense
Date 05/06/2016

Compliance Approval Date 04/28/2016

The VIPD has developed a protocol for conducting audits. The protocol will be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits.

Compliance Comments IMT has consistently recommended that an effective Audit Unit should have a minimum of 3-4 personnel assigned full-time. During the January 2016 summit, VIPD queried whether assignment of Lieutenant Jones to the Audit Unit would suffice. From IMT perspective we agreed to consider compliance with this subparagraph with the assignment of 2 full-time knowledgeable personnel - supplemented with appropriate additional personnel as needed. Upon receipt of documentation of Lieutenant Jones assignment it was apparent that this assignment was not full-time, but, according to VIPD documentation, "This serves to notify you that as part of your Consent Decree duties, you will also serve as second in command of the Audit Unit headed by Captain Mary Duggan." The Subject is identified as "Adjunct Duties"
04/28/16- VIPD submitted an updated assignment order for both Captain Duggan and Lieutenant Jones indicating a full time assignment to the AIU for each individual and that has satisfied the goal and sub-paragraph requirement.

IMT Follow-Up Recommendation The IMT recommends the permanent, full-time reassignment of Lieutenant Jones to the Audit Unit; or the current status of Lieutenant Jones effectively working with Captain Duggan and the identification of additional personnel to be trained and assigned to the Audit Unit.
04/28/16- The goal and sub-paragraph has now been complied with.

Appendix E To IMT 1Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_E_QtrRep

Total Goals Reporting 5 Page 2 of 2

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 1 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016‐ From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
SECOND QUARTERLY REPORT OF 2016 FROM THE
INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT
CHARLES A. GRUBER CONSULTING INC. INDEPENDENT MONITOR
www.imt-policemonitor.org August 18, 2016

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 2 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016‐ From the Independent Monitor for U.S. Virgin Island Police Department
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 3 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016‐ From the Independent Monitor for U.S. Virgin Island Police Department
INDEPENDENT MONITORING TEAM
Independent Monitor Chief Charles A. Gruber
Elgin, Illinois Police Department (retired)
Police Practices Experts Superintendent Ann Marie Doherty
Boston, Massachusetts Police Department (retired) Chief Chet Epperson
Rockford, Illinois Police Department (retired) Chief Robert L. Stewart
Ormond Beach, Florida Police Department (retired)
CAG Staff & Consultants Jerome A. Needle, Project Manager
Director of Programs & Research, International Association of Chiefs of Police (retired) Palmer D. Wilson, Technical Manager Lieutenant, Commander, Office of Audits & Inspections, Montgomery County, Maryland Department of Police (retired) Leon A. Casey, Sr., Field Coordinator Resident Agent in Charge, U.S. Customs Service (retired)
CHARLES A. GRUBER CONSULTING INC. INDEPENDENT MONITOR www.imt-policemonitor.org
3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 4 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016‐ From the Independent Monitor for U.S. Virgin Island Police Department
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 5 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016‐ From the Independent Monitor for U.S. Virgin Island Police Department
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 7 II. COMPLIANCE STATUS ....................................................................................................................... 13 III. ACTION PLANS................................................................................................................................... 22 IV. FORCE MONITORING & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ............................................................................. 28 V. SUPERVISORY USE OF FORCE INVESTIGATION TRAINING................................................................. 41 VI. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION/CITIZEN COMPLAINTS .............................................................. 49 VII. TRAINING MONITORING & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ........................................................................ 51 VIII. AUDITS AND RECOMENDATIONS...................................................................................................... 63 IX. THE MAY 2016 SUMMIT.................................................................................................................... 70 X. APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................... 74
5

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 6 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016‐ From the Independent Monitor for U.S. Virgin Island Police Department
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 7 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016‐ From the Independent Monitor for U.S. Virgin Island Police Department
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Second Quarter focus and production was dictated by actions of Judge Gomez during his last hearing. Subsequent to the First Quarter 2016 Hearing on May 26th 2016, the Virgin Islands Police Department promised they would achieve substantial compliance with Management & Supervision Paragraph, 60 and Risk Management paragraph 72 Non-disciplinary Corrective Action. The Court specified that the VIPD was obligated to submit an Action Plan for the completion of these paragraphs by the end of the Second Quarter, 2016. The court further ordered, that a second, more comprehensive Action Plan be submitted by July 29, 2016 to set forth steps to accomplish compliance for all remaining paragraphs, 18 of them (not including 60 and 72). Development of these Action Plans dominated the Consent Decree work efforts of the Virgin Islands, the VIPD, the USDOJ, and the IMT. We are happy to report the Court’s deadline dates for the action plans were met.
COMPLIANCE STATUS Despite an aggressive commitment of resources and activity, Paragraphs 60 and 72 Second Quarter deadlines for compliance have not been met. The Action Plan defines 61 steps which must be successfully completed for substantial compliance status. As the Quarter closes, 44 have been accomplished. This total includes updates made as a result of the August 10-11, 2016 Summit held on St. Thomas.
Overall, no new paragraphs were brought into compliance during the Second Quarter of 2016, leaving the situation unchanged, with 31 paragraphs in substantial compliance and 20 short of substantial compliance. This situation has not altered in the past two years, or eight (8) quarters.
The Court has clearly declared its expectations that substantial compliance will be achieved by February 28, 2017. The potential of the Action Plans to accelerate forward movement notwithstanding, the history of compliance inertia that has characterized the past two years, coupled with the contemporary shortfall associated with Paragraphs 60 and 72 targets, calls for, in the judgment of the IMT, a reality check regarding next February’s Court-imposed deadline.
7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 8 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016‐ From the Independent Monitor for U.S. Virgin Island Police Department
Closing this section on a positive note, we are heartened to be able to report that the First Quarter 2016 VIPD Compliance Audit returned measurements that suggest that a corner may have been turned with regard to Use of Force compliance. Results were noticeably better than in previous quarters and trends look positive in comparison to previous quarters.
THE ACTION PLAN
The Action Plan is the product of an intense collaboration among the Parties and the IMT. A now uncountable series of drafts, internal desk-top reviews, conference calls, negotiations and reiterations occurred, often hours at a time. While for simplicity we refer to an Action Plan – singular, the process actually involved preparation of two plans, one for Paragraph 60 and 72, and one for the remaining paragraphs, and ultimately a consolidation of both.

The Action Plan model specifies action steps, responsible person, suspense dates, and documentation requirements for every paragraph and sub-paragraph. It is formidable in scope and complexity. Table 1, below, displays Action Plan 2-2016 and the number of sub-paragraphs that must be addressed, 99, and the number of Action Steps, 250, excluding Paragraphs 60 and 72 which host 13 sub-paragraphs and 61 Action Steps, raising totals to 112 sub-paragraphs and 311 Action Steps, as shown in Table 1, below.

Paragraph 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 44 58 59 69 71 73 74 77

TABLE 1 Action Plan 2 for 3Q2016 through 4Q2016

Number of Sub-Paragraphs

Number of Action Steps

6

26

5

19

5

22

4

19

9

8

5

12

2

7

10

14

5

11

2

4

2

4

3

2

2

3

7

23

2

5

8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 9 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016‐ From the Independent Monitor for U.S. Virgin Island Police Department

81

6

16

100

23

54

101

1

1

TOTALS

99

250

Action Plan
Action Plan 12016
Action Plan 22016 Totals

TABLE 2 Action Plan 1 and 2 for 3Q2016 through 4Q2016

Number of Sub-Paragraphs

Number of Action Steps

13

61

99

250

112

311

MONITORING & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

The IMT had a strong quarter in the Force monitoring, technical assistance and analysis area. We produced a six-month 2016 Use of Force Snapshot, completed a Compliance Audit-based Four-Quarter Analysis that revealed what may be a positive compliance trend, reviewed shooting cases, other force cases, evaluated the force lesson plans, worked with the FRB and designed and delivered force investigation training for supervisors.

Management & Supervision technical assistance concentrated heavily on helping the M & S Work Group to address Action Plan step requirements. We worked with the VIPD and USDOJ on an EIP Protocol and continued our TA efforts regarding backlogged/overdue citizen complaints. Planning and design work began in preparation for the August on-site with the VIPD and other matters. Attempts to meet with the T&M Consulting Group which has been retained by the Virgin Islands to assist them, were unsuccessful, however it is hoped that a second opportunity will present itself during the week of the Court hearing.

Progress on the Training paragraphs, 73-81, was reviewed. Our overall finding is that very little progress occurred during the Quarter. There was advancement in several sub-paragraphs but nothing occurred at the paragraph level. Lack of movement is explainable in part by the changing of Training Directors. We are still seriously troubled by inability of the VIPD to produce a viable Use of Force lesson plan or others covering Force tools. This failure cannot alone be excused by personnel shifts.

COMPLIANCE AUDITING

9

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 10 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016‐ From the Independent Monitor for U.S. Virgin Island Police Department
The IMT finds the Compliance Audits to be increasingly useful for Consent Decree diagnostics, analysis and recommendations for problem solving and compliance recommendations. While the product has continued to improve technically, its potential utility for managing the Consent Decree and ultimately VIPD resources remains latent among supervisory, command, and executive staff. We have written about this issue in many Quarterlies. The most recent Audit, 1Q2016, chose to open with:
"The Audit Unit presents the 1st Quarter Audit for 2016; this has now been a full year of compliance audits completed by the Audit Unit. Although our Audit team has persevered with the daunting mission of a comprehensive compliance audit, we must admit to a certain degree of "burn-out" regarding the task, particularly where it involves our consistent and unfortunately un-evolving recommendations for improvement. We state "un-evolving" due to the simple fact that the majority of our recommendations and our offers of assistance go largely unheeded."
*IMT notes that it received the 2nd Quarter 2016 Audit as this report was being finalized and that it, along with the 1st Quarter 2016 Audit, have been uploaded and distributed to VIPD personnel via Power DMS. This is in response to an IMT recommendation found in Section V of this report.
The IMT should not have to repeat this issue – and repeat it, and repeat it. The audit process is a valuable command tool to determine if needed policies are in place and are they working. There just simply seems to be a lack of interest to follow through among VIPD. We (the IMT) too, admitting to a "certain degree of burn-out" regarding the continuing level of disregard for our guidance.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS – THE VIPD VIEW
The VIPD submitted a 2Q2016 Status Report on Friday, August 5, 2016, as this report was being finalized. The report concentrated on VIPD compliance with paragraphs 60 and 72 and in their Executive Summary they make the following comment:
“The action steps for Action Plan 1-Consent Decree Paragraphs 60 & 72 were completed in its entirety two (2) days before the end of 2nd quarter; with the quarter ending on August 6, 2016. Action Plan 1-Consent Decree Paragraphs 60 & 72 was filed with the court on June 13, 2016. As action steps were completed and submitted to the IMT & USDOJ; the IMT reviewed and provided VIPD with compliance evaluations.”
10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 11 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016‐ From the Independent Monitor for U.S. Virgin Island Police Department
As noted in Section II, Compliance Status, to our report and further detailed in Appendix A, the IMT does not agree with this statement in terms of compliance but does acknowledge that the VIPD did submit requests for compliance review and associated paperwork by the end of the quarter although a significant amount of it arrived during the last two weeks. The IMT did review all materials submitted by August 5, 2016, as well as supplemental materials received during the August 10-11 Summit and granted compliance in some areas as appropriate. Unfortunately, full compliance with all action steps and thus sub-paragraphs of paragraphs 60 and 72 was not achieved.
THE REALITY CHECK By the time the August hearing is concluded, there will be six (6) months remaining to achieve the Consent Decree substantial compliance target date (February 28, 2017). "Accomplish" includes successful compliance with 311 Action Steps of which 267 remain non-compliant by the end of the quarter. The "steps" vary in information, methodological, and skills requirements. There are, for example, policy revision requirements; training upgrades; analytics-measurements and analysis of performance and report production; documentation (very heavy). The endeavor calls for an immediate front-end resource investment and performance effectiveness not seen from the VIPD to date. Note also, the untimely loss, hopefully temporary, of the principal Consent Decree compliance executive, the Deputy Commissioner for medical reasons.
Not to be ignored, the next five months demands an investment of IMT monitoring and technical assistance commitment and resources that will materially exceed anything to date. The USDOJ faces a similar obligation.
Not intending to play with words, there is a need to step back and ensure that there is a “plan” in place to execute the now combined Action Plan. All Parties and the IMT need to be prepared to staff, allocate resources, execute, monitor, and generally manage the coming effort with the utmost skill.
TWO SUMMITS
11

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 12 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016‐ From the Independent Monitor for U.S. Virgin Island Police Department
A summit was conducted on St. Thomas on May 11 and 12, 2016. It was structured to accelerate and sharpen VIPD plans to address non-compliant paragraphs. Priority was placed on paragraphs that were closest to completion and/or which had steps deemed to be attainable during the Quarter.
Not technically within this reporting Quarter, a Second Summit was held in early August, 2016. Its purpose and accomplishments focused directly on Action Plans, the central theme of Quarter Two, 2016. Accordingly, we chose to report on it here.
The IMT led a summit August 10-11, 2016. The focus was a review of both Appendix A and Appendix B of the Second Quarterly Draft. Initial emphasis was on Appendix A paragraphs 60 and 72, specifically, a discussion of each action step, providing an opportunity for VIPD, USDOJ and IMT representatives to ask questions and/or for clarification. As a result of this process, a number of additional action steps moved into compliance. Unfortunately, based on additional information requested and received at the summit, a few actions steps were moved out of compliance.
Following discussion of paragraphs 60 and 72, work moved through the remaining paragraphs in Appendix B in a similar fashion, however due to time constraints, the Summit did not address paragraphs 81, 100 or 101. In doing so, the IMT emphasized the significant number of action steps due to come into compliance between August 15-September 1, 2016, not to mention those which had came due prior to the Summit dates. There appeared to be genuine surprise/concern about a number of these due dates. The IMT believes part of the explanation for this is the focus which VIPD had on paragraphs 60 and 72 during this quarter. With that being said, the IMT cannot emphasize enough the necessity for VIPD to pay close attention to these dates. There is substantial work to be done in a relatively short period of time. As noted earlier in the Reality Check section, "The endeavor calls for immediate front-end resource investment and continuing performance effectiveness not seen from the VIPD to date."
12

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 13 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016‐ From the Independent Monitor for U.S. Virgin Island Police Department
II. COMPLIANCE STATUS
The following 8 charts document Paragraph Status at the end of the Second Quarter of 2016. Compared to Quarter One, 2016, Quarter One, Two, Three and Four of 2015, and Quarters Three and Four, 2014, there has been no change at all with regard to Overall Status (Chart 1), and therefore with regard to Overall Compliance by Paragraph Groups (Charts 4-8). Trending is depicted in Charts 2-3.
A. Overall Status The VIPD has achieved Substantial Compliance for 31 paragraphs. Twenty paragraphs (20) are not yet in Substantial Compliance.
Compliance/Non-Compliance patterns vary among Consent Decree paragraph groupings. Charts 4-8 show that three groupings have a majority of paragraphs in Substantial Compliance: Citizen Complaints, 15 of 17, Management & Supervision, 7 of 12, Training, 5 of 9, two of these reflect a bare majority. The Use of Force group remains at only 4 of 11 paragraphs in Substantial Compliance. The Use of Force grouping has the majority of steps and checkpoints for compliance within the reporting and investigation processes and thus a significant number of problem areas which continue to exist, thwarting compliance, even at the sub-paragraph level.
See Section IV, later in this report, for additional information on Use of Force ceases reviewed by the iMT.
B. Compliance at the end of Quarter Two, 2016: 1. Consent Decree Paragraphs That Came Into Compliance during the Second Quarter 2016 No Consent Decree Paragraphs came into compliance during the 2nd Quarter2016.
13

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 14 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016‐ From the Independent Monitor for U.S. Virgin Island Police Department
2. Paragraphs in Substantial Compliance at the end of the Second Quarter, 2016 are: 31, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 , 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 70, 75, 76, 78, 79 and 80.
(NOTE: Bolded/underlined paragraphs have training evaluated under paragraph 75 and implementation under paragraph 100) Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance: 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 44, 58, 59, 60, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 81, 100, 101, all of which are now contained within Action Plan 2. (NOTE: Bolded/underlined paragraphs have a sub-paragraph evaluated as to implementation under paragraph 100) Paragraphs Having Not Applicable (NA) Status 67, 68 NOTE: (These paragraphs as considered NA as they deal with adopting and using IAPro as a risk management system, as well as approval for subsequent modifications; none have been requested and no further compliance is required unless a modification is requested):
The IMT issued a memorandum on November 13, 2014 that displays the linkage between paragraph 100 sub-paragraph compliance requirements or items (a-w) and their original location in another paragraph of the Consent Decree. This is included as Appendix D to this report.
The following charts display this status information.
14

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 15 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016‐ From the Independent Monitor for U.S. Virgin Island Police Department
CHART 1

Paragraphss

Overall Compliance 2Q2016

35

31

30

25

20

20

15

10

5

2

0

Substantial

Not in

NA

Compliance Substantial

Compliance

Substantial Compliance Not in Substantial Compliance NA

15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 16 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016‐ From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
CHART 2

Paragraphs

Substantial Compliance Trend 1Q2013‐2Q2016

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1Q2013 2Q2013 3Q2013 4Q2013 1Q2014 2Q2014 3Q2014 4Q2014 1Q2015 2Q2015 3Q2015 4Q2015 1Q2016 2Q2016

Series1 0

5

11

12

16

19

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

Series2 52

46

40

39

35

32

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

Series3 1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

CHART 3
Substantial Compliance Trend 1Q2013‐2Q2016
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Series1 Series2 Series3

1Q2013 0 52 1

2Q2013 5 46 2

3Q2013 11 40 2

4Q2013 12 39 2

1Q2014 16 35 2

2Q2014 19 32 2

3Q2014 31 20 2

4Q2014 31 20 2

1Q2015 31 20 2

2Q2015 31 20 2

3Q2015 31 20 2

4Q2015 31 20 2

1Q2016 31 20 2

2Q2016 31 20 2

Paragraphs

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 17 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016‐ From the Independent Monitor for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department
CHART 4

Paragraphs

Overall Compliance for Group 1 Use of Force 2Q2016

8

7

6

4

4

2

0

0

Substantial Not in

NA

Compliance Subtantial

Compliance

Substantial Compliance
Not in Subtantial Compliance NA

CHART 5

Paragraphs

Overall Compliance for Group 2 Citizen Complaints 2Q2016

15 16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

2

0

0

Substantial Not in

NA

Compliance Subtantial

Compliance

Substantial Compliance
Not in Subtantial Compliance NA

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 18 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016‐ From the Independent Monitor for U.S. Virgin Island Police Department
CHART 6

Paragraphs

Overall Compliance for Group 3 Management & Supervision 2Q2016

8

7

6

5

4

2

2

0

Substantial Not in

NA

Compliance Subtantial

Compliance

Substantial Compliance
Not in Subtantial Compliance NA

Paragraphss

CHART 7

Overall Compliance for Group 4 Training 2Q2016

5

5

4

4

3

2

1

0

0

Substantial Not in

NA

Compliance Subtantial

Compliance

Substantial Compliance
Not in Subtantial Compliance NA

18

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 19 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016‐ From the Independent Monitor for U.S. Virgin Island Police Department
CHART 8

Paragraphss

Overall Compliance for Group 5 Implementation 2Q2016

2

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

0

0

Substantial Not in

NA

Compliance Substantial

Compliance

Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance NA

C. Court Ordered Goals for the 2 Quarter 2016
The VIPD submitted that they would come into compliance with paragraphs 60 and 72 by the end of 2Q2016. In addition the Court required that the VIPD submit an Action Plan (IMT designated this as Action Plan 1-2016). The plan was jointly filed on June 13, 2016 by the VIPD and USDOJ. The details of this plan (as well a second plan titled by the IMT as Action Plan 22016 covering the remaining non-compliant paragraphs) can be found in Section III of this report.
VIPD compliance with this Court approved goal (as of the publication date of this draft) was as shown in Appendix A to this report and stood at 44 of 61 steps completed or 72%, and neither paragraph 60 or 72 was brought into compliance. Action Plan 1-2016 including monitoring compliance for 8 of the 11 sub-paragraphs, with only sub-paragraph 60-d listed as in Partial Compliance and sub-paragraphs 70-a and 70-b as Not in Substantial Compliance. Sub-paragraph 60-d has five (5) steps within the plan and VIPD came into compliance with 4 of the 5 or 80%. The remaining non-compliant step required:

19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 20 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016‐ From the Independent Monitor for U.S. Virgin Island Police Department
Update the Data Input Plan to outline all data collection and areas of responsibility for their collection. Create directive identifying the person or position/unit responsible for data collection on Injuries to Prisoners, the timelines for collection and reporting of findings.
The VIPD demonstrated compliance with 5 of 6 steps, or 83% of paragraph 70-a, with Step 5 remaining non-compliant. That Step reads as follows:
Identify/gather documentation or evidence showing discipline being served, for example; final orders, payroll deductions, training documentation, etc.
Only one step in paragraph 70-b, Step 4, remained non-compliant, for 80% compliance and that Step reads as follows:
Submit request for compliance certification, with all supporting documentation, to the USDOJ/IMT for review via the CD Coordinator.
There were some submissions of documentation in other sub-paragraph steps that did not meet IMT compliance standards and IMT is working with the VIPD to update and re-evaluate these issues.
See Section III for the plan development and Appendix A for detail.
D. Other Court Ordered Goals Completed During the Second Quarter 2016.
While many of the previously non-compliant goals are covered by sections of both Action Plans, no paragraph level related court ordered goals were brought into compliance during the reporting quarter.
D. Current Status of All Other Court Approved Goals
Many previously approved Court Ordered Goals, as reported in the Monitor’s First Quarter 2016 report, remain non-compliant. To view a detailed listing of unmet goals, the reader is directed to
20

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 21 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016‐ From the Independent Monitor for U.S. Virgin Island Police Department
Appendix C to this report, which includes a total of 61 goals that are non-compliant. As many of these goals are accounted for within the Action Plans (1-2016 and 2-2016), work continues.
E. Sub-Paragraphs Not Associated With a Goal
There were a total of twelve (12) sub-paragraphs monitored by the IMT that are not associated with a specific Court Ordered Goal. During the Second Quarter of 2016 these sub-paragraphs were included in Action Plan 2-2016 and will be addressed during the Third and Fourth reporting quarters of 2016. There was, however, no work completed against compliance of these subparagraphs during 2Q2016.
It should be noted that the GMS (Goals Planning) software program went out of service in late March of 2016 due to computer system problems within the VIPD IT structure. The software was brought back on line in mid-April and updated in early May by the IMT. The software remains on line within the VIPD system.
F. Current Status of Consent Decree Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance
As noted elsewhere, the VIPD concentrated their effort at compliance by focusing on paragraphs 60 and 72, the submitted goals for the quarter. All of these paragraphs were included in Action Plan 1-2016 and can be viewed in Appendix A to this report. The remaining non-compliant paragraphs are covered in Action Plan 2-2016 and can be viewed in Appendix B. In addition these are also discussed in Section III, Action Plans. As noted elsewhere in this report, no paragraphs were moved into compliance during the quarter.
21

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 22 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016‐ From the Independent Monitor for U.S. Virgin Island Police Department
III. ACTION PLANS
After the 1Q2016 Court Hearing, the VIPD, after consultation with USDOJ and IMT, submitted to the Court that they would come into compliance with two paragraphs, 60 and 72, by the end of the 2Q2016 reporting period. To accomplish this, the Court required they submit an Action Plan to accomplish this that included progressive completion steps, persons accountable for those steps, and suspense dates for completion, which would not extend beyond the end of the 2Q2016. The VIPD choose to bring paragraphs 60 and 72 into compliance and build a plan to respond to this. This Action Plan, developed in conjunction with the IMT and USDOJ, was to be filed with the Court by July 29, 2016.

Thus the VIPD was obligated to complete two separate Action Plans, named by the IMT as Action Plan 1-2016 (Paragraphs 60 and 72) and Action Plan 2-2016 (the remaining noncompliant paragraphs) within the 2Q2016 reporting period. Considering that VIPD efforts to develop similar plans for the Court ordered goals had not come up to standards, the IMT concluded that draft plans would be necessary in order to establish a comprehensive starting point for discussion with the IMT and USDOJ. A draft plan, complete with suggested action steps, suspense dates and persons responsible, was developed by the IMT and submitted to the VIPD and USDOJ on or about May 30, 2016.

Using this draft as a basis for discussion and collaboration, the Parties, along with the IMT, conducted a series of conference calls and re-drafts of the Action Plan 1-2016, some extending over better part of the workdays involved, came to agreement with a final version of the plan and that was submitted to the Court on June 13, 2016. The IMT loaded this into the IMT Data system and began monitoring it for compliance. The following table depicts the number of subparagraphs and associated steps involved with Action Plan 1-2016.

Paragraph 60 72
Totals

TABLE 3

Action Plan 1-2016 for 2Q2016

Number of Sub-Paragraphs

Number of Action Steps

11

50

2

11

13

61

22

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 23 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016‐ From the Independent Monitor for U.S. Virgin Island Police Department
As shown above, this effort required significant action by the VIPD and substantial follow-up and documentation on the part of the IMT and USDOJ, including developing the tracking and compliance verification/certification tools to monitor the VIPD’s progress. That plan was loaded into the IMT database included monitoring steps for sub-paragraphs that were considered in compliance, as well as steps to gain compliance, thus the large number of steps as seen in the table.

After filing Action Plan 1-2016, the IMT developed a second draft Action Plan 2-2016. The VIPD and USDOJ, along with the IMT spent another series of conference calls and prepared another series of drafts over another two to three-week period, refining and finalizing the plan. The final document was submitted to the Court on time on July 29th as a joint motion between the parties. The IMT has since loaded that plan into its database and began monitoring compliance. This plan, named Action Plan 2-2016, sets forth the actions to get the remaining non-compliant paragraphs (a total of 18 paragraphs) into substantial compliance by the end of 4Q2016, or Feb 28, 2017. The contents of this plan, in terms of sub-paragraphs affected and steps required for compliance, are detailed below in Table 4.

Paragraph 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 44 58 59 69 71 73 74 77 81 100

TABLE 4 Action Plan 2-2016 for 3Q2016 through 4Q2016

Number of Sub-Paragraphs

Number of Action Steps

6

26

5

19

5

22

4

19

9

8

5

12

2

7

10

14

5

11

2

4

2

4

3

2

2

3

7

23

2

5

6

16

23

54

23

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 24 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016‐ From the Independent Monitor for U.S. Virgin Island Police Department

101

1

1

TOTALS

99

250

At the end of 2Q2016, which focused on Action Plan 1-2016, that plan was combined with Action Plan 2-2016 for monitoring and reporting purposes throughout the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2016. Action Plan 1-2016 was not included in Table 3. Future reporting will use a combined Action Plan 1-2016 and 2-2016 and be referred to as Action Plan 2016.

Monitoring by IMT members will include weekly contact with the persons responsible for each step within the plans to make sure that steps are completed on time. Further the IMT has a process for evaluating compliance in place that works as follows:

 IMT Document Coordinator forwards VIPD requests for compliance within one day of receipt to the appropriate IMT reviewer.

 IMT reviewers have 3 working days to return the compliance evaluation in accordance with the format shown in Figure 1, below.

 IMT will return the form shown in Figure 1 to the VIPD CD Coordinator within one working day thereafter.

The VIPD should get a written evaluation of compliance or non-compliance within 5 working days of any submission. Included with the evaluation are reminders about any future incremental reporting as well as needed improvements to the documentation.

24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 25 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016‐ From the Independent Monitor for U.S. Virgin Island Police Department
Figure 1, Sample IMT Compliance Evaluation Form
25

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 26 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016‐ From the Independent Monitor for U.S. Virgin Island Police Department
The evaluation form is returned to the VIPD, with a copy to USDOJ, with the IMT’s compliance evaluation. If the evaluation is non-compliance the IMT provides an explanation and guidance for bringing the step into compliance.
Once evaluation has been completed, the IMT database is updated and a weekly status report is provided to both the IMT team as well as USDOJ. A separate, but slightly different report is provided to the VIPD which clearly displays the current status of the Action Plan 2016. To date, only Action Plan 1-2016 has been active and worked on by the VIPD, thus these reports have featured only paragraphs 60 and 72 or Action Plan 1-2016. Once the quarter has been completed, both Action Plans will be reflected in these reports. After that only a combined single report will be used.
As noted in Section II, Compliance Status, Appendix A displays the status of Action Plan 1-2016 (Paragraphs 60 and 72 only) compliance as of the end of the quarter.
In the preface to the Action Plan 2-2016, filed with the Court, the IMT made the following recommendations too further VIPD compliance with its policies, Consent Decree requirements and overall management of the department:
“In addition, numerous Steps require an initial submission as well as subsequent followon submissions. While compliance may be demonstrated for the initial and several subsequent submissions, the VIPD is cautioned that these reports are critical and necessary reports to be used by management long after compliance with the Consent Decree has been attained. It is therefore suggested that the VIPD establish a Management Reporting Document List and Schedule that creates suspense dates for submission and distribution. In addition, the VIPD should consider the issuance of a department policy that details these reports and their uses, as well mandates that appropriate managers review same with their subordinate personnel in an effort to enhance the delivery of services to the general public. The IMT is available to assist the VIPD in the development of such a document. Based on the reviews conducted to establish this Action Plan, it is also noted that the VIPD should consider the creation of a department policy that lists ALL Department Policy Definitions from whatever source document in one document and as the previous policies are reviewed, the definitions are removed and published in this consolidated format. Such an action will eliminate both the existence and potential for conflicting
26

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 27 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016‐ From the Independent Monitor for U.S. Virgin Island Police Department
definitions between documents, while also providing department personnel with a central location for such definitions.” The IMT reiterates these recommendations here and encourages the VIPD to implement them as soon as possible.
27

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 28 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

IV. FORCE MONITORING & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Use of Force paragraph compliance and VIPD force management and practice received heavy IMT focus in Quarter Two. We report here on monitoring activity, Summit engagement, supervisor training, a Shooting Review and evaluation of only recently received VIPD Compliance Audit results.

A. Use of Force Frequency – 2016
Table 5 displays the frequency and force types used for the first seven months of 2016. There were 179 incidents, an average of about 29 per month. The table depicts the most serious uses of force and the most frequent force types used in this time period. St. Croix Police District had 43 Taser incidents in the first six months of this year compared with 5 in the previous year comparison. IMT is assessing this information to gain additional insight of the increased number from the previous year.

# of Use of Force Incidents # of Involved Officers Completed Investigations Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Total Completed Use of Force Investigations
Type of Force Used Shootings Choke Hold O.C. Spray
Electronic Control Weapon Pointing of Firearm

TABLE 5 Territory Use of Force Snapshot
Territory Use of Force Snapshot Jan 2016 – July 25, 2016 St. Thomas 103 103
0 N/A
3 3 6
2 N/A
5 5 0

St. Croix 76 84
0 1 5 13 19
N/A 1* 1 43 1

IMT recently learned of a Level I use of force incident (the most serious use of force level) in the St. Croix Police District. The original incident occurred in March 2016 and was initially

28

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 29 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
reported as a Level 4 use of force (lowest level of force). After three months, the incident was re-coded as a Level I use of force. IMT has consulted with St. Croix Deputy Chief regarding concern as the Force Investigation Team (FIT) did not activate and investigate the incident. The incident is still pending and IMT is unable to further review the details of the investigation due to lack of documentation in Blue Team/ IA Pro database. Since becoming aware of this force incident, IMT has been working with the St. Croix Police District. This is a serious issue and needs the utmost direct and precise management to resolve this Level 1 use of force investigation.
Only 25 of the 179 incidents, 14%, have been investigated by the VIPD. The VIPD is on pace to record 348 Use of Force incidents (12x29) and investigate 49 (348x14%), leaving almost 300 unaddressed/not reviewed. Neither the current nor projected investigative status is acceptable for Consent Decree compliance prospects, especially when viewed in the larger context of use of force, citizens’ complaint, and administrative investigations backlog. With the February 2017 target for substantial compliance date looming, the need for immediate and effective intervention is obvious.
The Action Plans (1-2016 and 2-2016) did not specifically address the backlog of Use of Force investigations, although they did address backlogs of citizen complaints under Paragraph 44-i and a plan is in place to address these. VIPD policy 3.2 has two different time frames in which cases are to be completed, Level 1 (investigated by FIT) have a 50 day time period with extensions approved by the Commissioner available, while Levels 2-4 have a fifteen (15) day requirement. IMT will be working with the VIPD to establish a backlog reduction plan for Use of Force cases during 3Q2016.
B. First Quarter 2016 Compliance Audit The VIPD’s First Quarter 2016 Compliance Audit was received toward the end of this Quarter. With the dominant concentration on Action Plan development, we were not able to conduct as
29

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 30 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

comprehensive an analysis of the Audit as we would have liked. We will conduct this analysis next quarter. We have been able to do some preliminary work that is worth reporting.

Table 6 is a side-by-side display of use of force sub-paragraph compliance rates (percentages) reported by the Audit for Quarter 1, 2016, compared to the average compliance rates reported for three previous quarters. The data show that during Quarter 1, 2016, compliance rates improved for 30 of the 38 sub-paragraphs measures, 79%. Compliance rates declined for seven (7) subparagraphs, 18%. One sub-paragraph did not change.
Table 6 Four Quarter Analysis

Paragraph

2015.2 2015.3 2015.4 Average Compliance

32a
32b 32c 32d 32e 32f 33a 33b 33c 33d 33e 34a 34b 34c 34d 34e/f 34f 34f/g 35a 35b 35c 35d 36a 36b

89%
39% 38% 82% 66% 97% 76% 53% 29% 18% 87% 38% 44% 38%% 38% 93% 93% 93% 77% 66% 11% 100% 63% 78%

2016.1 Percentage Compliance
88%
71% 54% 92% 88% 88% 88% 67% 42% 42% 85% 54% 54% 54% 54% 100% 100% 100% 93% 71% 17% 100% 92% 57%

Percentage Increase/ Decrease 2016.1
(1%)
32% 16% 10% 22% (9%) 12% 14% 13% 24% (2%) 16% 10% 16% 16% 7% 7% 7% 16% 5% 6% N/A 29% (21%)

Positive/ Negative Impact Even

30

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 31 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

36c

62%

64%

2%

36d

93%

88%

(5%)

36e

82%

92%

10%

36 e.1

61%

87%

36 e.2

84%

73%

36f

35%

67%

26% (11%) 32%

36g

20%

62%

42%

37a

78%

100%

22%

37b

64%

63%

(1%)

37c

16%

25%

9%

37d

38%

54%

16%

37e

22%

25%

3%

37f

6%

13%

7%

37g

26%

100%

74%

Source: First Quarter Compliance Audit (undated), VIPD Audit Unit, Addendum (p. 66).

One-quarter improvement, even with the magnitude experienced in Quarter 1, does not constitute a trend. The data are encouraging however. We understand that the Quarter 2 Audit is almost ready. We are eager to see the results. If the Positives hold, we can begin to believe that a corner has been turned. And if it has, we need to determine why and how.

C. Officer-Involved Shootings – 2016
The Territory has conducted two officer-involved shooting investigations year-to-date. The first incident occurred on Saturday March 5, 2016, in the St. Thomas Police District. The IMT received initial updates on case investigation and a full briefing on Friday July 1, 2016 in St. Croix from the FIT Investigators. The case investigation is pending and IMT has provided technical assistance as needed to assist the VIPD develop capacity within the FIT teams and improved their investigations. However this case investigation is past the VIPD policy established timeline (VIPD Policy 3.2), and have not asked for any extensions. This was to be expected as it was the FIT team’s first experience.

The second officer-Involved (off duty) shooting occurred on Wednesday April 27, 2016. The IMT received initial updates on the case investigation and a briefing on Friday July 1, 2016 in St.

31

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 32 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Croix from the FIT Investigators. The case investigation is pending and the IMT has communicated technical assistance conversations. The case investigation is also past the policy set timeline. This was to be expected as it is only the FIT team’s second experience conducting such an investigation.
While it is noted that some delay involved processing and transmittal of DNA evidence, the VIPD should monitor the overall timeliness of the investigations to ensure completion within policy guidelines. It would appear from comments, that FIT investigations currently lack this command emphasis and priority.
In addition to being beyond the established policy submission dates on both cases, IMT also learned about some other OIS related problems, which included:
 There are investigation equipment shortfalls that have inhibited the investigation. These include proper crime scene sketching software and trajectory rods, among others.
The procurement and training on these items, as well as others, have been identified and incorporated into Action Plan 2-2016 steps.
 Investigators stated that they could not complete the OIS investigation in a timely manner because they were pressed to complete other duties within their units (CID and IAB). They expressed frustration with this, but clearly stated the other duties appeared to have a higher priority.
The completion of officer involved shooting investigations should take priority over other unit level tasks. In these investigations the VIPD has a twofold responsibility, 1) to demonstrate to the public that transparency and objectivity in
32

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 33 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
the way the investigate the actions of their members is first priority and, 2) that they owe the employee, the officer involved, not only an objective and complete investigation but also one that does not leave him or her wondering what the department may find and what they may do in terms of any potential discipline. The VIPD needs to make the completion of these cases the number one priority.
 The IMT noted several failures on the part of supervisors to control the scenes as well interference by the union representing the officers. In one case the involved officers left the scene without permission and went to the hospital. While there, union representatives frustrated the FIT investigator locating the officers. Another problem occurred when the involved officer retained his weapon for about three hours without FIT authorization, thus impacting the credibility of any subsequent weapon countdown. In another instance, supervisors on the scene (which was a roadway in the city) did not stop vehicular traffic from driving through the crime scene, scattering shell casings as well as crushing them. None of these are responsive to the FIT policy or SOP.
The VIPD needs to follow-up on these, as well as other issues that arose during both investigations and take whatever administrative or legal actions necessary to ensure that they are not repeated in future investigations.
A Historical Shooting Analysis is planned to review all VIPD officer-involved shootings since 2008. The framework for analysis is nearly completed and due to other pending projects the report is due by December 2016.
D. On-Site Monitoring Two members of the IMT conducted monitoring activities on May 9 and 10, 2016. The most concentrated engagement was a morning-long meeting (over four hours) with chiefs and deputy
33

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 34 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
chiefs from each district, Audit Unit and other VIPD compliance staff. Notable take-aways included:
 VIPD Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs has cited the need for use of force training for supervisors, recognizing that it has been several years since the last training and there are new supervisors who need the training. It was suggested that the training be specific to the VIPD, including the policy and Consent Decree modules. The Executive Command Staff stated their preference that the Independent Monitoring Team conduct the training in June 2016 (4 days of training on both Islands).
 Discussion focused extensively on yearly Use of Force Analysis, essentially an unmet requirement of command staff. Lieutenant Jones from the Audit Unit assisted with the discussion and provided what she had used as an Annual Use of Force Analysis as a former Deputy Chief (2014). The IMT noted the value of the 2014 RRR Annual, for St. Croix only, as a model. Captain Duggan, upon questioning, indicated that a 2015 Report was not in the works and there was no intent to produce one; that Use of Force Analysis reporting is an obligation of the chiefs. The Executive Command Staff discussed the report and content. The chiefs agreed they could provide a report, detailing the 2015 Use of Force Analysis. Since the meeting, we have followed up with the Executive Command Staff on content and format. A draft document has not been provided nor has there been a response to our offer to assist with the document.
 The IMT also provided, and reviewed highlights, contained in Road Map to Success, guidelines for managing Consent Decree operations. This document was originally distributed to Consent Decree compliance executives last year.
E. The Summit Use of force paragraph compliance history, current status, and FIT & FRB operations were featured concentrations during the May 11-12, St. Thomas Summit. Section IX, The Summit,
34

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 35 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
details the Summit agenda and work, as well as our judgments regarding the value of what was a material investment of resources of all of the Parties.
F. Use of Force Investigations – Supervisors Training The IMT conducted four seven-hour days of training for VIPD supervisory staff. The training was initially discussed and requested by VIPD Executive Command staff in May 2016 and provided Monday June 27 – Thursday June 30, 2016. Two days were spent training on St. Thomas and two days in St. Croix. Each class consisted of fifteen to twenty supervisors. The IMT developed and presented the instructional program.
See Section V for more information on the training content and recommendations.
G. Use of Force Case Reviews IMT Police Practices Experts (PPEs) reviewed four use of force investigations this Quarter and conducted four special case reviews and two FIT investigations. Case reviews logged into the IMT database are:
UOFX2016-0001 – Level III Use of Force Incident Summary: Officer was assigned to parade duty in St. Croix. The officer requested some individuals step back away from the street due to blocking the parade route. An individual confronted the officer with fists clenched and pushed into the officer’s chest. The officer lost balance and then after gaining balance the officer sprayed a one second burst of OC spray to the forehead of the individual. Subject attempted to walk away and was stopped by the officer and other assisting officers. The individual was arrested for battery to an officer.
Identified Issues:  The supervisor did not respond to the scene of the use of force incident.
35

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 36 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
 There were two witnesses listed in the report, but there is no indication of the role of the witnesses.
 The report lacks photos of the scene and officer.  The interview of the officer lacks depth of questioning to the force, probing and
follow up to the involvement of the two witnesses.  One of the witnesses name is different in the body of the report and how listed in
the face page.  The incident was approved as Justified - In Policy, but VIPD Policy not followed
and or no steps by any supervisory/ command personnel to address deficiencies. Report ultimately approved by the Deputy Chief.
UOFT2016-0005 – Level IV Use of Force Incident Summary: Officers were sent to the hospital for a disorderly person in the lobby. The officers confronted an individual who was loud and cursing. The individual told the officers to leave him alone and the officers grabbed at the subject and a struggle ensued with the individual. The officers attempted to place a wrist lock on the suspect and were finally able to handcuff the individual.
Identified Issues:  The man had a cut to his head, but the officers said the injury was prior to the struggle with the officers.  The sergeant arrived on-scene, but the use of force investigation lacked interviewing the suspect and or the reason(s) for no interview;  Lack of photos of the injury to the suspect; inquiring with the suspect to determine if the previous injury was actually a previous injury;  Lack of clarification if the hospital wanted the subject arrested (the apparent reason for the call.
36

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 37 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
 The sergeant asked close-ended questioning in the officer interviews and lacked any probing questions of the incident from either officer.
 The incident was approved as Justified - In Policy. Use of Force Work Group sent the report back for further work after being approved by the Deputy Chief.
UOFT2016-0007 – Level IV Use of Force Incident Summary: An officer was dispatched to a call for an individual with his car blocking a driveway. The officer responded and engaged the operator of the vehicle blocking the driveway. The man became angry and would not move his auto. The officer called for additional officers. The subject according to the police reports became loud, abusive and threatening to the officers. The officers attempted to arrest the driver of the auto and the officers were finally able to place handcuffs on the subject. The supervisor responded to the scene. Several witnesses were located and interviewed. The witnesses and officers confirmed the level of anger from the driver of the auto.
Identified Issues:  The officer force statements were lacking in specific detail of what occurred.  The reports contain pattern and boiler plate language, which does not specify specific actions of the subjects.  The sergeant did not photograph the suspect and the subject would not provide a statement.  There is no mention from the supervisor that the subject complained of shoulder pain and was taken to the hospital and later released and lodged in jail. One of the officer audio interviews mentions that the subject complained of a shoulder injury due to improper handcuffing.  The sergeant who conducted the interview did not follow up and or ask any additional questions during the interview.
37

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 38 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
 An additional officer interview conducted by the sergeant mentions the officer stating the subject complained of an injury while in the police facility. The officer mentions that the injury did not come from when the officers struggled with the subject. The sergeant accepts this statement from the officer and does follow up and or ask any further questions.
 The officer then mentions she now realizes she may have injured her finger during the struggle. This interview occurred twenty days after the incident and this is the first time the officer advised VIPD of her injury. The sergeant followed up with what the officer should do in terms of documentation of the injury.
 The incident was approved as Justified - In Policy, but VIPD Policy not followed and or no steps by any supervisory/ command personnel to address deficiencies. Report ultimately approved by the Deputy Chief.
UOFX2016-0008 – Level III Use of Force Incident Summary: An officer was dispatched to a call of a trespasser. The officer responded and met the trespasser who pointed a broken fluorescent bulb at the officer and stated she was not going with the officer. The officer painted the individual with her Taser then deployed the Taser, which did not make contact with the suspect. The officer backed away from the suspect and pointed her firearm at the suspect. The suspect dropped the bulb and the officer threw the suspect up against a fence. The suspect bit the officer and the officer used her Taser in the drive stun mode, which had no effect. Some employees assisted and the suspect was subsequently handcuffed and arrested.
Identified Issues:  The supervisor responded to the hospital, but not to the scene of the incident.  The supervisory assessment lacked an assessment on all the uses of force, Taser evaluation, response to incident scene.
38

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 39 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

 The supervisory interview lacked the evaluation and or mentioning of all types of force used.
 The supervisor used close-ended questioning during the officer interview.  The incident was approved as Justified - In Policy, but VIPD Policy not followed
and or no steps by any supervisory/ command personnel to address deficiencies. Report ultimately approved by the Deputy Chief.

The Audit Unit requested IMT assistance to review these four specific uses of force investigations, due to the complexity and seriousness of the incidents. The IMT received the four case numbers from the Audit Unit and independently reviewed the investigations without input, notes, case file information and or communication from the Audit Unit. The results of the IMT reviews were sent to the IMT Monitor who collaborated with the VIPD Commissioner on the incidents. Table 7 details the information from each incident.

TABLE 8

Case Review Categorizations

UOFT2015-0075

UOFX2015-0035

STT2015-0339

STX2015-0254

Safety Issue Incident

Seizure Issue Incident

UOFX2015-0011

UOFX2015-0004

STX2015-0079

STX2015-0021

Seizure Issue Incident

Special Response Team

Concern

H. Force Lesson Plans
Important components of use of force management are principled and progressive force lesson plans. The IMT requested the base approved VIPD Use of Force Lesson Plan in February 2016. At the May Summit, the IMT received a Use of Force Lesson Plan that we judged to be below approved standards. Since the IMT has conversed with VIPD Legal Counsel on current Use of Force Lesson Plans, we would had expected an improved updated version. The IMT recently completed review and made comments and suggestions to improve this version of the VIPD Use

39

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 40 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
of Force Lesson Plan and it was sent back to VIPD the last week of July. We have also reviewed the Power DMS System and located the current VIPD Control Electronic Weapon (CEW) Lesson Plan. This Lesson Plan does not align with generally accepted policing principles and a reviewed copy was returned to the VIPD Legal Counsel. The IMT pointed out several issues with the current CEW lesson plan, which is out of alignment and does not address important areas of use of the CEW. Not only do these lesson plans have force policy and policing practices issues, but they also lack an adult learning and delivery system focus, impacting actual transfer of knowledge to the student. In revising these lesson plans, as well as other VIPD force training materials, a focus on adult inter-active facilitation should be adopted over the previous pure lecture format. This should result in improved transfer of knowledge and thus increased proficiency in actual operations. The IMT continues to review other Force and Force tools related lesson plans and these have also been scheduled for update within Action Plan 2-2016.
40

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 41 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
V. SUPERVISORY USE OF FORCE INVESTIGATION TRAINING During the second quarter of 2016, the VIPD Command Staff requested that the IMT conduct training for VIPD supervisory personnel on how to investigate use of force incidents. The training was initially discussed and requested in May 2016 and then provided between June 27 and June 30, 2016 on both St Thomas and St Croix. Each delivery was for 7 hours and was conducted twice on each island, with fifteen to twenty supervisors and command reviewer personnel present in each class. The program was developed by IMT staff based upon observations and findings, which surfaced during continual review of use of force investigations by the IMT, from errors noted in VIPD Quarterly Audits, and highlighted points of failures within these investigations. The program design focused on 1) the areas where mistakes continue to be made by the VIPD personnel, and 2) preventing these mistakes in the future. The course Program of Instruction (outline) consisted of the following subject areas as shown in Figure 2, below: Figure 2, Use of Force Training Program of Instruction (Outline)
41

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 42 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
42

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 43 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
43

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 44 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Engaging the supervisors returned value to the course instructors with regard to future compliance activity. Some observations from the training that have implications for VIPD future compliance in the Use of Force area include:
 Command Personnel Presence: District Police Chiefs and Deputy Police Chiefs, Internal Affairs, Compliance Manager, and Audit Unit Personnel attended the training. The presence of the Executive Command Staff at all sessions offered good discussions and at times addressed difficult concerns with policy and culture. In addition, comments were made by command staff to the attendees about why this training was important; a definitive leadership role.
44

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 45 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Recommendation: That VIPD command staff attend for some period of time all training delivered to VIPD personnel. While their presence may not be possible or appropriate for the entire block of training, being there at the beginning demonstrates commitment to the training as well as management oversight as to the quality and appropriateness of the training. Especially considering the Audit recommendations about management failure to oversee compliance with CD mandates, this would be an important change in behavior and leadership.
 Pre-Class Assignment: Each supervisor attendee was required to complete a pre-class homework assignment and each session (four in total) had a different situational problem to solve. The assignments focused on situations requiring understanding and application of VIPD policy and Consent Decree requirements regarding use of force. Each supervisor was required to type their responses (in a specific format) and submit the completed assignments to their respective District Police Chiefs by June 21, 2016 as well as bring a copy to the class for submission to the instructors. Overall, supervisory reviews of required work were well done and their overall performance rated between a grading of B and A-. This is perplexing since training performance was significantly different and superior to real world force investigations performance in many areas by the VIPD. For example their class assignments were complete, addressed the policy requirements completely and yet at times their supervisory use of force investigations in the field lack the same level of detail and content. This perplexing situation was discussed in detail during the course of instruction. The IMT instructors concluded that much of this relates to a reluctance of VIPD personnel to “call out” or criticize other personnel; in essence they do not “critically analyze” other’s performance. However the classroom discussions did result in some critical assessments of the scenario performance of VIPD officers (the videos used were generally from VIPD incidents) and in some cases “heated” differences of opinion rose to the surface. In the end, the assessments were
45

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 46 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
good and generated “critical statements” on performance. The instructional personnel continued to make the point that the same critical analysis is needed in their force reporting. This was also linked back to their audit reports, where issues identified there were a good source of knowledge on where improvements were needed.
Recommendation: In addition to the issue of the quality of performance with the situations versus that of the real world, the use of the Pre-Class assignment adds another dimension to training. It can generate thoughts and questions on the attendee’s part prior to class through reflection on his/her performance. It can also provide the trainer with insight as to the state of the attendee’s knowledge of the subject to be taught. With that in mind, it is recommended that the VIPD Training Division consider the use of pre-class assignments to gauge the understanding of the material to be presented, thus allowing for tailoring to the attendee’s knowledge levels. This will also focus the material to the area that the attendees need to know but does not, a key principle of adult learning.
 Public Safety Statement: Significant time was used up by discussions regarding the “Public Safety Statement” requirement in the Use of Force Policy. It was very obvious that many supervisors were unaware of and/or confused regarding the Public Safety Statement, its use and basis or need. Some supervisors felt the Public Safety Statement was a compelled statement and some felt a Garrity Warning should be provided prior to obtaining the Public Safety Statement.
Recommendation: The Public Safety Statement is just that; the essential information needed by supervisors responding to an incident in order to ensure safety to the public as well as department personnel. It is not a direct requirement for an administrative investigation and is associated with law enforcement operations, .e.g., who did what, are their subjects fleeing, is anybody hurt, etc. It is an organized set of questions that
46

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 47 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
competent law enforcement officers and supervisors might ask about an incident upon arrival on the scene. After careful and thoughtful review of current policy, VIPD may want to consider removing the Public Safety Statement from the Use of Force Policy and publishing it elsewhere under general patrol or investigative policy, possibly under response to police incidents. A reference can then be made to it in the Investigating Use of Force Policy (3.2) rather than having it there only. Additional training on the Public Safety Statement and the merits for the information is an important step for VIPD to make in order to build trust with their personnel on an essential component of policing. It is also an essential component of a quality police response to, control of, and investigation of an incident, especially a criminal incident.
 IMT Paragraph Evaluation and VIPD Audits: Some of the material used focused on the VIPD Quarterly Audit analysis as well as IMT developed evaluation criteria for the Consent Decree paragraphs, which VIPD Use of Force and Investigating Force policies are built on. These were used to show where errors are being made by supervisors investigating force and how they can be helpful to identify weaknesses in supervisory investigations for the attendees; essentially where they need to focus their improvements. It was clear from the responses that they had never seen any of the VIPD audits or the IMT’s Quarterly Reports. IMT asked the Audit and Inspections Unit (AIU) personnel in attendance if there was any reason why the supervisors could not get a copy of the audits and after checking, they could see none and said they would arrange for distribution.
Recommendation: As both the audit and the quarterly reports provide information on areas where the VIPD need to improve their performance both should be distributed throughout the chain of command down to the supervisor level. Making such information available should enhance the speed upon which the VIPD can correct its mistakes and gain compliance with Consent Decree requirements. Further,
47

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 48 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
while the IMT provided the attendees the web address for the IMT web site where they could download the IMT Quarterly Reports, it is further recommended that each quarterly report be provided down to supervisory level (or further if desired as they are public documents). Both the Audit and IMT Quarterly Reports can be delivered via Power DMS in PDF format.
48

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 49 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
VI. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION/CITIZEN COMPLAINTS MONITORING & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Most of the focus in these paragraph areas during the Second Quarter centered on the Action Plan 1-2016 submitted to the court, specifically on efforts to comply with the relevant sections of paragraphs 60 and 72 of the Consent Decree. This Action Plan embraces 61 Action Steps for these paragraphs. Initial attempts were challenged by some limited differing opinions as to appropriate documentation necessary to attain compliance. These were addressed and all parties worked on better defining such necessary documentation for the remaining paragraphs in the subsequently developed Action Plan 2-2016.
The VIPD met compliance with 44 of the 61 action steps. The VIPD submitted requests for compliance with all steps, except Paragraph 60-f-2, in Action Plan 1-2016 by the end of the quarter, however the documentation did not meet compliance levels in all cases.. The VIPD submitted some additional Action Plan 1-2016 compliance requests as this document was being finalized and these will be evaluated in the next quarter. It is noted that Appendix A and B both detail the submission dates on all steps where documentation was submitted, regardless of final compliance evaluation.
During the last quarter, the IMT reported on initiating a misconduct study, with a focus on the disciplinary process. Many of the action steps identified in paragraph 72 are directly tied to this project. At this time some of the initial steps have reached compliance. A parallel effort was conducted by the IMT to refine its own misconduct study research design.
In addition to the significant focus on paragraphs 60 and 72 for this quarter, there was additional work falling within the management and supervision area. Specifically, the IMT worked with the VIPD and USDOJ on the EIP protocol. The intent was to review the data entry plan and associated directives. The Parties and the IMT identified that there were repetitions throughout the documentation – and some limited inconsistencies. To reconcile same, the IMT is taking a
49

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 50 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
lead to combine these multiple documents into one draft policy. This will be provided to the parties for review next quarter. The IMT had numerous conversations and supplied technical advice to assist the VIPD to address their overdue cases. This resulted in the detailed steps for paragraph 44 in the Action Plan 2-2016. Early in the quarter, the IMT assisted the Parties to resolve and finalize the binder directive. Due to the concentrated efforts to address the action steps, there were only three (3) formal telephone conferences with the entire working group although there were numerous phone conversations with individual and multiple members. There has been significant effort by individuals within the management and supervision/citizen complaint working group. However, there are still not enough people working on the action steps. With the February, 2017 target completion date looming, this shortfall needs to be addressed immediately. Moreover, the VIPD intends to consolidate working groups. It is not clear at this juncture how a new arrangement will impact resource allocation. This is a consideration that needs attention from the IMT. There are implications for all work groups and compliance progress across the Consent Decree areas.
50

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 51 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
VII. TRAINING MONITORING & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Very little progress was been made on Consent Decree Paragraphs 73-81 (Training Paragraphs) during 2Q2016. There has been advancement in several of the sub-paragraphs but no new paragraph compliance was attained during the quarter. This is due largely to the departure of the previous Training Director and the arrival of a new Director. We are encouraged by this development and wish the new Director much success.
We are still especially troubled by the inability of VIPD to produce a viable use of force lesson plan. The IMT has reviewed a number of lesson plan drafts. None, to date, are sufficient. The most glaring deficiency is the absence of any discussion of de-escalation techniques. Because of this, a scheduled cycle of in-service training has been postponed and recruits who already received use of force training must be retrained upon the approval of new use of force lesson plan.
Several IMT impressions are confirmed by the VIPD Audit Unit which assessed Training this reporting period. Their report is not encouraging. It puts forth challenges for the new Director, long-standing shortcomings that will now be driven by court ordered mandates. The Audit Report singles out documentation shortfalls, curricula evaluation, roll call training, and Power DMS issues. Progress is obtainable with organized and systematic effort.
A. Paragraph 73 Paragraph 73 has languished behind substantial compliance for several reasons. For much of the history of the Consent Decree, the VIPD has viewed this paragraph without also considering Paragraphs 74 and 78 which are very much interrelated. The IMT believes it would have been more productive to organize a path to compliance in steps or actions that assured progress of all three Paragraphs simultaneously.
51

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 52 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Additionally, for almost two years, the VIPD has acted on a misinterpretation of Paragraph 73. The Paragraph calls for a semi-annual review of use of force policy and training materials, including lesson plans. VIPD maintained that it was conducting a semi-annual review of the use of force policy but ignored the protestations of IMT while we pointing out that the Paragraph also called for a semi-annual review of use of force training materials. The IMT and VIPD now have a mutual understanding of the wording of the Paragraph but VIPD has only recently produced an action plan on how it will accomplish compliance with this Paragraph. The VIPD has committed to the following Action Steps:
 Document the AG’s designee who is responsible for conducting semi-annual reviews of Use of Force Policy and training materials for consistency and compliance with VIPD policy and VI law.
This step was completed during 1Q2016. The current department Legal Advisor is the AG’s designee.
 The Legal Advisor must conduct a semi-annual review of conformance to law. This should be completed during 2Q2016.
 The Training Director must review and update all use of force and force tool lesson plans and related materials to be consistent with accepted training development processes and adult learning concepts, as well as conform to the previously noted legal review.
 The Training Director must develop and conduct an analytical process that measures the quality of all Use of Force Training.
The VIPD conducted a survey of personnel following their last in-service training cycle aimed at evaluating the quality of their use of force training. While the survey was a
52

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 53 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
worthy first effort, the size of the survey group was much too small to declare findings to be valid or reliable, generally the result of a lack of command support and follow-up. The IMT also noted that there was no stratification to the survey so supervisors were asked the same survey questions as the officers.
The IMT has recommended for two quarters that the VIPD seek the assistance of a local college or university that can help conduct a proper survey and help develop lesson plans with measurable objectives, correlated to the post training surveys to ensure a very specific analysis of use of force training and its effect on personnel in the field. Recently, the VIPD forwarded to the IMT a draft proposal from UVI to accomplish the aforementioned tasks. The IMT has returned the proposal with comments that propose additional steps regarding the development of lesson plans which we believe would be most helpful to the VIPD.
The IMT has also recommended that the VIPD pursue a similar process to develop lesson plans and surveys for Citizen Complaint and EIP Training.
 The VIPD should match the semi-annual reviews so that they begin an in-service training cycle. Following the training and post-training evaluations, a report for each in-service training cycle should be prepared and distributed to the Training Advisory Committee and the Executive Command Staff for review and critique. New recommendations would be incorporated into the next upcoming in-service training cycle.
 A similar process should be developed for recruit training and a report, as outlined above for the in-service training cycles, should be published and distributed to the same personnel mentioned above.
B. Paragraph 74
53

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 54 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
This paragraph has a combination of items that repeat items in Paragraph 73 and several that relate to unconnected tasks that combine for a cumbersome approach to compliance. Some activities relate to curricula development, others to instructor certification, in-service training and conducting a needs assessment.
The VIPD has never created a strategic and integrated plan to satisfy requirements either as single items or as combined tasks with other associated mandates.
At this juncture, the VIPD has committed to the following Action Steps:
 Ensure the quality of all use of force training. This is identical to the requirements f Paragraph 73.
 Develop and implement use of force training curricula.
While Paragraph 73 (and 78) call for a review of use of force training material and lesson plans by the AG’s designee, this requirement calls for the Training Bureau to develop use of force lesson plans. We understood this to be a continuing process. To date, that has not been completed. We are currently attempting to assist the VIPD to revise their Use of Force lesson plans and related materials.
 Select and train VIPD officer trainers.
This provision has been satisfied for some time. The policy was delayed for most of a year over disagreements with the VIPD on the provision of waivers for instructor candidates that did not meet all of the vetting requirements. The concern was centered around those future and current instructors whose discipline and/or complaint histories would otherwise disqualify them.
54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 55 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
The instructor records are in the process of being made complete. To date, other than their certificates, not much information or data has been placed into the instructor’s files.
We believe that FTO’s should be selected using the same criteria but, to date, the VIPD has not initiated a valid process to select and vet FTO’s.
 Develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service training.
This requirement has been in compliance for several years.
 In conjunction with the Chiefs, develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures.
This is another effort that defined by starts and stops never fully developed to the point of a program. The coordination required for this effort to mature has just not been evident. The most recent activity occurred about six months ago and resulted in a plan for roll call training that did not focus on deficient areas but on a planned menu of topics. Even this plan was not enacted.
 Establish procedures to evaluate training curricula and procedures.
This requirement is the same as above and as an identical item in Paragraph 73. No effort had been made during the life of the Consent Decree until most recently when the Training Bureau conducted a post in-service survey to evaluate the use of force training. The survey was a surprisingly good instrument for a first effort but the sample size was
55

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 56 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
too small to establish validity or reliability. The survey was not stratified. Officers and supervisors were asked the same questions.
The IMT has recommended that the VIPD seek assistance to develop lesson plans with measurable objectives and post-training evaluations of retention of material as well as improved performance in the field. At this time the VIPD is engaged in discussions to acquire these services. The VIPD should include the POST Executive Director in their developments. There is certainly fruit for discussion between and among each entity to explore areas of mutual interest and cooperation.
C. Paragraph 75
This paragraph, among several others, while in compliance is precariously close to falling out of compliance. The paragraph at issue requires that several tasks be performed to ensure that they remain in compliance. Many of these tasks are Action Plan 2-2016 Steps required for the compliance of other paragraphs. There are, however, several ongoing issues related to this paragraph. Operational definitions for “mandated objectives” and “approved lesson plans” have never been established, as these terms relate to this paragraph.
The IMT has received three separate Use of Force lesson plans since May 2016, the latest in early August 2016. None meets generally accepted training development standards or application of adult learning concepts. Among the shortfalls are:
 Absence of articulated performance objectives  Significant language and discussion of VIPD force policy  Content on lesser force options minimal  Content on de-escalation is not developed
56

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 57 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
The new Training Director indicates that production of a compliance-worthy lesson plan is a priority.
We are critical of the quality of lesson plans generally and use of force lesson plans in particular. The objectives in most lesson plans are rudimentary at best and do not lend themselves to measurable outcomes upon which they might be evaluated.
While several other paragraphs refer to a lesson plan review process, none speak with any specificity to an “approval process.” We could infer that the reference is to the semi-annual review of use of force lesson plans by the AG’s Office (designee). While this review was conducted in conjunction with compliance, it has not been performed or documented for most, if not all, of the last two years. As we report in conjunction with Paragraph 73, the review process is being codified and memorialized.
At the initiation of this Consent Decree, the IMT acknowledged that it was extremely difficult for the best departments to train each work shift in teams in use of force training. This is largely a scheduling issue and the need to staff field operations positions during in-service training periods makes this requirement virtually impossible. We stated then, and continue to believe, that the best a department can do is to establish a robust roll call training program.
The VIPD has made meager attempts to conduct agency-wide roll call training and has failed to establish an ongoing roll call training program as called for in Paragraph 74. Action Steps required going forward include:
 Complete following action Steps from - Paragraph 73 The Legal Advisor must conduct a semi-annual review of conformance to law. This should be completed during 2Q2016.
57

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 58 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
The Training Director must develop and conduct an analytical process that measures the quality of all Use of Force Training.
 Complete following action step from Paragraph 74
In conjunction with the Chiefs, develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures.
D. Paragraph 76
This paragraph is in compliance. The requirements were met to place this paragraph into compliance but have not been consistently maintained. The most recent review by the VIPD’s Audit Unit cites that only six lesson plans could be found in PowerDMS. They did not review paper files.
We have expected that all current and new lesson plans would be uploaded to PowerDMS with paper files maintained as backup. Paper records are typically filed away and not catogorized in a way that allows for easy search and recovery. Our hope has been that moving training records to PowerDMS would create a more orderly and user-friendly system of training records. Files are being loaded but PowerDMS is being used as electronic “bins” where materials are “dumped,” but not in a fashion that makes records easily identifialble and retrievable. Paper files, likewise, are not organized in a manner to support easy analysis. The most recent Audit Report assesses this paragraph similarly.
The IMT will be focusing on this and other currently compliant paragraphs during the next quarter to request and review compliance documentation from the VIPD in order to determine if they remain in compliance. Examples of expectations with this paragraph might include a plan
58

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 59 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
for organizing the uploaded materials into easily searched and accessed locations, a schedule, with suspense dates for uploading the materials, and a plan for periodic checks by training management personnel to assure that all materials are in file, both digitally and in the paper folders or notebooks.
E. Paragraph 77
This paragraph has remained in partial compliance for over two years. The Consent Decree calls for three specific items. The first calls for attendance records for all VIPD personnel. The VIPD has reasonably accurate records that record participant attendance. The IMT has indicated that the VIPD should be able to produce two years of accurate records to gain compliance.
The second calls for lesson plans that document the version of lesson plan, curricula and course description for all recorded training. Our examination and that of the VIPD Audit Unit are in agreement. Two years of lesson plan records should exist or be capable of replication. Our inspections indicate that, while these records are most likely in compliance, they are not organized in a manner that invites easy assessment. The VIPD should work to organize them in a manner that could be assessed by the IMT and the Audit Unit.
The final requirement calls for the VIPD to reasonably match instructors to each delivered training class. This requirement has proven elusive owing to the lack of good instructor record keeping over time. While not readily available, the IMT believes that reasonably accurate instructor records could be assembled for a minimum of one year which the IMT would accept as measuring up to compliance. While this has been a standing position of the IMT for well over a year, we’ve not seen an effort launched by the VIPD to construct instructor teaching records for this one year period.
The VIPD now has an Action Plan (2-2016) in place that calls for the compliance of this paragraph by the end of this year.
59

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 60 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
F. Paragraph 78
This paragraph is in compliance. Like several others, it has been in compliance for some time but we have no documentation demonstrating that the VIPD is maintaining conformance. The legal advisor, in conjunction with the Training Director, has taken steps to ensure that this paragraph remains in compliance.
The IMT will be focusing on this and other currently compliant paragraphs to request and review compliance documentation from the VIPD in order to determine if they remain in compliance. Examples with this paragraph might include a memorandum from the Legal Advisor and Training Director detailing dates of and title subjected to the paragraph review requirements and a schedule for this review process. G. Paragraph 79
This paragraph was placed into compliance relatively early in the Consent Decree process. Compliance was awarded on the basis of documents developed or in place at the time. The Training Bureau staff was told that compliance was being awarded but that the lesson plans and other training policies and practices would need updating and revision on the basis of the reviews established by other paragraphs of this Consent Decree, specifically, Paragraphs, 73, 74 and 78. As is described in our review of the aforementioned paragraphs and the most recent VIPD Audit Unit report, these reviews are not being conducted and/or documented.
As we consider the attention being paid to administration of use of force policy and training programs around the country, near constant review and revision are almost commonplace. The requirement in this Consent Decree calls for a semi-annual review. The VIPD has made virtually no change to its use of force training since this paragraph was placed into compliance, including de-escalation and crisis intervention.
60

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 61 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
The new Training Director should place this paragraph among those still short of compliance so that it won’t fall out of compliance. Currently, it’s precariously close. The IMT will be focusing during the next quarter on this and other currently compliant paragraphs to request and review compliance documentation from the VIPD in order to determine if they remain in compliance. Examples of expectations with this paragraph might include a review of not only the in-service schedule but also the training materials supporting that schedule by the IMT. H. Paragraph 80
This paragraph is in compliance. Neither the IMT nor the VIPD Audit Unit found any shortcomings relative to the compliance with this Consent Decree Paragraph. The training required by this paragraph has been consistently presented during in-service training. The IMT would only recommend that VIPD focus a portion of its in-service training on the supervisory responsibilities associated with the citizen complaint policies.
I. Paragraph 81
This paragraph is in partial compliance. In short, the VIPD has conducted supervisory training for all new promotes to supervisory positions within 90 days of their promotions. The VIPD has not, however, made supervisory training a part of its semi-annual in-service training programs and has not emphasized leadership and accountability through its training or operations and administrative practices. During an IMT review of in-service training records during 2014, it was discovered that VIPD managers were routinely excused from attending in-service training.
The IMT has long held that compliance for this paragraph must also include implementation of the primary principles of command accountability and leadership. For purposes of evaluation we have held that VIPD supervisors and managers must do a better job of investigating use of force incidents and citizen complaints than our reviews and the VIPD audits currently report. The
61

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 62 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department VIPD must also align its disciplinary processes with modern Constitutional standards. Discipline outside of the disciplinary matrix does not reflect the kinds of supervisory and management practices typically found in the kinds of training outlined in this paragraph. Implementation requirements for several paragraphs have been assigned to Paragraph 100 of this Consent Decree. To date, the IMT has chosen to leave the implementation of this paragraph with Paragraph 81.
62

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 63 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
VIII. AUDITS AND RECOMENDATIONS
The IMT, in its 2nd/3rd 2015 Quarterly Reports, highlighted the large body of recommendations contained within the VIPD’s Quarterly Audits. Our comments from the Second Quarter, 2015 report are:
“C. The Recommendations Backlog A primary objective of auditing is to identify compliance shortfalls, prescribe corrective actions, and re-audit/re-measure to gauge the impact of corrective actions. In this regard, the VIPD Work Groups are doing their jobs. Every quarterly report produced by the VIPD auditors has put forth improvement recommendations. While neither the VIPD nor the IMT has produced a comprehensive box score – number of recommendations acted on, successfully implemented, and not acted on, we can say the number of unresolved recommendations presents a formidable challenge to compliance.
The IMT’s response to the VIPD’s 2014 Second Quarter Report (the one preceding the recently received batch) included this statement:
‘With regard to Audit Report Recommendations for the Second Quarter and previous Quarter reports, the most charitable statement the IMT can make is that the Work Groups, individually and collectively, are "drowning in good intentions." Each audit report offers recommendations, repeating those from prior audits and adding new ones, with only sporadic references of a direct nature to action or lack thereof regarding previous recommendations. Recommendations are just piling up.’ We estimated that the body of unresolved recommendations numbered 50. A recently drafted internal VIPD document, perhaps an uncirculated analysis by the VIPD Audit Unit sets the current number of unresolved recommendations much lower than the IMT’s estimate. By quarter, VIPD estimates are:
63

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 64 of 231
Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department

Table 4 Unresolved Recommendations

QUARTER
Third Quarter 2013 Fourth Quarter 2013 First Quarter 2014 Second Quarter 2014 Third/Fourth Quarters 2014 First Quarter 2015

UNRESOLVED RECOMMENDATIONS 47 25 27 23 15 17

Not all findings subject to recommendation rise to recommendation level. The document from which the recommendation counts were taken notes lack of consistently timely response to recommendations, ". . . no viable action after presentation of the quarterly audit reports . . . . (has led to) . . . deterioration in some of the audit output and a recycling, in most cases, of the recommendations which had not been addressed over a series of quarters.”

We doubled down on this in our Third Quarter 2015 Report, saying:

“To be clear, many recommendations have been acted upon by the Commissioner, the Work Groups, and others involved in the compliance effort. The declining quarterly totals suggest this to be the case. In addition to the current number of unresolved recommendations, our concern, which mirrors that of the author of the VIPD report, there has been no definitive direction or consistent process by which the recommendations of the compliance audits are addressed. A consequence for compliance progress is self-evident.”

Each completed audit has included recommendations for corrective action by the VIPD, but few have been acted upon. The ¾ Quarter 2015 continued this tradition of recommendations with the following:

“Use of Force:
As in past audits the primary outstanding feature is lack of accountability and attention to details. Once again the review process has failed in critical aspects of force

64

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 65 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
investigations. We again make the following recommendations to improve force reporting:
1. A Commander’s Call Training to address a trend that was observed through the audits: when there is a supervisor on-scene (Corporal/Sergeant) involved in or directing the use of force, there is less likelihood that another supervisor of higher rank will be notified to come to the scene of the force. Corrective actions should be recommended and alternatives remedies addressed. 2. Roll call refresher training for the appropriate information that is mandatory to be included in a RRR. 3. Additional roll call refresher training for supervisors in what is required information in an RRR and in a force investigation 4. The Command Level Review must pay attention to the fact that there is a specific standard of information that must be in each of the reports. The check list is to assist the supervisor in assuring the information is in the report when there is a failure to utilize the check list pertinent information is not included. 5. The Administrative Review also must follow the same requirements as those for the Command Level and look at each folder with a critical eye. 6. Training for all levels of review in what is required information in an RRR and in a force investigation. 7. Hold all levels in the force reporting process accountable for failures in reporting, investigating and review of the force folders.
Citizen Complaints:
65

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 66 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
1. The predominant recommendation for this audit report is to ensure that cases are completed timely. This is very critical and must be accomplished so VIPD can be in compliance. There were 30 cases audited and 15 were submitted untimely. 2. There must be accountability for violations of policy 7.2 and 7.3. The review of cases must be completed within 30 days unless a Waiver is approved. 3. Commanders must ensure that the cases are reviewed thoroughly and make recommendations for training and any other problems noted if required. 4. Internal Affairs must ensure that all case files are uploaded into IAPro completely to include audio/video recordings. 5. Once a waiver is approved the due dates must be reflected in IAPRO and a notice has to be sent to the Complainant as per Directive 001-2015. 6. All areas must submit inspections for the Informational Materials in the vehicles, stations, and libraries territory wide.
Management and Supervision:
Due to a lack of supporting documentation the audit unit recommends the following key issues be addressed:
1. VIPD Deputy Chiefs, Managers, and Supervisors must evaluate system reports to include individual officers, supervisors, unit activity and patterns. This must be documented to verify this evaluation. 2. Commanders call and Supervisory meeting is recommended to address the EIP Reports and data, this can include a Power Point session. Attendance must be documented.
66

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 67 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
3. Documentation must be received monthly from the AG’s Office as it relates to all criminal proceedings initiated as well as civil or administrative claims filed, and civil law suits served upon VIPD Officers. 4. EIP Alerts must be addressed and Action Plans developed. It is recommended that the EIP Analyst sends weekly reports to the Chief Office. This will assist in monitoring that timely action plans are submitted. If violations of the EIP Policy are noted action must be taken. 5. Documentation needs to be provided that IAU conducts quarterly audits of the risk management system as per policy. 6. Documentation needs to be provided to ensure that VIPD deputy chiefs, managers, and supervisors review the risk management system records of all officers recently transferred to their sections and units. It’s recommended that a standardized form is developed to use Territory wide. 7. Information entered into the Risk Management System must be entered accurate and complete. There were instances that incomplete information in Use of Force, Citizen Complaints, and EIP were uploaded. 8. The Waiver developed needs to be revised to include a specific due date. 9. When Disciplinary corrective action is taken by VIPD and imposed the hearing Officer should also consider non- disciplinary corrective action such as remedial training.
Training:
Due to a lack of supporting documentation the audit unit recommends the following key issues be addressed:
67

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 68 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
1. UOF Lesson plans must be uploaded into Power DMS and semiannually the lesson plans and UOF Training must be coordinated and reviewed. Documentation needs to be provided of this action. 2. The Director of Training or his designee need to provide documentation to ensure that UOF Training is consistent with law and policy. Documentation needs to be available to show the quality of UOF training and develop a UOF training curricula. 3. Select and train VIPD Officers trainers and evaluate all training curricula and procedures. All Instructors files and certificates must be up to date and uploaded. 4. Provide documentation of all In Service Training. 5. Provide documentation on the Training Advisory Board meetings. 6. In conjunction with the Chief develop, implement, approve, and oversee patrol roll protocol. Documentation must be provided. 7. Ensure that VIPD continues to provide training consistent with VIPD policy, Law and proper practices. All lesson plans must be signed by the Director of Training and uploaded into Power DMS to be evaluated. 8. Courses uploaded into Power DMS must have the duration, Instructor, and a course description. 9. Develop a plan to upload data into Power DMS so it can be consistent territory wide. “
Many of these recommendations mirror or support compliance steps in Action Plans 12016 and 2-2016. Since the audits are constantly reviewing compliance against the Consent Decree requirements and VIPD policy, adoption of recommendations can only support that effort and beyond. The fact that Action Plans needed to be created to gain compliance emphasizes this lack of attention to the audit recommendations. The most current audits continue to identify issues and problems and answer these with recommendations for corrective action. The IMT strongly encourages the VIPD to re-
68

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 69 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
visit its past audits and read the current ones and then utilize the recommendations contained therein as part of their compliance process. Further, as noted elsewhere in this report, the IMT strongly urges the VIPD to distribute their audit reports to all levels of command and supervision to facilitate their use as guidance for improving compliance with the Consent Decree and overall service delivery. Likewise they should also encourage their personnel to review the IMT’s quarterly reports for additional information on areas where improvement it needed. These reports (in PDF format) can be viewed and downloaded from the IMT website, at www.imtpolicemonitor.org As noted elsewhere in this report, the VIPD has responded to this recommendation and as this report was being finalized, uploaded their Quarterly Audits for the 1st and 2nd Quarters of 2016 to their PowerDMS system. The IMT is pleased to see this action which was an outgrowth of the recent Supervisory Use of Force training conducted in June 2016 and which is described in Section V of this report.
69

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 70 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
IX. THE MAY 2016 SUMMIT
A Summit was held May 10-11, 2016, on St Thomas. In attendance were representatives of the VIPD, including the Police Commissioner, USDOJ, and the IMT. The Summit agenda was established before the session and distributed to all participants. Attendees invited are listed at the end of the agenda and it was annotated as to their participation. In that context, the IMT was disappointed that there was no representation from the VIPD Attorney General’s office and specifically note the absence of the Assistant Attorney General that is assigned as a member of the FIT teams, as the agenda included another practice FRB review of a FIT investigation of a previous case. This was a missed opportunity for increasing the FIT team’s capacity.
The Summit agenda was updated as the Summit progressed to reflect actual interaction and times. This Summit was structured to energize the planning process for the non-compliant paragraphs and provided opportunities for the VIPD to work within their groups to enhance current plans and develop new ones. The priority suggested by the IMT was to pick certain paragraphs that were near completion or which had some steps that might be attainable during the next quarter and determine what was working and what was not, making adjustments as they reviewed their previous efforts.
A review of how to identify problems and decide on the best solutions was presented with some hands on practice thereafter. This was followed by an in depth analysis of seven quarters of Use of Force audit data in an effort to demonstrate several points, 1) how to view data longitudinally, and 2) how to use their own audit data to identify problem areas and, using the previously presented problem solving techniques, develop responses to correct errors.
Using this data and some charts from the draft 1Q2016 IMT report, the issues from the seven quarters was further explored and points requiring interdiction by the VIPD were pointed out. These sessions were followed by VIPD work group level discussions and reviews of their current
70

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 71 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department progress. Additional opportunities were provided for VIPD to take over the facilitation and move their efforts forward. Day Two commenced with a review of the previous day and more group level activity. That was followed with a briefing on FRB operations by the IMT and then a full FRB hearing on two VIPD cases. Since this was a previous case, the IMT facilitated brief reviews of the board’s activities as appropriate. The agenda was as is shown below in Figure 3:
71

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 72 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
Figure 3, May 2016 Summit Agenda
72

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 73 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
73

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 74 of 231 Second Quarterly Report of 2016 From The Independent Monitor For The Virgin Islands Police Department
X. APPENDICES Separate Documents Appendix A - Acton Plan 1 Status Report Appendix B - Action Plan 2 As Filed With the District Court on July 29, 2016 Appendix C – Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Appendix D – Paragraph 100 Sub-Paragraph Linkage to Original Paragraphs
74

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 75 of 231

Action Plan 1 - 2016 Status Report
As Of 08/05/16

Appendix A to 2Q2016 IMT

Paragraph 060

Not In Substantial Compliance

The new risk management system will collect and record the following information:

a. all uses of force;

b. canine bite ratios;

c. the number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers;

d. all injuries to prisoners;

e. all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with "resisting

arrest," "assault on a police officer," "disorderly conduct," or "obstruction of

official business;"

f. all critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty;

g. all complaints (and their dispositions);

h. all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil

lawsuits served upon, the Territory and its officers, or agents, resulting from VIPD operations or the

actions of VIPD personnel;

i. all vehicle pursuits;

j. all incidents involving the pointing of a firearm (if any such reporting is

required); and

k. all disciplinary action taken against officers.

Sub-Paragraphs
a Substantial Compliance
The new risk management system will collect and record the following information:a. all uses of force;

Action Steps

1 Review a random selection of 1A and Arrest reports between th eperiods of 01/20/14 and
05/15/15 and from 02/12/16 and 05/31/16 to look for potential unreported uses of force.

Documents Report of cases reviewed with results

Suspense 07/08/2016 Submitted 07/08/2016 Compliance 07/12/2016 Compliance Y/N

Responsible Person D/C Chalwell

Y

2 Create a directive outlining the person or unit who will be responsible for obtaining the data
for analysis. The directive for this subsection will require the EIP analyst to conduct monthly audits/inspections of the system, by the 3rd of each month, to ensure all reported UOF entries are entered completely in the system.

Documents Updated directives with responsible persons annotated and EIP analyst responsibilities identified.

Suspense 06/17/2016 Submitted 06/21/2016 Compliance 07/12/2016 Compliance Y/N

Responsible Person Acting Chief Jason Marsh

Y

3 Distribute and review newly created directive to EIP analyst and group members to ensure
they understand the requirements for conducting the monthly audits/ inspections.

Documents Memorndum for Record that detail the birefing and who was in attendance for both island IAB sections.

Suspense 06/23/2016 Submitted 08/03/2016 Compliance 07/12/2016 Compliance Y/N

Responsible Person D/C Chalwell

Y

IMT System ID app A 2Q6 V1 v:\step_rep.set

Page 1 of 14
Updated As Of 08/16/2016 Time: 14:08:01

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 76 of 231

Action Plan 1 - 2016 Status Report
As Of 08/05/16

Appendix A to 2Q2016 IMT

4 The M&S group will conduct monthly inspections of randomly selected 1A and arrest
reports from the current quarter to ensure all UOF incidents continue to be reported and entered in the IAPro (RMS) system. AIU will include a review of these monthly inspections in the quarterly audit commencing with the second quarter of 2016.

Documents Copies of monthly inspections; notations of review within the quarterly audits comencing with 2Q2016.

Suspense 08/05/2016 Submitted 08/03/2016 Compliance 08/04/2016 Compliance Y/N

Responsible Person D/C Chalwell

Y

b Substantial Compliance
b. canine bite ratios;
Action Steps
1 Create a directive requiring Canine unit supervisors to submit, on a weekly basis,
utilization/deployment reports to the EIP Analyst section. Documents

Suspense 06/10/2016 Submitted 06/28/2016 Responsible Person Acting Chief Jason Marsh

Compliance 07/12/2016 Compliance Y/N
Y

2 Review directive with Canine Supervisors to ensure they understand the requirements of
the directive. Documents

Suspense 06/10/2016 Submitted 06/23/2016 Responsible Person D/C Alecendor, D/C Corniero

Compliance 07/12/2016 Compliance Y/N
Y

3 Canine Unit will start sending weekly deployment reports to EIP Analyst.
Documents

Suspense 06/16/2016 Submitted 06/23/2016 Responsible Person D/C Alcendor, D/C Corniero

Compliance 07/12/2016 Compliance Y/N
Y

4 Obtain CAD data from 911 displaying all K9 responses from 1/1/15 to 07/15/16 to ensure
all deployments during that period are captured and analyzed to determine bite ratios. Documents

Suspense 07/20/2016 Submitted 07/28/2016 Compliance 08/05/2016 Compliance Y/N

Responsible Person Off Samuel (STX), P. Potter (STX)

Y

IMT System ID app A 2Q6 V1 v:\step_rep.set

Page 2 of 14
Updated As Of 08/16/2016 Time: 14:08:01

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 77 of 231

Action Plan 1 - 2016 Status Report
As Of 08/05/16

Appendix A to 2Q2016 IMT

5 Create a directive requiring the EIP Analyst to conduct quarterly analysis of Canine Bite
ratios to comply with the EIP Protocol analysis requirements. Documents

Suspense 06/17/2016 Submitted 06/30/2016 Responsible Person Acting Chief Jason Marsh

Compliance 07/12/2016 Compliance Y/N
Y

6 Create an interim database for canine unit supervisors to track all K-9 Unit deployments
until IAPro's release of the K-9 module this fall. The database will track minimally the same fields as on the deployment reports, to include: 1A Number, Crime Classification, Handler name, Canine name, Unit #Location, Date of Occurrence, Date reported, Time arrived, whether deployment resulted in an apprehension, and whether there was a bite/hold, and type of deployment.
Documents

Suspense 06/30/2016 Submitted 06/23/2016 Compliance 07/12/2016 Compliance Y/N

Responsible Person K. Tweede(MIS), M&S Grp, K-9

Y

7 Change deployment of K-9 units from their present Special Response deployment to a
regular support role in support of patrol operations. Documents

Suspense 06/26/2016 Submitted 06/26/2016 Compliance 07/12/2016 Compliance Y/N

Responsible Person Chief McFarlande, Chief Marsh

Y

c Substantial Compliance
c. the number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers;
Action Steps
1 Ensure measuring equipment is available and in working order in both districts.

Documents

Suspense 06/10/2016 Submitted 06/20/2016 Compliance 07/12/2016 Compliance Y/N

Responsible Person Dir Macintosh, SGT Sullivaan *STT), SGT Lynch (STX)

Y

2 Notify commanders to send their officers to training for canister inspection.
Documents

Suspense 06/09/2016 Submitted 06/23/2016 Responsible Person Training Director

Compliance 07/12/2016 Compliance Y/N
Y

IMT System ID app A 2Q6 V1 v:\step_rep.set

Page 3 of 14
Updated As Of 08/16/2016 Time: 14:08:02

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 78 of 231

Action Plan 1 - 2016 Status Report
As Of 08/05/16

Appendix A to 2Q2016 IMT

3 Measure officers' canisters from each district. Officers will respond to the training unit to
have their equipment weighed while on duty. Documents

Suspense 06/24/2016 Submitted 06/24/2016 Compliance 07/27/2016 Compliance Y/N

Responsible Person SGT Sullivan (STT), SGT Lynch (STX)

Y

4 Weigh-in officer will initiate exception memo on all canisters that exceed the tare weight
and forward to the appropriate district Police Chief for action. Documents

Suspense 06/30/2016 Submitted 07/28/2016 Responsible Person Training Director

Compliance

Compliance Y/N
N

5 Based on results, the district Police Chief will either open a new administrative investigation
or annotate the exception memo as to the findings and forward to AIU.

Documents

Suspense 08/02/2016 Submitted 07/29/2016 Responsible Person Police Chiefs

Compliance

Compliance Y/N
N

6 Enter data into database.
Documents

Suspense 07/29/2016 Submitted 07/29/2016 Responsible Person SAC Duggan

Compliance

Compliance Y/N
N

7 Prepare completion report and forward results to DOJ/IMT for review and interim
compliance recertification. Documents

Suspense

Submitted 07/29/2016

Responsible Person SAC Duggan

Compliance

Compliance Y/N
N

d Partial Compliance
d. all injuries to prisoners; Action Steps
IMT System ID app A 2Q6 V1 v:\step_rep.set

Page 4 of 14
Updated As Of 08/16/2016 Time: 14:08:02

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 79 of 231

Action Plan 1 - 2016 Status Report
As Of 08/05/16

Appendix A to 2Q2016 IMT

1 Validate that required posters are present in Zones and report processing areas.
Documents

Suspense 06/17/2016 Submitted 06/20/2016 Responsible Person LT Colbourne and LT Benta

Compliance 07/12/2016 Compliance Y/N
Y

2 Obtain 911 CAD listing for all reported Injury to Prisoners incidents between 01/01/15 and
05/06/16. Using that data, conduct an inspection to compare with data in the IAPro system to ensure all incidents were reported and required action taken. If no case found, initiate case and investigate; update compliance log with results.
Documents Report based on data retrived from IAPro
Suspense 06/30/0116 Submitted 07/03/2016 Compliance 07/27/2016 Compliance Y/N
Responsible Person D/C Chalwell (M&S Group project with assistance from Crime Analys Y

3 Obtain 911 CAD listing for all reported Injury to Prisoner incidents between 05/06/16 and
07/15/16 to ensure that Injury to Prisoner incidents continue to reported, entered into IAPro, and required actions taken. Add results to report in Step 2, above.

Documents

CAD system printout of incidents coded as Injuries to Prisoners; copy of report from Step 1 annotated

where cases do not match.

Suspense 07/22/2016 Submitted 07/26/2016 Compliance 07/27/2016 Compliance Y/N

Responsible Person D/C Chalwell

Y

4 Submit report regarding steps 2 and 3 to the AIU, DOJ and IMT.
Documents Report referenced in action step.
Suspense 07/30/2016 Submitted 08/03/2016 Compliance 08/04/2016 Responsible Person D/C Chalwell

Compliance Y/N
Y

5 Update the Data Input Plan to outline all data collection and areas of responsibility for their
collection. Create directive identifying the person or position/unit responsible for data collection on Injuries to Prisoners, the timelines for collection and reporting of findings.

Documents Revised Data Collection Plan
Suspense 08/01/2016 Submitted 06/17/2016 Responsible Person Acting Chief Jason Marsh

Compliance

Compliance Y/N
N

IMT System ID app A 2Q6 V1 v:\step_rep.set

Page 5 of 14
Updated As Of 08/16/2016 Time: 14:08:02

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 80 of 231

Action Plan 1 - 2016 Status Report
As Of 08/05/16

Appendix A to 2Q2016 IMT

e Substantial Compliance
e. all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with "resisting arrest," "assault on a police officer," "disorderly conduct," or "obstruction of official business;"

Action Steps
1 Gather data in the IAPro system on "discretionary arrests" from 01/01/15 to 07/15/16 and
disseminate to M&S Group for review.

Documents

Suspense 07/22/2016 Submitted 07/28/2016 Responsible Person IAB Director

Compliance 08/11/2016 Compliance Y/N
Y

2 Review arrest and other reports obtained from Step 1 for comparison with IAPro data to
determine whether all instances where force was used and a citizen was charged with an enumerated charge were segregated (duplicated from the UOF incident for analysis purposes) in the system for subsequent analysis and review.

Documents

Suspense 07/23/2016 Submitted 07/21/2016 Compliance 07/27/2016 Compliance Y/N

Responsible Person D/C Chalwell, M&S Grp, EIP Analysts

Y

3 Prepare a report of findings to be added as an addendum item to Quarterly reports and for
use by Deputy Chiefs in their quarterly EIP reviews with Commanders and supervisors. Documents

Suspense 07/29/2016 Submitted 08/03/2016 Compliance Responsible Person D/C Chalwell, M&S Grp, EIP Analysts

Compliance Y/N
N

f Substantial Compliance
f. all critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty;

Action Steps

1 Review all reported Firearms Discharges in the IAPro system, from 01/01/15 to 07/15/16 to
ensure accuracy of data. Obtain 1A reports and Use of Force reports concerning Critical Firearms Discharges looking for consistency in reporting and accuracy with imputed IAPro data.

Documents q

Suspense 07/24/2016 Submitted 07/21/2016 Compliance 07/27/2016 Compliance Y/N

Responsible Person Tony Emanuel

Y

IMT System ID app A 2Q6 V1 v:\step_rep.set

Page 6 of 14
Updated As Of 08/16/2016 Time: 14:08:02

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 81 of 231

Action Plan 1 - 2016 Status Report
As Of 08/05/16

Appendix A to 2Q2016 IMT

2 Prepare report on results of review for use by Audit Unit, Training Advisory Committee, and
Deputy Chiefs for their quarterly EIP Review with Commanders and Supervisors. Documents

Suspense 07/29/2016 Submitted Responsible Person A/Dir Emanuel

Compliance

Compliance Y/N
N

g Substantial Compliance
g. all complaints (and their dispositions);
Action Steps
1 Check status of citizen and internal complaint cases forwarded to IA for final review and
entry into IAPro from 01/01/015 to 07/15/16 to determine whether cases deemed complete are being held up at the final review level. Documents

Suspense 07/22/2016 Submitted 07/28/2016 Compliance Responsible Person Lt. Benta for STX and DC Alcendor for STT/STJ

Compliance Y/N
N

2 Based on the results from step 1, forward action requests to appropriate senior
commanders for compliance with VIPD published complaint handling policy. Follow-up to assure any cases identified are completed and entered in the IAPro system.
Documents

Suspense 07/24/2016 Submitted 07/28/2016 Compliance Responsible Person Lt. Benta for STX and DC Alcendor for STT/STJ

Compliance Y/N
N

3 Create a report of the results of findings and subsequent command actions taken and
forward to VIPD Audit Unit, IMT, and USDOJ. Documents

Suspense 07/30/2016 Submitted 07/28/2016 Responsible Person Coordinator Greg Davila

Compliance

Compliance Y/N
N

h Substantial Compliance
h. all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the Territory and its officers, or agents, resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel;
Action Steps

IMT System ID app A 2Q6 V1 v:\step_rep.set

Page 7 of 14
Updated As Of 08/16/2016 Time: 14:08:02

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 82 of 231

Action Plan 1 - 2016 Status Report
As Of 08/05/16

Appendix A to 2Q2016 IMT

1 Obtain all quarterly listing of criminal actions, civil suits, and administrative claims between
01/01/16 and 07/15/16 from the VIAG in accordance with agreements between the VIPD and VIAG.
Documents

Suspense 07/19/2016 Submitted 07/19/2016 Responsible Person Officer Greaux

Compliance 07/27/2016 Compliance Y/N
Y

2 Compare to IAPro record to determine if the IAPro system has been updated .
Documents

Suspense 07/22/2016 Submitted 07/29/2016 Responsible Person A. Gilbert, J. McManus

Compliance 08/02/2016 Compliance Y/N
Y

3 If matches cannot be found update as necessary from the VIAG records obtained
Documents

Suspense 07/25/2016 Submitted 07/29/2016 Responsible Person A. Gilbert, J, McManus

Compliance 08/05/2016 Compliance Y/N
Y

4 If information in the IAPro system differs from that provided by the VIAG, request
clarification from the VIAG and update as necessary depending upon information received Documents

Suspense 07/25/2016 Submitted 07/29/2016 Responsible Person Tony Emanuel

Compliance 08/05/2016 Compliance Y/N
Y

5 If the reports have been received and the IAPro case files updated accordingly, submit a
certification memorandum to the CD Coordinator for forwarding to the DOJ and the IMT Documents

Suspense 07/30/2016 Submitted 07/29/2016 Responsible Person Tony Emanuel

Compliance 08/05/2016 Compliance Y/N
Y

6 Establish suspense system dates to ensure that the process in Steps 1-5 are repeated on
a quarterly basis. Documents

Suspense 07/30/2016 Submitted 07/29/2016 Responsible Person A/Dir Emanuel

Compliance 08/05/2016 Compliance Y/N
Y

IMT System ID app A 2Q6 V1 v:\step_rep.set

Page 8 of 14
Updated As Of 08/16/2016 Time: 14:08:02

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 83 of 231

Action Plan 1 - 2016 Status Report
As Of 08/05/16

Appendix A to 2Q2016 IMT

i Substantial Compliance
i. all vehicle pursuits;
Action Steps
1 Review vehicle pursuit policy to determine and validate reporting requirements consistent
with the CD. Documents

Suspense 06/22/2016 Submitted 06/23/2016 Responsible Person D/C Chalwell

Compliance 07/27/2016 Compliance Y/N
Y

2 Review all CAD data for events categorized as pursuit and create a list with appropriate
information to link them with IAPro cases from 01/01/16 to 07/15/16. Documents

Suspense 07/24/2016 Submitted 07/22/2016 Compliance 07/27/2016 Compliance Y/N

Responsible Person LT Colbourne (STT), LT Benta (STX)

Y

3 Compare CAD data categorized as vehicle pursuits to IAPro pursuit-based case entries for
the same period as reflected on the list created in Steps 1 and 2 to ensure required reporting has been complied with.
Documents

Suspense 07/30/2016 Submitted 07/22/2016 Responsible Person DC Chalwell

Compliance 07/27/2016 Compliance Y/N
Y

4 Identify personnel involved in pursuits and their supervisors on all CAD categorized events
where no IAPro report is found to appropriate Police Chief and request appropriate administrative review for compliance. Police Chiefs will take appropriate action based upon the investigation and report same back to the AIU for inclusion in the final report and subsequent quarterly audits.
Documents

Suspense 07/30/2016 Submitted 08/03/2016 Responsible Person D/C Chalwell

Compliance 08/05/2016 Compliance Y/N
Y

5 Prepare and submit report of findings from Steps 1-4 to CD Coordinator for submission to
DOJ/IMT. Documents

Suspense 08/02/2016 Submitted 08/03/2016 Compliance 08/05/2016 Compliance Y/N

Responsible Person DC Alcendor for STT and DC Corneiro for STX

Y

IMT System ID app A 2Q6 V1 v:\step_rep.set

Page 9 of 14
Updated As Of 08/16/2016 Time: 14:08:02

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 84 of 231

Action Plan 1 - 2016 Status Report
As Of 08/05/16
j Substantial Compliance
j. all incidents involving the pointing of a firearm (if any such reporting is required); and

Appendix A to 2Q2016 IMT

Action Steps
1 Review a random selection of 1A and accompanying arrest reports involving felony cases
between 01/01/15 and 07/15/16 to determine those where there is some indication that an officer pointed a firearm at an individual or subject.
Documents

Suspense 07/22/2016 Submitted 07/22/2016 Compliance 07/27/2016 Compliance Y/N
Responsible Person DC Chalwell (M&S Group Project with assistance from Crime Analys Y

2 Create a report that lists from the IAPro system all cases with an occurrence date between
the dates in Step 1 above, where a Use of Force report has been filed indicating an officer pointed a firearm during an incident or arrest. Documents
Suspense 07/23/2016 Submitted 07/29/2016 Compliance 08/04/2016 Compliance Y/N
Responsible Person DC Chalwell (M&S Group Project with assistance from Crime Analys Y

3 Compare the lists developed in Step 1 with the list developed in Step 2 and isolate those
cases where no Use of Force report was initiated (e.g., none in file within IAPro) where one would have been required by Department Policy. Identify the officer(s) involved as well as the supervisors and initiate appropriate action, through their Police Chief, as per department policy.

Documents

Suspense 08/02/2016 Submitted 07/29/2016 Compliance 08/04/2016 Compliance Y/N

Responsible Person DC Alcendor for STT/STJ and DC Corneiro for STX

Y

4 Using the list developed in Step 3, initiate steps to have required reports prepared and
logged into IAPro. Documents

Suspense 08/02/2016 Submitted 07/29/2016 Responsible Person Tony Emanuel

Compliance 08/04/2016 Compliance Y/N
Y

IMT System ID app A 2Q6 V1 v:\step_rep.set

Page 10 of 14
Updated As Of 08/16/2016 Time: 14:08:02

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 85 of 231

Action Plan 1 - 2016 Status Report
As Of 08/05/16

Appendix A to 2Q2016 IMT

5 Provide report detailing the results of Steps 1-4 to Compliance Coordinator and request
they be forwarded to DOJ/IMT for review.

Documents

Suspense 08/05/2016 Submitted 07/29/2016 Responsible Person Greg Davila

Compliance 08/04/2016 Compliance Y/N
Y

k Substantial Compliance
k. all disciplinary action taken against officers.
Action Steps
1 Create a listing of all cases in the IAPro system where the disposition is sustained to
determine whether they were appropriately duplicated as Disciplinary Action incidents as required by VIPD policy for EIP analysis. Documents

Suspense 07/22/2016 Submitted 07/25/2016 Responsible Person A/Dir Emanuel

Compliance 07/27/2016 Compliance Y/N
Y

2 From the list in Step 1, further review those disciplinary action incidents to ensure all data is
accurate and complete. Documents

Suspense 07/24/2016 Submitted 06/24/2016 Responsible Person Tony Emanuel

Compliance

Compliance Y/N
N

3 Provide a report detailing any findings and the corrective action taken, if any, to the CD
Coordinator for transmittal to the DOJ and IMT. Documents

Suspense 07/30/2016 Submitted 07/28/2016 Responsible Person Tony Emanuel

Compliance

Compliance Y/N
N

End of Paragraph 060
IMT System ID app A 2Q6 V1 v:\step_rep.set

Page 11 of 14
Updated As Of 08/16/2016 Time: 14:08:02

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 86 of 231

Action Plan 1 - 2016 Status Report
As Of 08/05/16

Appendix A to 2Q2016 IMT

Paragraph 072

Not In Substantial Compliance

Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD will not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases

in which the disciplinary matrix indicates the imposition of discipline. The VIPD will not fail to consider

whether non-disciplinary corrective action is required in a case because discipline has been imposed on

the officer.

Sub-Paragraphs
a Not in Substantial Compliance
Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD will not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix indicates the imposition of discipline.
Action Steps
1 Develop a list of all sustained charges within VIPD in cases closed between 1/15/15 and
07/15/16.
Documents

Suspense 07/15/2016 Submitted 06/30/2016 Responsible Person Det Newton, Agent Byron

Compliance 07/27/2016 Compliance Y/N
Y

2 Identify / document discipline provided for each sustained charge.
Documents

Suspense 07/29/2016 Submitted 08/02/2016 Responsible Person Det Newton, Agent Byron

Compliance 08/05/2016 Compliance Y/N
Y

3 Assess compliance of discipline imposed with existing disciplinary policy/matrix; identify all
documented extenuating circumstances justifying variance from the policy/matrix. Documents

Suspense 07/29/2016 Submitted 08/02/2016 Responsible Person Det Newton, Agent Byron

Compliance 08/05/2016 Compliance Y/N
Y

4 Using the list from Steps 1 thru 3, determine if sustained charges were altered or
overturned and identify at what point, by whom, and if justification was noted in the action.

Documents

Suspense 07/29/2016 Submitted 08/02/2016 Responsible Person Det Newton, Agent Byron

Compliance 08/05/2016 Compliance Y/N
Y

IMT System ID app A 2Q6 V1 v:\step_rep.set

Page 12 of 14
Updated As Of 08/16/2016 Time: 14:08:02

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 87 of 231

Action Plan 1 - 2016 Status Report
As Of 08/05/16

Appendix A to 2Q2016 IMT

5 Identify/gather documentation or evidence showing discipline being served, for example;
final orders, payroll deductions, training documentation, etc. Documents

Suspense 07/29/2016 Submitted 08/02/2016 Responsible Person D/C Chalwell

Compliance

Compliance Y/N
N

6 CD Coordinator will establish a suspense system to ensure that compliance certification,
via execution of above referenced protocols are periodically submitted to the DOJ/IMT consistent with Court established quarterly reporting deadline or as prescribed by the IMT.
Documents

Suspense 08/01/2016 Submitted 07/25/2016 Responsible Person CD Coordinator Davila

Compliance 07/27/2016 Compliance Y/N
Y

b Not in Substantial Compliance
The VIPD will not fail to consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action is required in a case because discipline has been imposed on the officer.
Action Steps
1 Of those cases identified in Step 1 above in sub-paragraph a, determine from the case files
if the VIPD Investigators, Supervisors, Commanders, Chiefs or the Commissioner have taken into consideration non-disciplinary action options when recommending or administering discipline
Documents

Suspense 07/18/2016 Submitted 08/02/2016 Responsible Person D/C Chalwell

Compliance

Compliance Y/N
N

2 Based on data collected in Step 1, develop a conclusion as to compliance with the
sub-paragraph and render a report documenting the conclusion with supporting data. Documents

Suspense 07/29/2016 Submitted 08/02/2016 Responsible Person D/C Chalwell

Compliance

Compliance Y/N
N

3 Develop a section to the Audit Unit and IAB SOP that requires periodic application of the
protocols from Steps 1 and 2 above and subsequent submission of the report to the Commissioner, Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs and DOJ/IMT for compliance review.

Documents

Suspense 07/29/2016 Submitted 08/03/2016 Compliance Responsible Person AIU for SOP, DC Griffin for IAB SOP

Compliance Y/N
N

IMT System ID app A 2Q6 V1 v:\step_rep.set

Page 13 of 14
Updated As Of 08/16/2016 Time: 14:08:02

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 88 of 231

Action Plan 1 - 2016 Status Report
As Of 08/05/16

Appendix A to 2Q2016 IMT

4 Submit request for compliance certification, with all supporting documentation, to the
DOJ/IMT for review via the CD Coordinator. Documents

Suspense 08/02/2016 Submitted 08/02/2016 Responsible Person CD Coordinator Davila

Compliance

Compliance Y/N
N

5 CD Coordinator will establish a suspense system to ensure that compliance certification,
via execution of above referenced SOP protocols are periodically submitted to the DOJ/IMT consistent with Court established quarterly reporting deadline or as prescribed by the IMT.
Documents

Suspense 08/02/2016 Submitted 08/02/2016 Responsible Person CD Coordinator Davila

Compliance 08/05/2016 Compliance Y/N
Y

End of Paragraph 072 Paragraphs Reporting 2
IMT System ID app A 2Q6 V1 v:\step_rep.set

Counts Completed or Not Complteed
As Of Date Printed

Total Steps 61 Steps Completed 44 Steps Not Completed 17

Page 14 of 14
Updated As Of 08/16/2016 Time: 14:08:02

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 89 of 231 VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Appendix B to 2Q2016 IMT
ACTION PLAN FOR COMPLIANCE WITH REMAINING NONCOMPLIANT PARAGRAPHS WITHIN THE CONSENT DECREE
July 29, 2016
Jointly Developed by the Special Litigation Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice,
And The Virgin Island Police Department
And The Independent Monitor
for the U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

1

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 90 of 231 VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
PREFACE

This document contains numerous references to the review of either police reports or IAPro cases. In each case the review is generally looking at different issues related to the Consent Decree. It is recommended that the VIPD review all such references and then coordinate the reviews so that when done they address each of the varying requirements. Those we have identified are listed below as reference:

Action
Review Police Offense reports or Arrest reports Review IAPro cases logged into the system Review EIP System files

Paragraphs or sub-paragraphs where review is referenced 33-a; 36-a; 60-a; 60-d; 60-j; 100-j
34-a; 34-c; 35-b; 35-c; 60-f; 100-d; 100-f; 100-g; 100-o 59-a

There are also instances where the wording of the Consent Decree appears in more than one location. We have attempted to identify these instances and mark them so that compliance with one will result in compliance with another. These are so indicated by the text entry that states:

NOTE: See Sub-paragraph [ ] where compliance with this sub-paragraph is also measured. Compliance with either Sub-paragraph should be optionally considered compliance with this Sub-paragraph [ ]
An example is 73-a and 74-a, both of which require a review of UOF lesson plans.
In addition, numerous Steps require an initial submission as well as subsequent followon submissions. While compliance may be demonstrated for the initial and several subsequent submissions, the VIPD is cautioned that these reports are critical and necessary reports to be used by management long after compliance with the Consent Decree has been attained. It is therefore suggested that the VIPD establish a Management Reporting Document List and Schedule that creates suspense dates for submission and distribution. In addition, the VIPD should consider the issuance of a department policy that details these reports and their uses, as well mandates that

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 91 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
appropriate managers review same with their subordinate personnel in an effort to enhance the delivery of services to the general public. The IMT is available to assist the VIPD in the development of such a document.
Based on the reviews conducted to establish this Action Plan, it is also noted that the VIPD should consider the creation of a department policy that lists ALL Department Policy Definitions from whatever source document in one document and as the previous policies are reviewed, the definitions are removed and published in this consolidated format. Such an action will eliminate both the existence and potential for conflicting definitions between documents, while also providing department personnel with a central location for such definitions.
With regard to the listed Suspense Dates and Documentation/Output sections, it should be noted that many of the referenced Steps in this Action Plan require not only an initial compliance action, but also follow-on repetition of the step. These are generally noted with the words “and ongoing” after the Suspense Date. Examples would be where a specific report was generated on “09/01/16” and in the Step or Documentation sections it refers to a weekly, monthly, or quarterly production. To the extent possible this ongoing requirement has been noted but its specific absence where follow-on is clearly needed to remain in compliance is not an exclusion of the follow-on responsibility of the VIPD.
The Parties and IMT have also agreed that when, despite the VIPD’s best efforts, it appears likely that any suspense date appears unattainable, the Parties may mutually agree to postpone the suspense date by no more than 7 calendar days.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 92 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
This plan includes all of the remaining non-compliant paragraphs as reported by the IMT in the 1Q2015 Quarterly Report. While all of the paragraphs are currently carried as “Not in Substantial Compliance” by the IMT, some of the subparagraphs are either “Substantial Compliance” or “Partial Compliance” status. Plans to monitor compliance in those considered to be in “Substantial Compliance” have not been included with this plan, although a placeholder initial step has been retained for future action plan development work.
Table of Contents
Paragraph: 32 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance....................................................... 5 Paragraph: 33 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance..................................................... 12 Paragraph: 34 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance..................................................... 18 Paragraph: 35 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance..................................................... 25 Paragraph: 36 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance..................................................... 31 Paragraph: 37 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance.................................................... 35 Paragraph: 38 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance.................................................... 39 Paragraph: 44 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance..................................................... 42 Paragraph: 58 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance..................................................... 47 Paragraph: 59 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance..................................................... 51 Paragraph: 60 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance..................................................... 53 Paragraph: 69 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance..................................................... 68 Paragraph: 71 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance..................................................... 69 Paragraph: 72 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance..................................................... 71 Paragraph: 73 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance..................................................... 74 Paragraph: 74 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance..................................................... 76 Paragraph: 77 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance..................................................... 83 Paragraph: 81 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance..................................................... 85 Paragraph: 100 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance................................................... 90 Paragraph: 101 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance................................................. 107

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 93 of 231 VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016

Paragraph: 32 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance
CD Content: The VIPD will require all uses of force to be documented in writing. The Use of Force report form will indicate each and every type of force that was used, and require the evaluation of each type of force. Use of force reports will include a narrative description of the events preceding the Use of Force, written by a supervisor or by the designated investigative unit. Use of force reports also will include the officer(s)’ narrative description of events and the officer(s)’ statement. Except in cases of Use of Force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, the officer’s statement shall be audio- or videotaped.
Suspense Date: 09/01/16 Responsible Person: Acting Chief Jason Marsh
Sub-Paragraph: a
Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: =>95% of Use of Force incidents are documented in Response to Resistance Reports (RRR) and investigated by a supervisor or designated investigating officer. Deficiencies are being identified by audit and corrected by agency interventions.
Sub-Paragraph: b
Current Status: Partial Compliance Content: => 95% of RRRs indicate each and every type of force that was used
Step Number: 1 Action: Use of Force Work Group will conduct weekly review of submitted drafts of Use of Force cases turned into the Chiefs Office and critique for compliance within the Consent Decree and VIPD policies.
Documentation/Output: Weekly review summary of problems and corrective actions and ongoing. Suspense Date: 05/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Police Chiefs
Step Number: 2 Action: Per Step 2, Use of Force Work Group will prepare deficiency letters for specific cases that are not in compliance with the Consent Decree and route deficiency letters, with corrective action suspense dates, down to VIPD Commanders and/or Supervisors.
Documentation/Output: Copies of deficiency letters prepared and forwarded with suspense dates. Suspense Date: 05/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Detective Vivianne Newton

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

5

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 94 of 231 VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016

Step Number: 3 Action: Conduct supervisory training in reporting, reviewing, and investigating Use of Force. IMT has agreed to a request from the Use of Force Work Group to conduct a 7-hour block of instruction in Supervisory Investigation of Use of Force scheduled for delivery 06/27-30/16 on STT and STX.
Documentation/Output: Copies of attendance rosters. Suspense Date: 07/01/16 Responsible Person: Sergeant David Sullivan and IMT

Step Number: 4 Action: VIPD Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs will meet with Commanders and Supervisors to discuss Use of Force concepts and principles as outlined in the Consent Decree and VIPD Policy. This will be done by June 20, 2016 and followed up weekly for compliance and/or correction on deficiencies.
Documentation/Output: Attendance rosters from weekly meetings. Suspense Date: 06/20/16 Responsible Person: Deputy Chiefs
Step Number: 5 Action: Publish and distribute Commissioner’s Directive 008-2016 detailing supervisory response to Use of Force incidents which requires the use of any available supervisor for this function. This directive will be coordinated with VITEMA regarding supervisory schedules on a continuing basis. Prepare cover letter to go along with Commissioner’s Directive 08-2016 and forward to 911 Manager. Schedules will be forwarded daily to VITEMA.
Documentation/Output: Commissioner Directive 008-2016 Suspense Date: 06/12/16 Responsible Person: Dr. Bellot (directive publication and distribution); Deputy Police Chiefs (VITEMA forwarding of CD 008-2016)
Step Number: 6 Action: Prepare Chief’s and Supervisor’s Commander’s Call / Roll Call MiniLesson Plan on implementation and content of Commissioner’s Directive 0082016.
Documentation/Output: Lesson plans for use by Commanders and Supervisors at meetings referenced in Step 7, below Suspense Date: 08/01/16 Responsible Person: Detective Vivianne Newton
Step Number: 7 Action: Conduct Roll Call training on Commissioner’s Directive 08-2016.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 95 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Documentation/Output: Attendance rosters and training update certification for data entry to Power DMS for training conducted. Suspense Date: 08/01/16 Responsible Person: Chiefs of Police for each island (instructional delivery, attendance roster generation and collection); Training Director (Data entry Power DMS).
Step Number: 8 Action: Mandate supervisors upload video and/or audio statements in Blue Team via District Chief Directive. If unable to do so, a hard copy of the video will be submitted to IAB with the file. This will be reviewed and monitored by UOFWG at weekly meetings.
Documentation/Output: Video upload summary for the previous week, submitted by the Wednesday of the following week. Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs
Step Number: 9 Action: If supervisors are unable to upload video or audio statements from local Zone computers, coordinate with Ms. Tweede, Acting Director MIS, and obtain any needed updates.
Documentation/Output: Certification from Deputy Chief of computer capability or request for upgrades to MIS Acting Director Ms. Tweede (MIS response to upgrade requests if any) Suspense Date: 06/30/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Ms. Tweede, Acting Director MIS (computer fixes), Deputy Chiefs (for checking capability and notification to Ms. Tweede)
Step Number: 10 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date:10/01/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: c
Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Content: =>95% of RRRs contain an evaluation of each type of force used by a supervisor

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 96 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Step Number: 1 Action: Use of Force Work Group will conduct weekly review of draft Use of Force cases turned into the Chiefs’ Office and critique for compliance with the Consent Decree and VIPD policies.
Documentation/Output: Copies of weekly spreadsheets Suspense Date: 05/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Acting Chief Jason Marsh/ Detective Vivianne Newton
Step Number: 2 Action: Per Action Step #1, Use of Force Work Group will prepare deficiency letters for specific cases that are not in compliance with the Consent Decree and route deficiency letters to VIPD Commanders and/or Supervisors.
Documentation/Output: Letter of deficiencies Suspense Date: 05/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Detective Vivianne Newton
Step Number: 3 Action: Conduct supervisory training in reporting, reviewing and investigating Use of Force as referenced in sup-paragraph b, above.
Documentation/Output: Attendance Rosters & IMT Program of Instruction Suspense Date: 07/17/16 Responsible Person: Sergeant David Sullivan and IMT

Step Number: 4 Action: Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs will meet with Commanders and Supervisors to review and discuss the deficiencies noted by the workgroup in the previously issued deficiency letters, to include a discussion for addressing any necessary corrective actions.
Documentation/Output: Roll Call Training Sheets Suspense Date: 06/11/16, and ongoing Responsible Person: Deputy Chiefs

Step Number: 5 Action: Review supervisory response to Use of Force incidents as required by Commissioner Directive 008-2016 at Commander’s Calls and Zone and Unit meetings as key to successful compliance with paragraphs 32 thru 38 and VIPD Policy 3.2
Documentation/Output: Commander’s Call sign in sheets, roll call sheets, and reminders sent by the Use of Force Workgroup Suspense Date: 07/01/16

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 97 of 231 VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Responsible Person: Chiefs, Deputy Chief’s, Unit Commanders and Supervisors

Step Number: 6 Action: Have Police Commissioner issue directive mandating supervisors upload video and/or audio statements in Blue Team. If unable to do so, travel to IAB and seek assistance. This will be reviewed and monitored by UOFWG at weekly meetings and any non-compliance will be handled by the Deputy Chiefs and Chiefs of Police.
Documentation/Output: Commissioner’s Directive “Blue Team Protocol” Suspense Date: 05/26/16 Responsible Person: Dr. Naomi Bellot/ Police Commissioner Signature
Step Number: 7 Action: Conduct Roll Call training on Commissioner’s Directive 08-2016 for supervisors traveling to scenes of Use of Force. Chiefs will ensure that Commanders receive a copy of this directive to be distributed amongst the supervisors and officers. Distribution of the directive and documentation should be completed by June 4, 2016.
Documentation/Output: Attendance rosters and training update certification for data entry to Power DMS for training conducted. Suspense Date: 06/30/16 Responsible Person: Chiefs of Police for each island (attendance roster generation and collection); Training Director (data entry Power DMS).

Step Number: 8 Action: Mandate supervisors upload video and/or audio statements in Blue Team. If unable to do so, a hard copy of the video will be submitted to IAB with the file. This will be reviewed and monitored by UOFWG at weekly meetings.
Documentation/Output: Lists of videos uploaded to Blue Team for the preceding month, due on the 10th of the each month Suspense Date: 08/10/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Deputy Chiefs of Police

Step Number: 9 Action: Confirm with MIS Acting Director K. Tweede about upload capabilities for Zones, Commanders and Supervisors.
Documentation/Output: Email sent out by Ms. Tweede/ Periodic Checks by UOFWG Suspense Date: 06/3016

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

9

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 98 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Responsible Person: Acting Chief Jason Marsh
Step Number: 10 Action: Conduct a review of officer notification of supervisor when Use of Force occurs; have 911 identify and direct an available supervisor to travel to UOF scene if there is no supervisor on-duty for the involved officer’s squad. This should be completed by June 4, 2016
Documentation/Output: Roll Call Training Sheets Suspense Date: 06/04/16 Responsible Person: Deputy Chiefs Alcendor and Corneiro
Step Number: 11 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date:10/01/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: d
Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: =>95% of RRRs contain a narrative description of the events preceding the Use of Force written by the supervisor or assigned investigator.
Sub-Paragraph: e
Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: =>95% of the reports will include a statement written by the officer using the force that contains a narrative of the events.
Sub-Paragraph: f Current Status: Partial Compliance Content: =>95% of the reports will include an audio or videotaped statement, unless the level of force used is at the lowest level as described by DOJ-approved VIPD policy.
Step Number: 1 Action: Determine that VIPD Blue Team software and equipment has the capacity to upload videos;
Documentation/Output: Report by Ms. Tweede/ Periodic Checks by UOFWG Suspense Date: 06/30/16

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 99 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Responsible Person: Ms. Tweede, MIS re Blue Team; Deputy Chiefs of Police/Chiefs of Police (check of Blue Team capability and/or request for MIS upgrade)
Step Number: 2 Action: Prepare deficiency letters for specific cases that are not in compliance with the required taping of statements and subsequent inclusion within the case file either by Blue Team upload or hand carry to IAB.
Documentation/Output: Report listing all cases that fail to meet requirement, annotated with actions taken by management/ Deficiency Letters Suspense Date: 06/15/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Chiefs of Police

Step Number: 3 Action: Meet with Commanders and supervisors in reference to workgroup’s previously identified deficiencies. This will initially commence by June 20, 2016 and then followed up on a weekly basis.
Documentation/Output: Notes from weekly meetings, report detailing specific actions taken or modifications to policies and procedures resultant of these meetings. Suspense Date: 06/20/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Deputy Chiefs

Step Number: 4 Action: Include requirement for briefing about the deficiencies identify above in all Commander’s Call meetings and take appropriate discipline for supervisors who fail to meet the requirements.
Documentation/Output: Commander’s Call agendas. Roll Call Training Sheets from Police Chief and/or Deputy Chief meetings with supervisors. Include disciplinary outcomes for non-compliance. Suspense Date: 08/05/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Police Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs
Step Number: 5 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Certification by the Deputy Commissioner or his designee that compliance has been achieved, with reference to previously submitted documents (listing). Suspense Date: 08/04/16 Responsible Person: Police Chiefs and Deputy Police Chiefs

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

11

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 100 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Paragraph: 33 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance
CD Content: Officers shall notify their supervisors following any Use of Force or upon the receipt of an allegation of excessive force. Except in uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ, supervisors will respond to the scene, examine the subject for injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain, and ensure that the subject received needed medical attention.
Suspense Date: 10/01/16 Responsible Person: Acting Chief Jason Marsh
Sub-Paragraph: a
Current Status: Partial Compliance Content: In =>95% of the identified Use of Force incidents, the officer using force notified his/her supervisor immediately as required by VIPD policy.
Step Number: 1 Action: Review twenty (20) percent of Offense and Arrest Reports initiated during the previous calendar quarter and compare those indicating a requirement for Use of Force reporting with related entries into the IAPro system. Identify all failures by officers to complete Use of Force reporting documents and initiate appropriate administrative investigatory action and document the fact that no discrepancies were found on a quarterly basis.
Documentation/Output: Memoranda from AIU Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: AIU
Step Number: 2 Action: Prepare a report of actions taken during the quarter based on findings found in Step 1 and distribute to supervisors and use as a training and reinforcement tool during Commander’s Call.
Documentation/Output: Report referenced above; agendas from Commander’s Call along with attendance rosters of those meetings. Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Deputy Chiefs
Step Number: 3 Action: Direct supervisors to incorporate reinforcement of the why and how to notify supervisors to respond to incidents where Use of Force was used at roll calls and all one–on-one counseling or performance review sessions. Supervisors will log such activity and include in current monthly reporting materials or initiate a separate report, if necessary, to Deputy Chiefs.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

12

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 101 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Documentation/Output: Copies of supervisory reports documenting the above. Suspense Date: 09/01/16and ongoing Responsible Person: All Supervisors; follow-up by Deputy Chiefs

Step Number: 4 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 10/01/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: b Current Status: Partial Compliance Content: In =>90% of the incidents where the supervisor was required to respond to the scene, he/she responded within a reasonable amount of time.
Step Number: 1 Action: Have requirements of Commissioner Directive 008-2016 reviewed and documented at roll calls and Commander’s Calls during the 2Q2016 Court calendar; continue on a quarterly basis going forward.
Documentation/Output: Certification of compliance via existing monthly reporting or special memorandum forwarded at least once a monthly basis. Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Supervisors with follow up by Deputy Chiefs
Step Number: 2 Action: Using protocol noted in Step 1 and 2 of sub-paragraph a, initiate and follow-up on all instances where officers failed to notify their supervisor to respond and or where if the officer did notify, the supervisor did not respond. Prepare an addition to monthly reports (including those that have already been submitted) to the District Police Chief detailing all such instances and current status of the administrative actions taken.
Documentation/Output: Referenced monthly status report of failures discovered and actions taken regarding notification of supervisors to respond. Suspense Date: 10/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Supervisors, with follow up by Deputy Chiefs
Step Number: 3 Action: Develop mini-lesson plan from the IMT developed instruction.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

13

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 102 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Documentation/Output: Copy of mini-lesson plan, approved by the Training Director Suspense Date: 119/01/16 Responsible Person: Training Division
Step Number: 4 Action: Conduct reinforcement training in UOF investigations (see Step 2, Paragraph 32-f for additional information).
Documentation/Output: Mini-lesson plan, attendance rosters for training delivered; scheduled make-up training, if needed). Suspense Date: 12/01/16 Responsible Person: Supervisors, District command staff (instructional delivery)
Step Number: 5 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 10/01/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: c Current Status: Partial Compliance Content: In =>90% of the incidents where the supervisor was required to respond to the scene, he/she examined the person for injury.
Step Number: 1 Action: Conduct weekly review of pending cases turned into the Chief’s Office since 05/06/16 for compliance with reporting requirements concerning checking for the need for medical care of subjects at the scene. Identify failures to comply with policy and prepare a monthly report detailing the results.
Documentation/Output: Deficiency letters and spreadsheet developed from the review of incidents and UOF reporting documents. Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Deputy Chiefs
Step Number: 2

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

14

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 103 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Action: Based on results contained in report referenced in Step 1, conduct an inquiry and initiate appropriate administrative action against those who failed to follow policy
Documentation/Output: Report from Step 1, updated with administrative action taken against violators of policy. Suspense Date: 09/01/16 ongoing Responsible Person: Deputy Chiefs
Step Number: 3 Action: Conduct Investigating and Reporting Use of Force training; follow-up with mini-presentations monthly during Commander’s Calls.
Documentation/Output: Attendance rosters from IMT June training for supervisors; previously mentioned mini-lesson plan Suspense Date: 09/01/16 Responsible Person Training Director (min-lesson plan) and IMT (UOF Training for Supervisors lesson plans and attendance rosters; Unit commanders and supervisors (attendance rosters from follow-on training)

Step Number: 4 Action: Conduct District level Commander’s Call that includes supervisors, to review the data contained in Step 1 report. Reinforce that without the supervisor responding, there is no way for the supervisor to examine the subject for injuries and the need for medical treatment.
Documentation/Output: Commander’s Call agenda; min-lesson plan; Chief’s and Deputy Chief’s notes; attendance rosters Suspense Date: 09/01/16 Responsible Person: Training Director (min-lesson plan); Police Chiefs and Deputy Police Chiefs (attendance rosters, notes, and agenda)

Step Number: 5 Action: Supervisors will, during roll calls, reemphasize the importance of promptly requesting that a supervisor respond to the scene as without response compliance with the medial care check is impossible. Supervisors will document this action and repeat at least monthly. Documentation should be provided of training via roll call sign in sheets and supervisory reports regarding subjects covered.
Documentation/Output: Documentation of roll call reinforcement (supervisory reports and attendance rosters) Suspense Date: 09/01/16 Responsible Person: Supervisors (delivery of message; reports; and roll call sheets) and Deputy Chiefs (collection of compliance certification.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 104 of 231 VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016

Step Number: 6 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date:10/01/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: d Current Status: Partial Compliance Content: In =>90% of the incidents where a supervisor was required to respond to the scene, he/she interviewed the subject for injury or complaint of pain.
Step Number: 1 Action: See steps under 33-c; include in meetings and documentation review, that the supervisor not only checked the subject for any injuries but also interviewed the subject about any injuries or complaints of pain.
Documentation/Output: Same as required for 33-c above Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Same as in 33-c, above.
Step Number: 2 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date:10/01/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: e Current Status: Partial Compliance Content: In =>90% of the incidents where the Supervisors were required to respond to the scene, he/she ensured that subjects received any necessary medical attention.
Step Number: 1 Action: See steps under 33-c; include in meetings and documentation review, that the supervisor not only checked the subject for any injuries but also ensured that subjects received any necessary medical attention.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

16

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 105 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Documentation/Output: Same as required for 33-c above Suspense Date: 09/15/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Same as 33-c, above.
Step Number: 2 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date:10/01/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

17

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 106 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Paragraph: 34 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance
CD Content: Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, will review, evaluate, and document each Use of Force, and will complete the narrative description section of the Use of Force report. The narrative description will include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer's conduct. As part of this review, the supervisor or designated investigating officer/unit will evaluate the basis for the Use of Force, and determine whether the officer's actions were within VIPD policy. An officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized conduct leading to the Use of Force or allegation of excessive force, or who was present during the incident, will not be eligible to review or investigate the incident.
Suspense Date: 01/20/17 Responsible Person: Acting Chief Jason Marsh
Sub-Paragraph: a Current Status: Partial Compliance Content: In =>95% of the reportable Use of Force incidents, the investigating supervisor had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he/she was not involved in the Use of Force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize or participate in conduct leading to the Use of Force incident), and will review, evaluate, and document each Use of Force.
Step Number: 1 Action: Using a checklist, conduct a review of UOF cases loaded into IAPro which occurred between 01/01/16 and 07/15/16 to determine if the investigating supervisor or commander was
1. Not involved in the incident, 2. His conduct did not lead to an injury, and 3. He did not authorize or participate in conduct leading to the incident.
Documentation/Output: Report/spreadsheet based on the actions indicated and results found. Suspense Date: 08/15/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Agent Chenelle Skepple
Step Number: 2 Action: Based on the results of the review,
1. Prepare a report that lists any cases found which did not confirm to the referenced policy and indicate what actions will be taken to rectify the situation, or 2. If no violations are found, prepare certification report listing the number of cases reviewed and that no violations were found.
Documentation/Output: UOFWG Spreadsheet; report listing cases and actions to be taken; or certification report.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

18

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 107 of 231 VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Detective Vivianne Newton

Step Number: 3 Action: AIU will include this checkpoint on a master checklist used to review cases upon receipt for compliance with investigative and reporting criteria.
Documentation/Output: Copy of updated checklist. Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors
Step Number: 4 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date:10/01/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: b Current Status: Partial Compliance Content: In =>90% of the reportable Use of Force incidents, the supervisor completes the supervisor's narrative description of the RRR in a manner that comports with VIPD Policy 3.2 requirements.
Step Number: 1 Action: Using a random sampling technique, a review of narratives found in cases between 07/01/16 and December 31, 2016 loaded into IAPro will be conducted to determine sub-paragraph compliance with Policy 3.2, using a checklist developed in response to that policy.
Documentation/Output: Report/spreadsheet with actions indicated and results. Suspense Date: 01/15/17 Responsible Person: Deputy Chiefs
Step Number: 2 Action: Based on the review in Step 1, a findings report will be generated that lists the cases reviewed and the results of that review, indicating any cases which fail to meet the requirement.
Documentation/Output: Deficiency Letters Suspense Date: 01/22/17

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 108 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Responsible Person: Detective Vivianne
Step Number: 3 Action: If the review referenced in Step 1 identifies cases that do not meet the requirement, actions will be initiated to remedy the situation and the case files updated. Such action will be updated to the report referenced in Step 2
Documentation/Output: Report detailing actions taken by case discovered. Suspense Date: 01/29/17 Responsible Person: Deputy Chiefs
Step Number: 4 Action: Chiefs and deputy chiefs will continue to conduct case reviews upon receipt of new cases to reflect an ongoing review of narratives to ensure compliance with Policy 3.2.
Documentation/Output: Report or spreadsheet documenting the review and results found. Suspense Date: 0901/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Deputy Chiefs
Step Number: 5 Action: IAB will continue to monitor the AIU Quarterly Audit for indications of found non-compliance and take appropriate corrective action, reporting such action back to the AIU.
Documentation/Output: Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors, AIU Director
Step Number: 6 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date:10/01/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: c Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

20

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 109 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Content: In =>90% of the reportable Use of Force incidents, the supervisor completed his/her review and evaluation according to VIPD's Use of Force policies and all other requirements of Paragraph 34 of the Consent Decree and including a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer/s conduct.
Step Number: 1 Action: Using the Reviewer’s Checklist conduct a review of all cases submitted between 01/01/16 and 07/15/16, focusing on the RRR template documents for compliance with the sub-paragraph requirements and include a review of potential use of less lethal alternatives.
Documentation/Output: Checklist developed by the UOFWG Suspense Date: 08/15/16 Responsible Person: Agent Chenelle Skepple
Step Number: 2 Action: Based on the results of the review, prepare a report that details
1. The case number reviewed; 2. The name of the investigating officer/supervisor; 3. The name of reviewer; 4. The specific failure to comply with the requirements found in the case preparation; and 5. The recommended remedy.
Documentation/Output: Report; Deficiencies letters being sent out. Suspense Date: 08/22/16 Responsible Person: Detective Vivianne Newton

Step Number: 3 Action: Based on the report generated in Step 2, Police Chiefs, and Deputy Chiefs, will determine and list the anticipated actions to be taken in each case where a failure exists and annotate the report with same, including a suspense date for completion of the action.
Documentation/Output: Updated report; Charges or remedial training request document Suspense Date: 09/15/16 Responsible Person: Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs

Step Number: 4 Action: Forward a copy of the referenced report to the AIU for their record and use in future auditing of compliance. AIU should include a step within their next audit to random sample the cases indicated in the report during their next quarterly audit.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

21

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 110 of 231 VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016

Documentation/Output: Spreadsheet; AIU certify inclusion in AIU protocols Suspense Date: 10/01/16 Responsible Person: Detective Vivianne Newton

Step Number: 5 Action: Forward a quarterly report detailing a list of the finding categories (not each case, but rather a statement of what went wrong as revealed by the findings) to the Training Division for use in training needs analysis and/or review and update to existing training related to this paragraph.
Documentation/Output: Report prepared deputy chiefs Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and ongoing following the quarter Responsible Person: Detective Vivianne Newton
Step Number: 6 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date:10/01/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: d Current Status: Partial Compliance Content: In =>90% of the reportable Use of Force incidents, the supervisor completed his/her review and evaluation according to VIPD's Use of Force policies and all other requirements of Paragraph 31 of the Consent Decree and will evaluate the basis for the Use of Force, and determine whether the officer’s actions were within VIPD policy.
Step Number: 1 Action: During the review previously indicated in sub-paragraph c, Step 1, the results of the investigating officer’s conclusions regarding whether the involved officer’s actions were within policy will be included. The appropriate VIPD policy that governs the involved officer’s actions will be used as the basis for the review. In each case, the reviewer should review the elements of the policy that governed the involved officer’s response and address each in the analysis.
Documentation/Output: UOFWG Spreadsheet & Deficiency Letters Suspense Date: 08/15/16 Responsible Person: Detective Vivianne Newton

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

22

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 111 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Step Number: 2 Action: Based on the review, prepare a report that lists,
1. The case number and date submitted, 2. The involved officer’s name, 3. The investigating officer’s name, 4. The deficiencies found during the review, and 5. Recommended corrective action
Documentation/Output: Letters of deficiencies Suspense Date: 08/22/16 Responsible Person: Detective Vivianne Newton
Step Number: 3 Action: Based on the report generated in Step 2, Police Chiefs, in conjunction Deputy Chiefs, will determine and list the anticipated actions to be taken in each case where a failure exists and annotate the report with same, including a suspense date for completion of the action
Documentation/Output: updated report Suspense Date: 09/15/16 Responsible Person: Detective Vivianne Newton
Step Number: 4 Action: Forward a copy of the referenced report to the AIU for their record and use in future auditing of compliance. AIU should include a step within their next audit to random sample the cases indicated in the report during their next quarterly audit.
Documentation/Output: Spreadsheet for audit; AIU certification of inclusion in Audit protocols Suspense Date: 10/01/16 Responsible Person: Detective Vivianne Newton
Step Number: 5 Action: Forward a quarterly report detailing a list of the finding categories (not each case, but rather a statement of what went wrong as revealed by the findings) to the Training Division for use in training needs analysis and/or review and update to existing training related to this paragraph.
Documentation/Output: Report as described within the step. Suspense Date: 10/01/16 quarterly by 10th of the of the following month Responsible Person: Detective Vivianne Newton

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

23

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 112 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Step Number: 6 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date:10/01/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: e Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: Did the investigator and/or the reviewer have any part in the conduct that led to the injury or authorized conduct leading to the Use of Force or an allegation of excessive force?

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 113 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Paragraph: 35 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance
CD Content: The parties agree that it is improper interview procedure during Use of Force investigations to ask officers or other witness’s leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer's conduct when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. In each review/investigation, the VIPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. The VIPD will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. The VIPD will train all of its supervisors and officers assigned to conduct Use of Force investigations in conducting Use of Force investigations, including in the factors to consider when evaluating credibility.
Suspense Date: 11/15/16 Responsible Person: Acting Chief Jason Marsh

Sub-Paragraph: a Current Status: Partial Compliance Content: In =>90% of the interviews conducted during Use of Force reviews, leading questions were avoided.
Step Number: 1 Action: Using a random sampling technique determined by the AIU, will determine whether leading questions were used in the recorded interviews or interrogations contained within the case files between 01/01/16 and 07/15/16. A standardized checklist of indicators will be prepared by the IAB Supervisors to check for leading questions and used to conduct the review.
Documentation/Output: Copies of checklist developed by IAB and used to conduct the review; Suspense Date: 09/01/16 Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors
Step Number: 2 Action: Based on the results of the review in Step 1, a report will be generated that indicates, as a minimum, the following:
1. The case number reviewed, 2. The name and duty assignment of the interviewer, who conducted the reviewed interview, 3. The conclusions from the review of the interviews as to whether leading questions were utilized, 4. Recommended remedies, including retraining of interviewers.
Documentation/Output: Report

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

25

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 114 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Suspense Date: 9/15/16 Responsible Person: Detective Vivianne Newton
Step Number: 3 Action: The results indicated in Step 2, will be reviewed by Deputy Chiefs and Department command staff, with representation of those personnel who conducted the interviewing skills training within the department, to determine appropriate courses of action to prevent future failures to comply with the subparagraph and VIPD policy.
Documentation/Output: Results of the meetings detailed in a solutions report with suspense dates and responsible personnel. Suspense Date: 10/01/16 Responsible Person: Deputy Chiefs with Training Director
Step Number: 4 Action: The AIU Commander will ensure that a system is put in place that randomly samples the interviews submitted to the case files for the use of leading questions and that:
1. Appropriate action are taken to improve the performance of assigned investigators 2. Suggested improvements or corrective action be recommended to the Training Director for modifications of department interviewing skill straining, 3. That respective commanders are notified where interview skill deficiencies of non-IAB personnel are noted.
Documentation/Output: Report/spreadsheet with results of periodic sampling and actions taken. Suspense Date: 09/01/16 Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors
Step Number: 5 Action: Deficiencies found as a result of the actions in Steps 1-3 will be forwarded to the AIU for inclusion in their future auditing protocols. The results of the periodic checking of these interviews in the future will be forwarded to the AIU quarterly in conjunction with their quarterly audit schedule.
Documentation/Output: Report produced in Step 3. Suspense Date: 10/01/16 Responsible Person: Detective Vivianne Newton
Step Number: 6

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

26

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 115 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date:11/01/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: b Current Status: Partial Compliance Content: In =>90% of the Use of Force reviews, all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence is documented and appropriately considered, and credibility determinations made, if feasible.
Step Number: 1 Action: A review of cases between 01/01/16 and 07/15/16 will be conducted to determine if all relevant evidence as required by the sub-paragraph, was documented and considered and if credibility was evaluated. In doing so, the review should list for each case reviewed, the following regarding each type of evidence found or referenced within the file:
1. Type of evidence (physical, testimonial, circumstantial, etc.) 2. Evaluation made of that evidence as to credibility or relationship to the incident, 3. Consideration placed upon each item of evidence in coming to an investigatory conclusion, and 4, Stated impact, if any, of the evidence on the findings.
Documentation/Output: Blue team printouts and any identified separate actions needed in a separate report to the appropriate VIPD unit (e.g., Training, Policy Management, etc.) Suspense Date: 08/15/16 Responsible Person: Deputy Chiefs
Step Number: 2 Action: Based on the results of the review in Step 1, prepare a report indicating,
1. Number of cases reviewed 2. Case numbers where failures to properly evaluated in response to the subparagraph, 3. Suggested remedies to either correct the case conclusion if necessary, or 4. Changes that need to be made to department training or policy.
Documentation/Output: Deficiency Letters Suspense Date: 09/01/16

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

27

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 116 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Responsible Person: Detective Vivianne Newton
Step Number: 3 Action: Use of force work group checklist, with necessary changes, to provide for review of all incoming or generated case files for compliance with the subparagraph using the results of the review as guidance.
Documentation/Output: UOFWG Checklist Suspense Date: 10/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Agent Chenelle Skepple
Step Number: 4 Action: Report will be generated quarterly and forwarded to the Training Division detailing recommended changes to departmental training programs identified during the review.
Documentation/Output: Quarterly report of recommended changes to department training programs. Suspense Date: 11/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Deputy Chiefs
Step Number: 5 Action: A copy of the report will be submitted quarterly to the AIU for use in future audit protocols.
Documentation/Output: AIU certification of receipt and focus are inclusion in audit protocols Suspense Date: 12/01/16 Responsible Person: Acting Police Chief Jason Marsh
Step Number: 6 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date:01/01/17 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: c Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Content: In =>90% of investigations where material inconsistencies are present between witness statements, reasonable efforts are made to resolve the

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

28

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 117 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
inconsistencies. When evaluating witness credibility, appropriate factors are considered and documented.
Step Number: 1 Action: During the review noted in Sub-paragraphs a and b, above, reviewers will determine if material inconsistencies exist between statements and that reasonable efforts were made to resolve them.
Documentation/Output: Deficiency Letters Suspense Date: 09/01/16 Responsible Person: Detective Vivianne Newton & Deputy Chiefs
Step Number: 2 Action: Based on the result of the review a report will be generated that lists, as a minimum, the following,
1. Number of cases reviewed, 2. Listing of the cases where inconsistencies were found, 3. Of those cases, an evaluation if the investigator appropriately evaluated the witness’ credibility and the measures by which he/she did so, and 4. Evaluations documented within the case file.
Documentation/Output: Report; Deficiency letters uploaded to blue team Suspense Date: 09/15/16 Responsible Person: Detective Vivianne Newton
Step Number: 3 Action: Police Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs will review this report and determine where appropriate corrective action should be taken and what action that will be.
Documentation/Output: Monthly report of results of the process. Suspense Date: 10/01/16 Responsible Person: Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs
Step Number: 4 Action: Report will be generated quarterly and forwarded to the Training Division detailing recommended changes to departmental training programs. These actions can be corrective to the case investigation and subsequent administrative actions or can be disciplinary in nature if appropriate
Documentation/Output: Report referenced Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Chief and Deputy Chiefs
Step Number: 5

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

29

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 118 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Action: The report referenced in Step 2, will be updated with the final results of the actions taken and forwarded to the AIU for use in future audit protocols,
Documentation/Output: Certification of receipt by AIU and inclusion as focus area in audit protocols. Suspense Date: 10/01/16 Responsible Person: Acting Police Chief Jason Marsh
Step Number: 6 Action: IAB Supervisors will update the appropriate suspense file, list, or data system to reflect the protocols used during the review and ensure that checks are in place to review all incoming cases for compliance with the sub-paragraph
Documentation/Output: Copy of updated section of the updated suspense file, list, or data system entry Suspense Date: 10/15/16 Responsible Person: IAB Supervisor
Step Number: 7 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 11/01/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: d Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: =>95% of supervisors are trained on how to conduct, review, and evaluate Use of Force incidents, including but not limited to, what factors to consider when evaluating witness credibility.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

30

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 119 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Paragraph: 36 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance
CD Content: Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall conduct an investigation of all uses of force or injury resulting from a Use of Force by any officer under their command. This requirement does not apply to uses of force involving the lowest level of force as defined in VIPD policy as approved by DOJ. In an investigation, supervisors or designated investigating officers or units, shall interview all witnesses to a Use of Force or an injury resulting from a Use of Force. Consistent with the requirements of the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable law, VIPD supervisors or designated investigating officers or units shall ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all Use of Force reports for all levels of force identify all officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports for all levels of force indicate whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided, and whether the subject refused medical treatment. Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all reports include contemporaneous photographs or videotapes taken of all injuries at the earliest practicable opportunity, both before and after any treatment, including cleansing of wounds.
Suspense Date: 01/01/17 Responsible Person: Acting Chief Jason Marsh
Sub Paragraph a Current Status: Partial Compliance Content: =>90% of the Use of Force reports, the supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, who supervised the officer using the force, conducted the investigation of all uses of force or injury resulting from the Use of Force by that officer. This requirement does not apply to the lowest level Use of Force as defined in DOJ approved VIPD policy.
Step Number: 1 Action: VIPD will conduct a random audit of police reports 01/01/16 through 07/15/16 to ensure all force incidents are properly documented according to the Consent Decree and policy, and failures will be referred to the Police Chiefs for action consistent with policy.
Documentation/Output: Recent evaluation audit conducted by IMT Suspense Date: 10/01/16 Responsible Person: Audit Unit
Step/ Task Number: 2 Action: Internal Affairs Analyst will conduct weekly reviews of all force levels and ensure a supervisor conducted an investigation in Levels II and III and an

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

31

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 120 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
officer notified the supervisor in a Level IV force incident. Failures to follow policy will be referred to the Police Chiefs for action consistent with policy.
Documentation/Output: Copies of analyst’s weekly reports Suspense Date: 11/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: EIP Analysts
Step Number: 3 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 12/01/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: b Current Status: Partial Compliance Content: In =>90% of reportable Use of Force incidents, all witnesses, to the extent practicable, are interviewed in the investigating supervisor's reports.
Step Number: 1 Action: Immediate reviewers of force incidents will ensure all witnesses are interviewed in all cases submitted.
Documentation/Output: Deficiency letters uploaded to blue team Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Deputy Chief Chiefs
Step Number: 2 Action: Immediate reviewers in the chain of command of force incidents will ensure witnesses listed in the criminal report are also documented in the force investigation report submitted.
Documentation/Output: Deficiency letters uploaded to Blue Team Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Deputy Chiefs
Step Number: 3 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 10/01/16

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

32

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 121 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph c Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: In =>90% of reportable Use of Force incidents, the investigating supervisor will identify and interview all officer witnesses and document in writing. This requirement will be in compliance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement and any other applicable law.
Sub-Paragraph d Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Content: In =>90% of Use of Force reports, Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all Use of Force reports for all levels of force identify all officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred.
Step Number: 1 Action: Immediate reviewers in the chain of command of force incidents will ensure all involved and witness officers are listed in the force investigation report in all cases submitted.
Documentation/Output: Letters of deficiency uploaded into blue team Suspense Date: 06/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Deputy Chiefs
Step Number: 2 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date:10/01/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: e Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: In =>90% of Use of Force reports, Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all Use of Force reports for all levels of force identify all officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred.
Sub-Paragraph: f Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: In => 90% of reportable Use of Force incidents did the investigating officer determine if injuries had occurred?

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

33

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 122 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Sub-Paragraph: g Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: In =>90% of reportable Use of Force incidents did the investigating officer ensure that medical care was provided if injuries occurred?
Sub-Paragraph: h Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: If injuries were noted and care offered, was the medical care refused?
Sub-Paragraph: i Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: In =>90% of the reportable Use of Force indicants were all required photos obtained?

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

34

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 123 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Paragraph: 37 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance
CD Content: All investigations into Use of Force shall be reviewed by the Officer's Commander and/or Director, or by a Commander and/or Director in the designated investigative unit, who shall identify any deficiencies in those reviews, and shall require supervisors, or designated investigative officers or units, to correct any and all deficiencies. Supervisors, and designated investigative officers or units, will be held accountable for the quality of their reviews. Appropriate non-disciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary action will be taken when a supervisor, or designated investigative officer or unit, fails to conduct a timely and thorough review, or neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action, or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action. As provided by VIPD policy and approved by DOJ, designated command staff shall further review the Commander and/or Director's reviews according to the level of force involved.
Suspense Date: 10/15/16 Responsible Person: Acting Chief Jason Marsh
Sub-Paragraph: a Current Status: Partial Compliance Content: =>90% of the completed Use of Force case files contained signed documentation from the Chief and/or Deputy Chief indicating that he/she reviewed the completed investigation and the date of such review. In these cases, were all appropriate deficiencies noted and was corrective action directed or imposed?
Step Number: 1 Action: The Use of Force Work Group will continue to assist in reviewing Use of Force reports prior to final approval on a weekly basis.
Documentation/Output: Letters of deficiencies forwarded to supervisors; UOFWG spreadsheet of cases reviewed. Suspense Date: 05/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Detective Vivianne Newton
Step Number: 2 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 10/01/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: b Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

35

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 124 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Content: In =>90% of reportable Use of Force incidents, supervisors are held accountable for the quality of their reviews, and documented non-disciplinary and/or disciplinary action has been taken when a supervisor or manager: fails to conduct a timely and thorough review; neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action; or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action. In cases where discipline was imposed, did the officials imposing the discipline follow the departmental disciplinary matrix?
Step Number: 1 Action: Immediate reviewers in the chain of command of Use of Force incidents are responsible for the completeness of all force investigations.
Documentation/Output: Copy of exception reports indicating failures or nonfailure for this step Suspense Date: 08/15/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Commanders
Step Number: 2 Action: Immediate reviewers in the chain of command of Use of Force incidents are responsible for corrective action and alignment with the disciplinary matrix.
Documentation/Output: Charging documents or training request forms Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Deputy Chiefs
Step Number: 3 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 10/01/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: c Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Content: In =>90% of reportable Use of Force incidents, the Chief and/or Deputy Chief provided a written, signed and dated finding on whether the Use of Force was justified under VIPD's DOJ-approved Use of Force policies and all other requirements of 31(a)-(g) of the Consent Decree.
Step Number: 1

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

36

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 125 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Action: Deputy Chiefs and or the Chiefs of Police will review cases to determine if officer’s actions were consistent with policy cited and confirm or not confirm in writings the results of their Use of Force.
Documentation/Output: Case Disposition letters Suspense Date: 05/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Chiefs and/or Deputy Chiefs
Step Number: 2 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 10/01/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: d Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Content: In =>95% of the Use of Force incidents where the Commander's/Director's review and evaluation concluded that improper tactics were used, there is evidence that the involved sworn personnel received and successfully completed remedial training, and, if appropriate, were disciplined.
Step Number: 1 Action: Immediate reviewers in the chain of command of force incidents are responsible for identifying any tactical deficiencies. Recommendations for changes to Tactical training or remedial Tactical training will be forwarded to the Training Division.
Documentation/Output: Copies of referral letters to the Training Division for modifications to or remedial training of Tactical training subjects. Suspense Date: 08/15/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Director of Training
Step Number: 2 Action: Immediate reviewers in the chain of command of force incidents are responsible for coordinating with the Training Unit for any tactical decencies. The Training Unit will provide documentation of the training to include a lesson plan, completion of training and noting any other pertinent information related to the level of training.
Documentation/Output: Coordination documentation responsive to the step. Suspense Date: 09/01/16 Responsible Person: Director of Training

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

37

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 126 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Step Number: 3 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 10/01/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: e Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Content: In =>95% of the Use of Force incidents deemed unjustified by the Commander's/Director's review and evaluation, the involved sworn personnel were disciplined, including separation from service with the VIPD when appropriate, and, if separation from service was not appropriate, received remedial training.
Step Number: 1 Action: Deputy Chiefs and or the Chiefs of Police will review and approve or disapprove all Use of Force incidents. Any uses of force deemed unjustified are the responsibility for the reviewer in conjunction with the Chief and Deputy Police Chief to take appropriate action per the Consent Decree and VIPD Policy.
Documentation/Output: Copies of deficiency letters and/or monthly reports of cases checked and compliance with the step. Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Use of Force Reviewers
Step Number: 2 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 10/01/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

38

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 127 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Paragraph: 38 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance
CD Content: The VIPD will investigate all critical firearm discharges. The VIPD will ensure that the investigation accounts for all shots and locations of all officers who discharged their firearms. The VIPD will conduct all ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectories.
Suspense Date: 11/01/16 Responsible Person: Acting Police Chief Marsh
Sub-Paragraph: a Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Content: =>99% of all critical firearm discharges are investigated and documented.
Step Number: 1 Action: Crime Analyst will perform a quarterly review of randomly selected police reports and Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Records to ensure that all critical Use of Force cases are identified, recorded, and referred to FIT.
Documentation/Output: Quarterly report by the analysts. Suspense Date: 10/15/16 and for every subsequent calendar quarter; due 15th of each following month. Responsible Person: Crime Analysts
Step Number: 2 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 11/01/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator

Step Number: 2 Action: FIT Supervisors will ensure that critical firearm discharge investigations account for all shots and locations of all officers who discharge their firearms, and that the investigation includes all ballistic and Trajectory testing gunshot residue testing as required by policy and the FIT SOP.
Documentation/Output: Review of FIT investigations conducted by the FRB and the FRB Administrator as cases occur and are presented for review. FRB Administrator will certify compliance after FRB review. IF no cases occur during the reporting quarter, FRB Administrator will issue a negative report. Suspense Date: 10/15/16 and each calendar quarter by the 15th of the following month. Responsible Person: FRB Administrator

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

39

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 128 of 231 VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016

Step Number: 2 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 11/15/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: b Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Content: =>95% of all investigations or reviews of critical firearm discharges accounted for all shots and locations of officers.
Step Number: 1 Action: FIT will ensure all critical firearm discharge incident investigations account for all shots fired.
Documentation/Output: FIT report and subsequent associated FRB report and findings; FRB Administrator will certify as in sub-paragraph a, Step 2, above Suspense Date: 10/15/16 and each calendar quarter by the 15th of the following month. Responsible Person: FRB Administrator
Step Number: 2 Action: VIPD will purchase appropriate investigative tools to account for all shots fired to include trajectory rods, crime scene sketching software (including Total Station), gunshot residue testing products, and other investigative tools and equipment as identified by the FIT Supervisors,
Documentation/Output: Purchase orders, followed by certification from FIT Supervisors that named equipment was purchased Suspense Date: 10/01/16 Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors
Step Number: 3 Action: VIPD will train FIT personnel in the use of investigative tools, software, and forensic products purchased under Step 2 above and will place tools in service by suspense date indicated.
Documentation/Output: Certification by the FIT Supervisor that personnel were trained in the use of all equipment referenced in Step 2, above, and that the equipment was placed in service for use by both FIT teams.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

40

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 129 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Suspense Date: 11/01/16 Responsible Person: FIT Supervisor
Step Number: 4 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 12/01/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

41

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 130 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Paragraph: 44 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance
CD Content: Complaints may be filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile or electronic mail. The duty officer at the front desk of each district station will be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints, which persons may file at any district station. Complaint intake officers may describe facts that bear upon a complainant's demeanor and physical condition but May not express opinions regarding his/her mental competency or veracity. Each complaint will be resolved in writing. Upon receipt, each complaint will be assigned a unique identifier, which will be provided to the complainant. Each complaint will be tracked according to the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, improper search, etc.).
Suspense Date: 1/11/17 Responsible Person: D/C Chalwell
Sub-Paragraph: a Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: Policy will include that complaints may be filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile or electronic mail
Sub-Paragraph: b Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: Policy will include authorization that the officer at the front desk of each district station will be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints, which persons may file at any district station
Sub-Paragraph: c Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: In =>90% of cases, complaint intake officers describe facts that bear upon a complainant's demeanor and physical condition but do not express opinions regarding his/her mental competency or veracity.
Sub-Paragraph: d Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: =>90% of documented complaints are assigned a unique identifier and are retrievable by that identifier, the complainant’s name, if it was provided, or the name of the accused officer, if known.
Sub-Paragraph: e Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: In=>90% of the complaints, they are tracked according to the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, improper search, etc.).
Sub-Paragraph: f Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: Obtained DOJ approval for a complaint intake policy. Approved policy is distributed to sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

42

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 131 of 231 VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016

Sub-Paragraph: g Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: =>95% of sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have either: (a) attended and successfully completed the initial in-service training for each new or revised complaint related policy and demonstrated proficiency through a proficiency test(s); or (b) if sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have not successfully completed the required training and passed the proficiency test, the sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have entered and successfully completed a remedial program designed to ensure passage of the proficiency test(s) and passed the proficiency test(s); or Where sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees have not successfully completed training and passed the proficiency tests, the VIPD has initiated appropriate corrective action, including training, and disciplinary action against the sworn personnel and applicable civilian employees.
Sub-Paragraph: h Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: All complaint intake training comports with the requirements of the Consent Decree, and is taught from curricula/lesson plans that: (a) follow a standard format; (b) identify training objectives; (c) incorporate, to the extent possible, adult learning techniques (e.g., class exercises); and (d) indicate that it has been reviewed by legal counsel.
Sub-Paragraph: i Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Content: =>90% of complaints are documented and resolved in writing and completed investigations into complaints comport with the provisions of the Consent Decree.
Step Number: 1 Action: Create a list of all 01/01/2015 to 12/31/2015 cases that have not been completed in compliance with the CD and policy requirements.
Documentation/Output: IAPRO Case Printout Suspense Date: 9/07/16 Responsible Person: D/C Chalwell
Step Number: 2 Action: Divide the list into two categories: those for which the investigating officer is still employed, and those cases where the investigating officer is no longer employed.
Documentation/Output: Lists produced by the step Suspense Date: 9/14/16 Responsible Person: D/C Chalwell

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

43

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 132 of 231 VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016

Step Number: 3 Action: IAB and Deputy Chiefs will jointly review the listing of outstanding cases and determine if there is a necessity to assign to a new investigator. IAB and the Deputy Chiefs will monitor to ensure that cases are completed by indicated suspense date.
Documentation/Output: Updated lists with recommendations for investigation and associated justifications for each case listed. Suspense Date: 9/21/16 Responsible Person: D/C Chalwell
Step Number: 4 Action IAB and Deputy Chiefs will ensure that outstanding 2015 cases will be completed within 10-30 days dependent on complexity of remaining investigation.
Documentation/Output: Updated lists annotated per the step. Suspense Date: 9/28/16 Responsible Person: D/C Chalwell
Step Number: 5 Action: Create a list of all 01/01/16 to 08/31/16 cases that have not been completed in compliance with the CD and policy requirements.
Documentation/Output: IAPRO Case Printout Suspense Date: 10/05/16. Responsible Person: D/C Chalwell
Step Number: 6 Action: Divide the list into two categories, those where the investigating officer is still employed and those cases where the investigating officer is no longer employed
Documentation/Output: Updated list with justifications annotated Suspense Date: 10/12/16 Responsible Person: D/C Chalwell
Step Number: 7 Action: IAB and Deputy Chiefs will jointly review the listing of outstanding cases and determine if there is a necessity to assign to a new investigator. IAB and the Deputy Chiefs will monitor to ensure that cases are completed by indicated suspense date.
Documentation/Output: Updated list and case line item justification for administrative closer Suspense Date: 10/19/16

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

44

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 133 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Responsible Person: D/C Chalwell
Step Number: 8 Action: IAB and Deputy Chiefs will ensure that outstanding 2016 cases will be completed within 10-30 days dependent on complexity of remaining investigation.
Documentation/Output: Updated list. Suspense Date: 10/26/16
Responsible Person: D/C Chalwell
Step Number: 9 Action: Obtain all open administrative cases (i.e. Citizen Complaints, Administrative (internal) Complaints, Vehicle Accidents, Vehicle Pursuits, all Use of Force cases) between years 2012 to 2014.
Documentation/Output: Report listing open cases Suspense Date: 11/26/16 Responsible Person: Acting Chief of Police Marsh
Step Number: 10 Action: Create a board including Executive and management officers to review the cases obtained in step 9 for the purpose of:
1. Identifying and sorting the allegations based on level of seriousness; 2. Identifying the officer(s) involved; 3. Reviewing those officers EIP profiles from 2012 to present to see whether there remains a pattern of poor performance or whether the officer’s performance improved between that specified years (depending on the seriousness of the complaint for instance if they were minor complaints, then EIP action will be recommended providing the performance remained consistently poor and if it was a serious complaint such as potential criminal conduct, then petition the AG for prospective disposition); 4. Closing the cases in the IAPro system administratively; system will generate letter to complainant; and 5. In those cases where the allegations are of a Class 3 or 4 level minor, set up community outreach action by contacting identified complaints either through telephone or in person meetings to discuss their case and provide final status of any actions taken and the reasons for taking the action.
Documentation/Output: Board report detailing the review process, line item (case) review results, and board recommendations; will also include documentation of efforts to contact complainants, citizen contact and apology script, etc. Suspense Date:12/31/16

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

45

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 134 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Responsible Person: Acting Police Chief Marsh
Step Number: 11. Action: Review Citizen Complaint and Misconduct investigation policies to determine whether improvements need to be made to allow for speedier resolution of minor complaints at the Command level which would reduce the backlogging of incidents. Included in the review will be the establishment of situations where cases may be administratively closed.
Documentation/Output: Results of policy review and/or revised policies for review by DOJ/IMT Suspense Date:08/31/16 Responsible Person: Acting Police Chief Marsh
Step Number: 12 Action: Revised policy moved through the command level review process and published.
Documentation/Output: Revised and published policy Suspense Date: 09/05/16 Responsible Person: Dr. Bellot
Step Number: 13 Action: Create consolidated report on all actions taken with this sub-paragraph and forward to USDOJ and IMT.
Documentation/Output: Referenced consolidated report Suspense Date:01/05/17 Responsible Person: Acting Police Chief Marsh
Step Number: 14 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 02/03/17 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: j Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: For => 90% of the complaints logged and recorded, a file documents the actions taken by VIPD in response to the complaint.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

46

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 135 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Paragraph: 58 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance
CD Content: Unit commanders will evaluate each investigation of an incident under their command to identify underlying problems and training needs. Any such problems or need will be relayed in the form of a recommendation to the appropriate VIPD entity.
Suspense Date: 12/31/16 Responsible Person: Zone Commanders
Sub-Paragraph: a Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: The VIPD has developed a policy that provides a process for the review of all completed allegations of misconduct and ensures the consideration of all of the elements identified in 52 and 58 of the Consent Decree
Sub-Paragraph: b Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: In =>90% of the completed investigations into allegations of misconduct, there is documentation indicating that a supervisor has evaluated underlying problems and training needs, if any.
Sub-Paragraph: c Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Content: =>90% of any identified problems and/or training needs have been relayed to the appropriate VIPD entity.
Step Number: 1 Action: IAB will establish a suspense file that records each instance where a case investigation has identified and recommended action as related to policy changes, remedial training, or other follow-on activities to ensure that all such recommendations are relayed to the appropriate VIPD entity.
Documentation/Output: Copies of memos requesting remedial training and copy of suspense file report Suspense Date: 12/31/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors
Step Number: 2 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 01/31/17 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

47

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 136 of 231 VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016

Sub-Paragraph: d Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Content: =>90% of the cases where there is a determination that modification to or additional training is required, there is documented evidence that VIPD implemented additional training.
Step Number: 1 Action: If a determination is made that changes are needed to training the Training Director will review the involved training course or block of instruction and make changes as required.
Documentation/Output: Copy of the results of the review by the Training Director of each lesson plan of course referred by the step; Confirmation that changes were made. Suspense Date: 01/16/17 and ongoing Responsible Person: Training Director
Step Number: 2 Action: When a training deficiency for an individual officer is identified, the Training Director will arrange for remedial training, and upon completion or noncompletion of that training, will forward such documentation to IAB to be retained in the officer’s investigative file.
Documentation/Output: Documentation from the Training Division on each referral for remedial training as to completion or non-completion by the referred officer. Documentation will include a certification that the officer’s record in IAPro was updated. Suspense Date: 10/26/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Training Director and IAB Supervisors
Step Number: 3 Action IAB will administer tracking of files for administrative actions.
Documentation/Output: Copy of tracking log Suspense Date: 12/31/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Acting Police Chief Marsh
Step Number: 4 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 01/31/17 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

48

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 137 of 231 VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016

Sub-Paragraph: e Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Content: =>90% of the cases where the VIPD identified policy or equipment deficiencies, there is documented evidence that corrective measures were implemented.
Step Number: 1 Action: In each case where a recommendation of changes of policy was indicated in the investigation, IAB will log that recommendation in the suspense file established under previous sub-paragraphs.
Documentation/Output: Copy of tracking log Suspense Date: 10/26/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors
Step Number: 2 Action Director of Planning and Research will initiate a review based on the recommendation and report the results to the IAB for updating the referenced suspense folder.
Documentation/Output: Log of policy review process that lists all policies identified for review. Suspense Date: 12/01/16 Responsible Person: Dr. Bellot
Step Number: 3 Action: In each case where a determination of equipment or other issue was indicated in the investigation, IAB will log that recommendation in the remedial action input in IAPro file established under Sub-Paragraph 58-c.
Documentation/Output: Copy referenced log Suspense Date: 10/26/16 Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors
Step Number: 4 Action The Commander of the responsible entity will initiate a review based on the recommendation and report the results to the IAB for updating of the remedial action input in IAPro.
Documentation/Output: Copy of response from unit commanders that reviewed the requests. Suspense Date: 12/01/16 Responsible Person: Commander of the entity responsible for equipment or other issue.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

49

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 138 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Step Number: 5 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 01/01/17 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

50

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 139 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Paragraph: 59 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance
CD Content: The VIPD will develop and implement a risk management system to include a new computerized relational database or paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for supervision and management of the VIPD. Priority will be given to the VIPD obtaining any established program and system. The VIPD will regularly use this data to promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts.
Suspense Date: 10/30/16 Responsible Person: IAB Director
Sub-Paragraph: a Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: The VIPD has developed, codified in policy, and implemented a risk management system to include a new computerized relational database or paper system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for supervision and management of the VIPD. Priority will be given to the VIPD obtaining any established program and system.
Sub-Paragraph: b Current Status: Partial Compliance Content: The VIPD will, in =>95% of the cases, use this data to promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts.
Step Number: 1 Action: The VIPD will conduct an immediate review of the current Early Intervention Program (EIP) materials between 01/01/16 through 07/15/16 and identify all instances where the requirements were not complied with by supervisory and command and EIP Analyst personnel.
Documentation/Output: Report that documents the review and actions taken when non-compliance was observed. Suspense Date: 10/26/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors
Step Number: 2 Action: Based upon that review,
1. If non-compliance as described above is discovered, they will be given 10 days to bring the non-compliance into compliance; or 2. In those instances where the process has not been completed individuals will be given 10 days to bring their activities into compliance; and 3. Persons who fail to meet the 10-day suspense will be subject to disciplinary action.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

51

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 140 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Documentation/Output: Copy of log that documents the review, adjustment of plans and or administrative action taken. Suspense Date: 11/26/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Commanders (personnel in their chain of command) IAB Supervisors (EIP Analysts)
Step Number: 3 Action: The Deputy Chiefs will conduct quarterly review of the patterns and trends within the EIP program including Use of Force and Citizen Complaint incidents and produce reports of such reviews quarterly to be submitted to the Commissioner.
Documentation/Outputs: Copies of quarterly reports. Suspense Date: 10/30/16 and 30 days after the end of the calendar quarters. Responsible Persons: Deputy Chiefs
Step Number: 4 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 11/30/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

52

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 141 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Paragraph: 60 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance
CD Content: The new risk management system will collect and record the following information: a. use of force, b. canine bite ratios, c. the number of canisters used by officers, d. all injuries to prisoners, e. all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with “resisting arrest”, “assault on a police officer”, “disorderly conduct”, or “obstruction of official business”, f. all critical firearm discharges, both on-duty or off duty, g. all complaints (and their dispositions), h. all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and civil lawsuits served upon, the Territory, and its officers, or agents, resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel, i. all vehicle pursuits, j. all incidents involving the pointing of a firearm (if any such reporting is required), and k. all disciplinary action taken against officers.
Suspense Date: 08/05/16 Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors
NOTE: Paragraph 60 was previously developed and approved by DOJ and filed with the court. It is included here for continuity purposes but does not need any further work, except updating status. It has been reformatted from the original court submission to match that of the Action Plan 2 format; no changes to requirements were made other than to identify possible Documentation/Output documents, which were not identified in the original document.
Sub-paragraph: a Current Status: Substantial Compliance
Step Number: 1 Action: Review a random selection of 1A and arrest reports between the periods of 11/20/14 to 05/15/15 and from 02/12/16 to 05/31/16 to look for potential unreported uses of force.
Documentation/Output: Report listing cases reviewed and results found. Suspense Date: 07/08/16 Responsible Person: Deputy Chief Arlene Chalwell
Step Number: 2 Action: Create a directive outlining the person or unit who will be responsible for obtaining the data for analysis. The directive for this subsection will require the EIP analyst to conduct monthly audits/inspections of the system, by the 5th of each month, to ensure all reported UOF entries are entered completely in the system.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

53

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 142 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Documentation/Output: Directive is published creating monthly audits/inspections of the system to ensure UOF entries are properly made, due the 5th of each month Suspense Date: 06/17/16 Responsible Person: Acting Police Chief Marsh
Step Number 3 Action: Distribute and review newly created directive to EIP analyst and group members to ensure they understand the requirements for conducting the monthly audits/ inspections.
Documentation/Output: Copy of directive annotated that it has been distributed and that EIP Analysts understand what is required. Suspense Date: 06/23/16 Responsible Person: Deputy Chief Chalwell
Step Number: 4 Action: The M&S group will conduct monthly inspections of randomly selected 1A and arrest reports from the current quarter to ensure all UOF incidents continue to be reported and entered in the IAPro (RMS) system. AIU will include a review of these monthly inspections in the quarterly audit commencing with the second quarter of 2016.
Documentation/Output: Report listing cases randomly selected and the results of the review of these cases Suspense Date: 08/05/16 Responsible Person: DC Chalwell
Step Number: 5 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 08/05/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-paragraph: b (Canine bite ratios) Current Status: Substantial Compliance
Step Number: 1 Action: Create a directive requiring Canine unit supervisors to submit, on a weekly basis, utilization/deployment reports to the EIP Analyst section.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

54

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 143 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Documentation/Output: Copy of directive requiring Canine unit supervisors to submit weekly report
Suspense Date: 06/10/16 Person Responsible: Acting Police Chief Marsh
Step Number: 2 Action: Review directive with Canine Supervisors to ensure they understand the requirements of the directive.
Documentation/Output: Sign-off by Canine unit supervisors that they have reviewed and concur with proposed directive and/or identified any needed corrections to the directive. Suspense Date: 06/10/16 Responsible Person: Deputy Chief Alcendor for STT and Deputy Chief Corniero for STX
Step Number: 3 Action: Canine Unit will start sending weekly deployment reports to EIP Analyst.
Documentation/Output: Copies of weekly reports, starting with 06/13/16 and forward each week on date established in directive referenced in Step 1 and 2 Suspense Date: 06/13/16 Responsible Person: Deputy Chief Alcendor for STT and Deputy Chief Corniero for STX
Step Number: 4 Action: Obtain CAD data from 911 displaying all K9 responses from 01/01/15 to 07/15/16 to ensure all deployments during that period are captured and analyzed to determine bite ratios.
Documentation/Output: Periodic reports from CAD matched against IAPro listings; deficiency letters if failure to report Use of Force (K-9) are found. Suspense Date: 07/20/16 Responsible Person: Officer Ruchella Samuel for STX and Patricia Potter for STT/STJ
Step Number: 5 Action: Create a directive requiring the EIP Analyst to conduct quarterly analysis of Canine Bite ratios to comply with the EIP Protocol analysis requirements.
Documentation/Output: Completed directive issued. Suspense Date: 06/17/16 Responsible Person: Acting Police Chief Marsh
Step Number: 6

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

55

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 144 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Action: Create an interim database for canine unit supervisors to track all K-9 Unit deployments until IAPro’s release of the K-9 module this fall. The database will track minimally the same fields as on the deployment reports, to include: 1A Number, Crime Classification, Handler name, Canine name, Unit #Location, Date of Occurrence, Date reported, Time arrived, whether deployment resulted in an apprehension, and whether there was a bite/hold, and type of deployment.
Documentation/Output: Creation of the database evidences by printouts from it. Suspense Date: 06/30/16 Responsible Party: MIS Kishauna Tweede (with assistance from M&S Group and K-9 Supervisors)
Step Number: 7 Action: Change deployment of K-9 units from their present Special Response deployment to a regular support role in support of patrol operations.
Documentation/Output: Directive detailing re-assignment of recourses and revised organization chart. Suspense Date: 06/26/16 Responsible Person: Chief McFarlande for STX and Chief Marsh for STT
Step Number: 8 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 08/05/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-paragraph: c Current Status Substantial Compliance Content: The number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers;
Step Number: 1 Action: Ensure measuring equipment is available and in working order in both districts.
Documentation/Output: Report identifying the equipment available in both districts for weighing the canisters. Suspense Date: 06/10/16 Responsible Person: Training Director (assisted by Academy Supervisors Sgt. Sullivan STT / Sgt. Lynch STX)

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

56

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 145 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Step Number: 2 Action: Notify commanders to send their officers to training for canister inspection.
Documentation/Output: District level memoranda ordering personnel to report for canister weighing. Suspense Date: 06/09/16 Responsible Person: Training Director
Step Number: 3 Action: Measure officers’ canisters from each district. Officers will respond to the training unit to have their equipment weighed while on duty.
Documentation/Output: Report detailing weighing of each assigned canister, with documentation to support failure to weigh Suspense Date: 06/24/16 Responsible Person: Sgt. Lynch STX/ Sgt. Sullivan STT
Step Number: 4 Action: Weigh-in officer will initiate exception memo on all canisters that exceed the tare weight and forward to the appropriate district Police Chief for action.
Documentation/Outputs: Memorandums to appropriate Police Chief identifying the officers with canisters out of variance, requesting administrative review against IAPro database and/or follow-up administrative investigation as appropriate. Suspense Date: 06/30/16 Responsible Person: Training Director
Step Number: 5 Action: Based on results, the district Police Chief will either open a new administrative investigation or annotate the exception memo as to the findings and forward to AIU.
Documentation/Output: Memoranda from Police Chiefs with results of administrative review of each case note din Step 4 above. Suspense Date: 30 days from initiation Responsible Person: District Police Chiefs
Step Number: 6 Action: Enter data into database (if operational). (NOTE: completion of the administrative review in Step 5 above, will gain compliance if database is still under updates.)
Documentation/Output: Certification from AIU that database has been updated via printout from the system.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

57

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 146 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Suspense date: 07/29/16 Responsible Person: Mary Duggan
Step Number: 7 Action: Prepare completion report and forward results to DOJ/IMT for review and interim compliance recertification.
Documentation/Output: Previous documentation Suspense Date: 08/02/16 Responsible Person: Mary Duggan
Step Number: 8 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 08/05/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph d Current Status: Partial Compliance Content: All injuries to prisoners
Step Number: 1 Action: Validate that required posters are present in Zones and report processing areas.
Documentation/Output: Certification that posters were present in all Zones. Suspense Date: 06/10/16 Responsible Person: Lt. Sandra Colbourne for STT/STJ and Lt. Mirrett Benta for STX
Step Number: 2 Action: Obtain 911 CAD listing for all reported Injury to Prisoner incidents between 01/01/15 and 05/06/16. Using that data, conduct an inspection to compare with data in the IA-Pro system to ensure all incidents were reported and required action taken. If no case found, initiate case and investigate; update compliance log with results.
Documentation/Output: Suspense Date: 06/30/16 Responsible Person: D/C Chalwell (M&S Group Project with assistance from Crime Analyst and MIS)

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

58

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 147 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Step Number: 3 Action: Obtain CAD listing for all reported Injury to Prisoner incidents between 05/06/16 and 07/15/16 to ensure Injury to Prisoner incidents continue to be reported, entered into IAPro, and required actions taken. Add results to report from Step 3.
Documentation/Output: Suspense Date: 07/22/16 Responsible Person: D/C Chalwell
Step Number: 4 Action: Submit report regarding steps 2 and 3 to the AIU, DOJ and IMT.
Documentation/Output: Suspense Date: 06/30/16 Responsible Person: D/C Chalwell
Step Number: 5 Action: Update the Data Input Plan to outline all data collection and areas of responsibility for their collection. Create an entry in an appropriate suspense file, list, or data system that identifies the person or position/unit responsible for data collection on Injuries to Prisoners, the timelines for collection and reporting of findings.
Documentation/Output: Suspense Date: 08/01/16 Responsible Person: Acting Police Chief Marsh
Step Number: 6 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 08/05/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-paragraph e Current Status Substantial Compliance Content: All instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with “resisting arrest”, “assault on a police officer”, “disorderly conduct”, or “obstruction of official business”
Step Number: 1

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

59

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 148 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Action: Gather data in the IAPro system on “discretionary arrests” from 1/1/15 to 07/15/16 and disseminate to M&S Group for review.
Documentation/Output: List of cases reviewed and results. Suspense Date: 07/22/16 Responsible Person: Acting Director T. Emanuel
Step Number: 2 Action: Review arrest and other reports obtained from Step 1 for comparison with IAPro data to determine whether all instances where force was used and a citizen was charged with an enumerated charge were segregated (duplicated from the UOF incident for analysis purposes) in the system for subsequent analysis and review.
Documentation/Output: Report detailing the review Suspense Date: 07/22/16 Responsible Person: D/C Chalwell (M&S Group project with assistance from EIP Analyst)
Step Number 3 Action: Prepare a report of findings to be added as an addendum item to Quarterly reports and for use by Deputy Chiefs in their quarterly EIP reviews with Commanders and supervisors.
Documentation/Output: Report based upon the data from Step 2 Suspense Date: 07/29/16 Responsible Person: D/C Chalwell (M&S Group project with assistance from EIP Analyst)
Step Number: 4 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 08/05/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-paragraph f Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: All critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty;
Step Number: 1 Action: Review all reported critical Firearm Discharges in the IAPro System, from 01/01/15 to 07/15/16 to ensure accuracy of data. Obtain 1A reports and Use

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

60

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 149 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
of Force reports concerning Critical Firearm Discharges looking for consistency in reporting and accuracy with inputted IAPro data.
Documentation/Output: FIT reports Suspense Date: 07/24/16 Responsible Person: Tony Emanuel
Step Number: 2 Action: Prepare report on results of review for use by Audit Unit, Training Advisory Committee, and Deputy Chiefs for their quarterly EIP Review with Commanders and Supervisors.
Documentation/Output: Reports generated in Step 1 Suspense Date: 07/29/16 Responsible Person: Tony Emanuel
Step Number: 3 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 08/05/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-paragraph g Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: All complaints and their dispositions;
Step Number: 1 Action: Check status of citizen and internal complaint cases forwarded to IA for final review and entry into IAPro from 01/01/015 to 07/15/16 to determine whether cases deemed complete are being held up at the final review level.
Documentation/Output: Report listing cases reviewed and status. Suspense Date: 07/22/16 Responsible Person: Lt. Benta for STX and DC Alcendor for STT/STJ
Step Number: 2 Action: Based on the results from Step 1, forward action requests to appropriate senior commanders for compliance with VIPD published complaint handling policy. Follow-up to assure any cases identified are completed and entered in the IAPro system.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

61

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 150 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Documentation/Output: Generated action requests for completion of cases and status of follow-up. Suspense Date: 07/24/16 Responsible Person: Lt. Benta for STX and DC Alcendor for STT/STJ
Step Number: 3 Action: Create a report of the results of findings and subsequent command actions taken and forward to VIPD Audit Unit, IMT, and USDOJ.
Documentation/Output: Referenced report Suspense Date: 07/30/16 Responsible Person: Coordinator Greg Davila
Step Number: 4 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 08/05/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-paragraph h Current Status: Substantial Compliance: Content: All criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the territory and its officers, or agents, resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel;
Step Number: 1 Action: Obtain all quarterly listing of criminal actions, civil suits and administrative claims between 01/01/16 and 07/15/16 from the VIAG in accordance with agreements between the VIPD and the VIAG.
Documentation/Output: Updated listings from the VIAG Suspense Date: 07/19/16 Responsible Person: Officer Arlene Greaux
Step Number: 2 Action; Compare to IAPro record to determine if the IAPro system has been updated.
Documentation/Output: Report detailing results of the comparison. Suspense Date: 07/22/16 Responsible Person: Anna Gilbert and James McManus

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

62

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 151 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Step Number: 3 Action: If matches cannot be found update as necessary from the VIAG records obtained.
Documentation/Output: Updated copy of the report from Step 2 detailing corrective actions taken, if any. Suspense Date: 07/25/16 Responsible Person: Anna Gilbert and James McManus
Step Number: 4 Action: If information in the IAPro system differs from that provided by the VIAG, request clarification from the VIAG and update as necessary depending upon information received.
Documentation/Output: Copy of any requests to the VIAG, if any, or a certification of accuracy of data or the report from Step 3, if appropriate. Suspense Date: 07/25/16 Responsible Person: Tony Emanuel
Step Number: 5 Action: If the reports have been received and the IAPro case files updated accordingly, submit a certification memorandum to the CD Coordinator for forwarding to the DOJ and the IMT.
Documentation/Output: Certification as noted. Suspense Date: 07/30/16 Responsible Person: Tony Emanuel
Step Number: 6 Action: Establish suspense system dates to ensure that the process in Steps 1-5 are repeated on a quarterly basis.
Documentation/Output: Report demonstrating that a suspense system has been established (see Preface to this document for suggested solutions) Suspense Date: 07/30/16 Responsible Person: Tony Emanuel
Step Number: 7 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 08/05/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

63

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 152 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Sub-paragraph i Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: All vehicle pursuits
Step Number: 1 Action: Review vehicle pursuit policy to determine and validate reporting requirements consistent with the CD.
Documentation/Output: Copy of revised and/or updated Pursuit Policy. Suspense Date: 06/22/16 Responsible Person: D/C Chalwell
Step Number: 2 Action: Review all CAD data for events categorized as pursuit and create a list with appropriate information to link them with IAPro cases from 01/01/16 to 07/15/16.
Documentation/Output: CAD printouts annotated with matched cases (or absence of cases) from IAPro Suspense Date: 07/24/16 Person Responsible: Lt. Colbourne on STT and Lt. Benta on STX
Step Number: 3 Action: Compare CAD data categorized as vehicle pursuits to IAPro pursuitbased case entries for the same period as reflected on the list created in Steps 1 and 2 to ensure required reporting has been complied with.
Documentation/Output: See Step 2 above Suspense Date: 07/30/16 Responsible Person: D/C Chalwell
Step Number: 4 Action: Identify personnel involved in pursuits and their supervisors on all CAD categorized events where no IAPro report is found to appropriate Police Chief and request appropriate administrative review for compliance. Police Chiefs will take appropriate action based upon the investigation and report same back to the AIU for inclusion in the final report and subsequent quarterly audits.
Documentation/Output: Memoranda detailing involved personnel and requests for administrative review. Suspense Date: 07/30/16 Responsible Person: D/C Chalwell
Step Number: 5

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

64

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 153 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Action: Prepare and submit report of findings from Steps 1-4 to CD Coordinator for submission to DOJ/IMT.
Documentation/Output: Copy of final report Suspense Date: 08/02/16 Responsible Person: DC Alcendor for STT and DC Corneiro for STX
Step Number: 6 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 08/05/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator

Sub-paragraph j Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: All incidents involving the pointing of a firearm if any such reporting is required;
Step Number: 1 Action: Review a random selection of 1A and accompanying arrest reports involving felony cases between 01/01/15 and 07/15/16 to determine those where there is some indication that an officer pointed a firearm at an individual or subject.
Documentation/Output: Report based upon the review Suspense Date: 07/22/16 Responsible Person: D/C Chalwell (M&S Group Project with assistance from Crime Analyst)
Step Number: 2 Action: Create a report that lists from the IAPro system all cases with an occurrence date between the dates in Step 1 above, where a Use of Force report has been filed indicating an officer pointed a firearm during an incident or arrest.
Documentation/Output: IAPro report as noted. Suspense Date: 07/23/16 Responsible Person: D/C Chalwell (M&S Group Project with assistance from Crime Analyst)
Step Number; 3 Action: Compare the lists developed in Step 1 with the list developed in Step 2 and isolate those cases where no Use of Force report was initiated (e.g., none in

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

65

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 154 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
file within IAPro) where one would have been required by Department Policy. Identify the officer(s) involved as well as the supervisors and initiate appropriate action, through their Police Chief, as per department policy.
Documentation/Output: Report detailing the comparison between the two data sources; copies of memoranda requesting administrative review for any failure uncovered. Suspense Date: 08/02/16 Responsible Person: DC Alcendor for STT/STJ and DC Corneiro for STX
Step Number: 4 Action: Using the list developed in Step 3, initiate steps to have required reports prepared and logged into IAPro.
Documentation/Output: Listing of any updated made to IAPro Suspense Date: 08/02/16 Responsible Person: Tony Emanuel
Step Number: 5 Action: Provide report detailing the results of Steps 1-4 to Compliance Coordinator and request they be forwarded to DOJ/IMT for review.
Documentation/Output: Previous documents for forwarding with compliance request. Suspense Date: 08/02/16 Responsible Person: Greg Davila
Step Number: 6 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 08/05/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-paragraph k Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: All disciplinary action taken against officers.
Step Number: 1 Action: Create a listing of all cases in the IAPro system where the disposition is sustained to determine whether they were appropriately duplicated as Disciplinary Action incidents as required by VIPD policy for EIP analysis.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

66

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 155 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Documentation/Output: Case listing report from IAPro Suspense Date: 07/22/16 Responsible Person: Tony Emanuel
Step Number 2 Action: From the list in Step 1, further review those disciplinary action incidents to ensure all data is accurate and complete.
Documentation/Output: Certification of updated accuracy in the IAPro system. Suspense Date: 07/24/16 Responsible Person: Tony Emanuel
Step Number: 3 Action: Provide a report detailing any findings and the corrective action taken, if any, to the CD Coordinator for transmittal to the DOJ and IMT.
Documentation/Output: Copies of previous reports forwarded with compliance request Suspense Date: 07/30/16 Responsible Person: Tony Emanuel
Step Number: 4 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 08/05/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

67

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 156 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Paragraph: 69 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance
CD Content: The VIPD will develop a protocol for conducting audits. The protocol will be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol will establish a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all VIPD zones.
Suspense Date: 10/26/16 Responsible Person: Mary Duggan
Sub-Paragraph: a Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: The VIPD has developed a protocol for conducting audits. The protocol will be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits.
Sub-Paragraph: b Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Content: The protocol establishes a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all VIPD zones
Step Number: 1 Action: VIPD will monitor the production of the Quarterly Reports to ensure compliance with schedule.
Documentation/Output: Quarterly Reports Suspense Date: 06/01/16(1Q16), 10/01/16(2Q16) and ongoing Responsible Person: Mary Duggan
Step Number: 2 Action: Distribute Quarterly Audit Report to all VIPD supervisory personnel
Documentation/Output: Quarterly Reports distributed via PowerDMS to all supervisory personnel; electronic signature report Suspense Date: Same as Step 1 Responsible Person: Mary Duggan
Step Number: 3 Action: As additional audit projects develop from compliance activities, AIU should add them to the schedule.
Documentation/Output: Audit reports as produced and revised schedule. Suspense Date: 10/26/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Mary Duggan
Step Number: 4 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

68

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 157 of 231 VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016

Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 11/26/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Paragraph: 71 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance
CD Content: VIPD policy will identify clear time periods by which the various steps of a complaint adjudication process should be completed, from complaint receipt to the imposition of discipline, if any. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions will not be granted without the Police Commissioner's written approval and notice to the complainant. In the limited circumstances when an extension is necessary, appropriate tolling provisions will be outlined in the policy.
Suspense Date: 01/15/16 Responsible Person: Acting Police Chief MacFarlande
Sub-Paragraph: a Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: The VIPD has developed a policy that establishes clear time periods by which the various steps of a complaint adjudication process should be completed, from complaint receipt to the imposition of discipline, if any.
Sub-Paragraph: b Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Content: =>90% of the time, these established time periods are not violated except for in exigent circumstances and with the Police Commissioner's written approval for tolling and notice to the complainant.
Step Number: 1 Action: IAB will verify and certify that all extensions beyond policy established suspense date will be approved and signed by the Commissioner.
Documentation/Output: Report detailing extensions requested and their status, including justification for extension. Suspense Date: 10 days before end of reporting quarter Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors
Step Number: 2 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 01/15/16

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

69

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 158 of 231 VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: c Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: =>90% of the time, these established time periods are not violated except for in exigent circumstances and with the Police Commissioner's written approval for tolling and notice to the complainant.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

70

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 159 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Paragraph: 72 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance
CD Content: Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD will not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix indicates the imposition of discipline. In a case where discipline has been imposed on an officer, the VIPD must also consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action is required.
NOTE: Paragraph 72 was previously developed and approved by DOJ and filed with the court. It is included here for continuity purposes but does not need any further work, except updating status Reformatted to new styles but no changes in dates or requirements.
Sub-paragraph a. Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Content: In =>90% of the cases where the matrix calls for discipline, discipline is imposed.
Step Number: 1 Action: Develop a list of all sustained charges within VIPD in cases closed between 1/15/15 and 07/15/16.
Documentation/Output: Case listing of those cases with sustained charges Suspense Date: 07/15/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Detective Vivianne Newton / Daria Byron
Step Number: 2 Action: Identify / document discipline provided for each sustained charge.
Documentation/Output: Listing of cases reviewed with data entered regarding charges and subsequent discipline imposed. Suspense Date: 07/29/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Detective Vivianne Newton / Daria Byron
Step Number: 3 Action: Assess compliance of discipline imposed with existing disciplinary policy/matrix; identify all documented extenuating circumstances justifying variance from the policy/matrix.
Documentation/Output: Using the report in Step 3, match discipline and charges to the matrix and annotate the report with the results. Suspense Date: 07/29/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Detective Vivianne Newton / Daria Byron
Step Number 4

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

71

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 160 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Action: Using the list from Steps 1 thru 3, determine if sustained charges were altered or overturned and identify at what point, by whom, and if justification was noted in the action.
Documentation/Output: Report from Step 3, updated with a determination if any discipline was altered. Suspense Date: 07/29/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Detective Vivianne Newton / Daria Byron
Step Number: 5 Action: Identify/gather documentation or evidence showing discipline being served, for example; final orders, payroll deductions, training documentation, etc.
Documentation/Output: Previous report annotated with data certifying that the punishment was actually served and completed, Suspense Date: 07/29/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: D/C Chalwell
Step Number: 6 Action: CD Coordinator will establish a suspense system to ensure that compliance certification, via execution of above referenced protocols are periodically submitted to the DOJ/IMT consistent with Court established quarterly reporting deadline or as prescribed by the IMT.
Documentation/Output: Previous reports along with compliance request Suspense Date: 08/01/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator (Gregory Davila)
Sub-paragraph b Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Content: In =>90% of the cases where discipline is imposed, there is evidence that the VIPD has also considered non-disciplinary corrective action.
Step Number: 1 Action: Of those cases identified in Step 1 above in sub-paragraph a, determine from the case files if the VIPD Investigators, Supervisors, Commanders, Chiefs or the Commissioner have taken into consideration non-disciplinary action options when recommending or administering discipline.
Documentation/Output: Previous report, updated with an assessment if nondisciplinary action was considered. Suspense Date: 07/18/16 Responsible Person: D//C Chalwell
Step Number: 2

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

72

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 161 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Action: Based on data collected in Step 1, develop a conclusion as to compliance with the sub-paragraph and render a report documenting the conclusion with supporting data.
Documentation/Output: Report of conclusions reached about compliance with the paragraph, supported by data analysis and other reports. Suspense Date: 07/20/16 Responsible Person: DC Chalwell
Step Number: 3 Action: Develop a section to the Audit Unit and IAB suspense system that requires periodic application of the protocols from Steps 1 and 2 above and subsequent submission of the report to the Commissioner, Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs and DOJ/IMT for compliance review.
Documentation/Output: Updated SOPs as referenced Suspense Date: 07/29/16 Responsible Person: Audit Unit for their SOP and Acting Police Chief Marsh for the updated suspense file, list, or data system entry
Step Number: 4 Action: Submit request for compliance certification, with all supporting documentation, to the DOJ/IMT for review via the CD Coordinator.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certification request with supporting documentation. Suspense Date: 08/02/16 Responsible Person: Gregory Davila
Step Number 5 Action: CD Coordinator will establish a suspense system to ensure that compliance certification, via execution of above referenced suspense system protocols are periodically submitted to the DOJ/IMT consistent with Court established quarterly reporting deadline or as prescribed by the IMT.
Documentation/Output: Compliance request with previous documentation in Steps. Suspense Date: 08/02/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

73

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 162 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Paragraph: 73 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance
CD Content: The VIPD will continue to coordinate and review all Use of Force policy and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy. The VIPD will conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semiannually.
Suspense Date: 12/29/16 Responsible Person: Training Director
Sub-Paragraph: a Current Status: Partial Compliance Content: The Training Division has coordinated and reviewed all Use of Force training. This review occurs: at least semi-annually unless there is a need for policy or lesson plan revision or change.
NOTE: See Sub-paragraph 74-a where compliance with this subparagraph is also measured. Compliance with either Sub-paragraph should be optionally considered compliance with this Sub-paragraph
Step Number: 1 Action: Training Director will conduct a review of all Use of Force training materials and policies to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law. Review will include not only compliance with the referenced policy or CD paragraph, but also ensure that each lesson plan contains performance objectives that can be evaluated and maximum use of adult learning techniques.
Documentation/Output: Report detailing all materials reviewed, conclusions reached, and recommendations made Suspense Date: 12/19/16 and ongoing every six months Responsible Person: Training Director
Step Number: 2 Action: Copies of each Training/Policy Review Report and updated training materials will be provided to the IMT and DOJ.
Documentation/Output: Report and copies of training materials reviewed and updated versions Suspense Date: 12/29/16 every six months Responsible Person: Training Director and G. Davila
Step Number: 3 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

74

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 163 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 01/29/17 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: b Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: The Training Division issues reports to DOJ and IMT regarding its review of Use of Force policies and training programs within a reasonable time after each review, or at least every six (6) months.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

75

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 164 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Paragraph: 74 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance
CD Content: The Director of Training, either directly or through his/her designee(s), consistent with applicable law and VIPD policy will: a. ensure the quality of all Use of Force training; b. develop and implement Use of Force training curricula; c. select and train VIPD officer trainers; d. develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service training; e. in conjunction with the Chiefs, develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures; f. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and g. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that Use of Force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
Suspense Date: 01/20/17 Responsible Person: Training Director
Sub-Paragraph: a Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Content: The Director of Training and/or his/her staff reviews all Use of Force training. The Director of Training and/or his/her staff obtain legal review of all Use of Force training curricula.
NOTE: See Sub-paragraph 73-a where compliance with this subparagraph is also measured. Compliance with either Sub-paragraph should be optionally considered compliance with this Sub-paragraph
Step Number: 1 Action: Director of Training will provide documentation that Use of Force training has been reviewed (essentially evaluated) and the outcome of the reviews. These reviews will be documented for each block of instruction.
Documentation/Output: Same as paragraph 73-a Suspense Date: 12/22/16 every six months Responsible Person: Training Director
Step Number: 2 Action: Director of Training, using the process in Para 74-a for review of training materials, will include a legal review by the VIAG or appropriate authorized legal counsel. Such review will be indicated on all required lesson plans and other training material and further documented in Power DMS.
Documentation/Output: Certification from the Training Director that lists all training materials reviewed and approval status or corrective actions requested.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

76

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 165 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Suspense Date: 01/13/17 Responsible Person: Training Director
Step Number: 3 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 02/03/17 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: b Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed and implemented Use of Force training curricula (including lesson plans). The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed a process for the review of documentation of all uses of force by sworn personnel to identify patterns and trends that will influence training needs. The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have conducted monthly reviews of Use of Force incident reports to evaluate training needs.
Sub-Paragraph: c Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Content: The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed a process to continually select and evaluate VIPD officer trainers. >95% of the training staff has received appropriate training and certification in the subject matter(s) that they are assigned to teach.
Step Number: 1 Action: Develop directive
Documentation/Output: Copy of developed process or directive. Suspense Date: 09/01/16 Responsible Person: Training Director
Step Number: 2 Action: Director of Training will provide documentation that all current instructors meet the requirements of Commissioner’s Directive xxx-2016, Instructor Selection Process (under development or Post directive).
Documentation/Output: Semi-annual list of all instructor personnel along with their certification dates and compliance review date for referenced directive. Suspense Date: 12/31/16 and ongoing

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

77

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 166 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Responsible Person: Training Director
Step Number: 3 Action: Director of Training will develop a validated instructor review process that ensures that each instructor used for training is evaluated at least once a year for each block of instruction presented.
Documentation/Output: Written explanation of the review process; Annual list of instructors used by VIPD Training Division annotated with the dates that they were evaluated and the results of that evaluation; PowerDMS report can be used. Suspense Date: 12/31/16 and annually thereafter Responsible Person: Training Director
Step Number: 4 Action: Director of Training will ensure that instructors are selected as needed and evaluated at least once a year commencing by 09/23/16 and the results of that evaluation are used for instructor development and are loaded into the Power DMS system.
Documentation/Output: Print-out from the PowerDMS system certifying the step requirements. Suspense Date: 9/23/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Training Director
Step Number: 4 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 01/31/17 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: d Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Content: The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have reviewed and provided written approval of all curricula, course schedules and lesson plans. The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have created and maintained a training record system that captures attendance records, instructor and student evaluations, and test results.
Step Number: 1

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

78

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 167 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Action: All course material will bear an approval signature and date of that approval by the Director of Training. Certification of such action will be provided the IMT and DOJ upon completion and updated on a semi-annual basis.
Documentation/Output: Copies of coversheets for all lesson plans, schedules, etc., used by the VIPD showing approval signatures. Suspense Date: 12/29/16 and ongoing semi-annually thereafter Responsible Person: Training Director and G. Davila
Step Number: 2 Action: Director of Training, using Power DMS as the central repository, will ensure that items required by the sub-paragraph will be loaded into Power DMS and such data will include all information on all VIPD personnel and training delivered since 01/01/15.
Documentation/Output: PowerDMS output reports certifying compliance with the step. Suspense Date: 12/23/16 and ongoing semi-annually thereafter Responsible Person: Training Director
Step Number: 3 Action: Director of Training will provide a schedule for such uploading to include the persons responsible to the IMT and DOJ within 30 days (as noted in the suspense date below)
Documentation/Output: Required schedule to comply with the step. Suspense Date: 08/29/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Training Director
Step Number: 4 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 01/29/17 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: e Current Status: Partial Compliance Content: The Training Director and/or his/her staff, in conjunction with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs, have created a process for the development, implementation and approval of all Roll Call training curricula.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

79

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 168 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
The Training Director and/or his/her staff, in conjunction with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs, have developed, implemented and approved all Roll Call training curricula. The Training Director and/or his/her staff have maintained written documentation of this process
Step Number: 1 Action: The Roll Call Policy (10.4), with consideration of IMT and DOJ review comments, will be finalized pending approval of subjects for six months.
Documentation/Output: Published policy Suspense Date: 08/08/16 Responsible Person: Training Director
Step Number 2 Action: Chiefs Review of Roll Call Schedule Annex
Documentation/Output: Review of schedule annotated and/or updated by Police Chiefs and TAC Suspense Date: 08/12/16 Responsible Person: Police Chiefs and TAC
Step Number: 3 Action: Publish the finalized Roll Call Policy 10.4, along with the Schedule Annex
Documentation/Output: Schedule required by the step, along with updated and/or revised Roll Call Policy Suspense Date: 08/18/16 Responsible Person: Training Director
Step Number: 4 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 09/18/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: f Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Content: Director of Training and/or his/her staff have created and maintained a training record system that captures attendance records, instructor and student evaluations, and test results.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

80

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 169 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
For >90% of the conducted Consent Decree related training sessions, evaluation review forms were collected from class participants.
Step Number: 1 Action: The Director of Training will ensure that all records, as noted in the subparagraph, are recorded within the VIPD selected central repository Power DMS by 12/31/16 and every six months thereafter.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certification by Training Director and printout(s) from PowerDMS that substantiate compliance. Suspense Date: 12/31/16 and ongoing every six months thereafter Responsible Person: Training Director
Step Number: 2 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 12/31/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: g Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Content: The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed a process to review Use of Force incidents to identify patterns and trends that will influence training needs. The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have conducted semiannual reviews of Use of Force incidents to evaluate training needs. The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed, reviewed and implemented all Use of Force training curricula (including lesson plans).
Step Number: 1 Action: Training Director will develop a comprehensive protocol to review Use of Force data and incidents. The data for that review will be retrieved from IAPro. The review will analyze the data and seek to identify patterns and trends of incident types or situations that result in Use of Force by officers and subjects, as well as where de-escalation was or was not used as an alternative to confrontation. The Training Director should ensure that there is a relationship with a college or university to assist in curriculum development.
Documentation/Output: Written explanation of the program; Copy of the patterns and trends analysis by the Director of Training Suspense Date: 12/15/16 and ongoing every six months thereafter Responsible Person: Training Director, TAC and IAB Supervisors
Step Number: 2

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

81

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 170 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Action: Establish professional relationship with a college or university
Documentation/Output: Documentation that such a relationship has been established to include details as to the relationship policies and outputs are. Suspense Date: 10/01/16 Responsible Person: Training Director
Step Number: 3 Action: The review noted in Step 1 above, will be conducted on a repetitive basis at least once every six months.
Documentation/Output: Copy of six-month review; meeting minutes from the TAC Suspense Date: 1/23/17 and ongoing every six months thereafter Responsible Person: TAC and IAB Supervisors
Step Number: 4 Action: The review noted in Step 1 above, will be utilized to review current training materials and courses and revise same as required. All revised courses or training materials should be forwarded to the IMT and DOJ for approval.
Documentation/Output: List detailing all training materials reviewed and subsequent actions taken. Copies of modified materials submitted to DOJ/IMT Suspense Date: 12/31/16 and ongoing as courses are revised or developed Responsible Person: Training Director
Step Number: 5 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 01/31/2016 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

82

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 171 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Paragraph: 77 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance
CD Content: The VIPD shall continue to maintain training records regarding every VIPD officer that reliably indicate the training each officer has received. The training records shall, at a minimum, include the course description and duration, curriculum, and instructor for each officer.
Suspense Date: 01/15/17 Responsible Person: Acting Police Chief Marsh
Sub-Paragraph: a Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Content: The Director of Training and/or his/her staff has maintained current and substantially complete training records for =95% of VIPD Officers.
Step Number: 1 Action: Director of Training will audit the referenced records in the Power DMS system to determine if the records have been uploaded for all current VIPD personnel for all training after 01/01/15. A report will be produced listing the names of all personnel where the uploaded records do not meet this requirement.
Documentation/Output: Certification by Training Director of compliance and copy of the audit performed annotated with observations and results. Suspense Date: 12/22/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Training Director
Step Number: 2 Action: Based on the report generated in Step 1, the Director of Training will establish a work program to upload all missing records into the Power DMS system. This work program will list specific suspense dates for incremental loading as well as the persons responsible for the loading. This work program should not exceed the end of 4Q2016. Results of the Training Director’s work, he/she will submit a report to the AIU, who will include periodic re-audits as part of their quarterly audits.
Documentation/Output: Reports noted above; work program noted above; and information from the AIU quarterly audits for this sub-paragraph. The work program will have monthly reviews by the Training Director to determine progress toward the goals Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and monthly updates on progress by the 10th of each subsequent month until completion. Responsible Person: Training Director
Step Number: 3 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

83

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 172 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 01/22/17 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: b Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Content: =>95% of the training records shall, at a minimum, include the course description and duration, curriculum, and instructor for each officer.
Step Number: 1 Action: Audit and Work program listed in sub-paragraph a, above, will include, at a minimum, the course description, curriculum (lesson plans and supporting training materials), and the instructor that actually taught the course.
Documentation/Output: Work program noted in sub-paragraph a, Step 2, with requirements of sub-paragraph b, above, included. Certification submitted quarterly, 10 days after end of quarter. Suspense Date: 08/13/16,11/13/16, and 02/13/17 Responsible Person: Training Director
Step Number: 2 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 02/03/17 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

84

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 173 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Paragraph: 81 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance
CD Content: The VIPD will provide training on appropriate burdens of proof to all supervisors, as well as the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility (to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform, and legally appropriate). The VIPD will also continue to provide training to supervisors on leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training will be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities, and will be made part of annual in-service training.
Suspense Date: 01/15/17 Responsible Person: Training Director
Sub-Paragraph: a Current Status: Partial Compliance Content: The VIPD will provide training on appropriate burdens of proof to all supervisors.
Step Number: 1 Action: Director of Training will conduct a review, documented in a report, of all current training materials associated with the instruction of burden of proof as a factor in determining responsibility for actions by VIPD personnel or validity of citizen complaints.
Documentation/Output: Report; Certification of compliance listing materials reviewed as well as supporting analysis Suspense Date: 09/21/16 Responsible Person: Training Director and IAB Supervisors
Step Number: 2 Action: Based on the review in Step 1, update any necessary information to assure currency of the lesson plans and submit those lesson plans to the appropriate VIPD legal counsel for review for legal content.
Documentation/Output: Review by and sign off on the lesson plan by VIPD legal counsel and/or a revised lesson plan if required. Suspense Date: 10/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Training Director
Step Number: 3 Action: Revised lesson plans will be submitted to the IMT and DOJ for review.
Documentation/Output: Final revised lesson plans submitted to DOJ/IMT. Suspense Date: 10/04/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Training Director

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

85

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 174 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Step Number: 4 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 11/04/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: b Current Status: Partial Compliance Content: Training should include factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility.
Step Number: 1 Action: Director of Training will review all lesson plans that address the credibility of complainants and witnesses. These lesson plans will be structured to address accepted factors that are used to evaluate credibility and include adult learning concepts and techniques such as practical exercises where the participants must evaluate information regarding these subjects and identify what level of credibility to assign to them.
Documentation/Output: Listing of lesson plans reviewed, annotated of where the evaluation of credibility of complainants and witnesses is taught within the lesson plan. Included will be a notation as to any modifications made and the lesson plan version number where those changes can be seen. Suspense Date: 10/14/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Dir. Training, IAB Supervisors
Step Number: 2 Action: Appropriate legal counsel will review the revised lesson plans and approve them or request revision from a legal standpoint.
Documentation/Output: List of all lesson plans reviewed and approved by the AAG or designee, to include the date and version number of the approved lesson plan. Copies of rejection memos from legal counsel annotated with what steps the Training Director is taking to correct the problem. Suspense Date: 10/24/16 Responsible Person: Training Director and appropriate legal counsel
Step Number: 3 Action: Revised lesson plans will be forwarded to the IMT and DOJ for review and approval prior to being used for instruction.
Documentation/Output: Revised lesson plans

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

86

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 175 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Suspense Date: 11/04/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Training Director and G. Davila
Step Number: 4 Action: Approved lesson plans will be uploaded to Power DMS.
Documentation/Output: Certification of upload and PowerDMS report of same. Suspense Date: 11/15/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Training Coordinator
Step Number: 5 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 12/15/16 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: c Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: The VIPD will also continue to provide training to supervisors on leadership and command accountability.
Sub-Paragraph: d Current Status: Partial Compliance Content: The training shall include techniques designed to promote proper police practices.
Step Number: 1 Action: Training Director will review all training associated with sub-paragraph 81-b, and identify where these blocks of instruction have described and championed proper police practices or “best practices” as defined by major law enforcement organizations in the US such as IACP, PERF, NOBLE, USDOJCOPS, etc.
Documentation/Output: Certification of compliance along with list of lesson plans where such associations were found. Copies of lesson plans forwarded along with the list. Suspense Date: 12/09/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Training Coordinator
Step Number: 2

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

87

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 176 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Action: Based on the review in Step 1, Director of Training will produce a list of the referenced blocks of instruction, including the last date the supporting lesson plan was reviewed by legal counsel and the Training Division.
Documentation/Output: List of certifications by the appropriate legal counsel and cover pages from the lesson plans, as well as any lesson plans that have been changed. Suspense Date: 12/19/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Training Director
Step Number: 3 Action: Lesson plans and related instructional media listed in the report from Step 1, will be forwarded to the IMT and DOJ for review.
Documentation/Output: See step 1 Suspense Date: 1/4/2017 and ongoing Responsible Person: Training Director
Step Number: 4 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 02/03/17 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator
Sub-Paragraph: e Current Status: Substantial Compliance Content: This training will be provided w/in 90 days of promotion.
Sub-Paragraph: f Current Status: Partial Compliance Content: And will be made a part of annual in-service training.
Step Number: 1 Action: Training Director will ensure that all newly promoted supervisors are provided the training subject areas noted in sub-paragraph 81-b within 90 days of promotion. To confirm this, the Training Director will prepare a list of all supervisors promoted since 01/01/14 identifying the following:
1. The dates the referenced training was provided; 2. A copy of the training schedule for the course attended by the officers; and 3. Identification of blocks of instruction from those training schedules that meet the requirements of sub-paragraph 81-b.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

88

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 177 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Documentation/Output: Documentation demonstrating compliance through attendance and courses of instruction provided; PowerDMS report can be used. Suspense Date: 12/31/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Training Director
Step Number: 2 Action: Based on the report in Step 1, the Training Director will assemble the lesson plans and supporting training materials that relate to the blocks identified and forward them, along with the referenced report, to the IMT and DOJ for review.
Documentation/Output: Documents requested by the step Suspense Date: 12/31/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Training Director
Step Number: 3 Action: VIPD will certify that the compliance requirements of the sub-paragraph have been met as written.
Documentation/Output: Compliance certifications submitted for each step and final statement that all have been complied with. Suspense Date: 01/31/17 Responsible Person: CD Coordinator

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

89

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 178 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Paragraph: 100 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance
CD Content: The Territory of the Virgin Islands and the VIPD shall implement each and every provision of this Agreement as that term is defined in Paragraph 30 of this Agreement
Suspense Date: 02/03/17 Responsible Person: Police Commissioner Richards
The Sub-Paragraphs assigned to Paragraph 100 were moved from the original Paragraph for compliance with the Implementation Phase of compliance with the Consent Decree. The writing of the policies and the related training compliance remained with the original Paragraph.
Sub-Paragraph: a Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Linked With: 31 Content: All uses of force comply with VIPD policies and applicable law
Step Number: 1 Action: When =>90% of Use of Force by the VIPD is compliant with paragraphs 32-39 this sub-paragraph is in compliance.
Documentation/Output: VIPD Quarterly Audits Suspense Date: 09/15/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Chiefs of Police
Step Number: 2 Action: VIPD will address violations of compliance by corrective action through discipline, revised policy or training modifications as appropriate.
Documentation/Output: Report of sanctions analysis and corrective action applied. Suspense Date: 10/15/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Police Chiefs and Police Commissioner
Sub-Paragraph: b Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Linked With: 31-c Content: As appropriate, Officers disengaged, contained the area, conducted surveillance, waited out the subject, and/or called in specialized units.
Step Number: 1 Action:, VIPD will review those incidents involving shootings, hostage taking, barricaded subjects, persons in crisis, to determine if the requirements of this sub-paragraph were considered and if so, were they followed.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

90

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 179 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Documentation/Output: Report of review findings. Suspense Date: 10/15/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors and FRB Administrator as appropriate
Step Number: 2 Action: VIPD will reviews Use of Force incidents to determine if any changes in policy or training are required and if so, ensure that such recommendations, including any from FRB reviews, are forwarded to the appropriate entity for corrective action. IAB Supervisors will establish an appropriate suspense file, list, or data system to ensure that the actions are reviewed and appropriate corrective action is taken.
Documentation/Output: Documentation that referenced suspense file has been established or an existing one within IAPro is being utilized. Suspense Date: 11/15/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors and FRB Administrator as appropriate
Step Number: 3 Action: VIPD organizational units receiving recommendations for changes in policy or training as referenced in Step 2, above, will review such requests and report back the results of their reviews and/or any changes effected to the IAB within 30 days.
Documentation/Output: Monthly publication of suspense file status reports of existing referrals for action by other VIPD organizational units. Suspense Date: 12/15/16 and each month thereafter Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors
Sub-Paragraph: c Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Linked With: 31-d Content: When feasible, an individual is allowed to submit to arrest before force is used.
Step Number: 1 Action: Zone Commanders will identify those incidents where the situation was such that an individual could have been offered an opportunity to surrender and determine in those situations if that opportunity was provided by the involved officer(s).
Documentation/Output: Report generated as above. Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Zone Commanders
Step Number: 2

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

91

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 180 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Action: If the opportunity should have been offered but was not, VIPD will take the appropriate corrective action regarding the involved officer(s).
Documentation/Output: Report indicating what corrective actions were taken. Suspense Date: 10/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Zone Commanders
Step Number: 3 Action: VIPD will review Use of Force incidents to determine if any changes in policy or training are required and if so, ensures that such recommendations, including any from FRB reviews, are forwarded to the appropriate entity for corrective action. The IAB Director, will establishes and uses an appropriate suspense file, list, or data system to ensure that the actions are reviewed and appropriate corrective action as needed is taken.
Documentation/Output: Monthly reports generated from the IAB suspense file Suspense Date: 11/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Agent Kisha Mitchell and Daria Byron
Step Number: 4 Action: VIPD organizational units receiving recommendations for changes in policy or training as referenced in Step 2, above, will review such requests and report back the results of their reviews and/or any changes effected to the IAB within 30 days.
Documentation/Output: See documentation noted in Step 3, above. Suspense Date: 12/01/16 and ongoing as specified Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors
Sub-Paragraph: d Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Linked With: 31-f, 34-d Content: In Use of Force incidents, the Use of Force review concludes that sufficient less lethal alternatives were used where consistent with VIPD policy.
Step Number: 1 Action: VIPD will review those Use of Force incidents where less lethal alternatives were applied by the responding officer(s) to determine if those uses of less lethal alternatives were consistent with VIPD policy. (See also evaluation by supervisors under paragraph 34-d; 31-f refers to issuance and should be checked via Roll Call inspections by supervisors; evaluation of use is done here and 34-d)

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

92

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 181 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Documentation/Output: Reports of the results of review of cases listing evaluation of less lethal opportunities; e.g. case number, summary of incident and evaluation of less lethal options. Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Zone Commanders
Step Number: 2 Action: VIPD will review the instances where the choice of less lethal alternatives was not consistent with VIPD policy and, indicate what action, if any, was taken against the involved officer(s). In addition, VIPD will identify where changes in policy or training is required and if so, ensure that such recommendations, including any from FRB reviews, are forwarded to the appropriate entity for corrective action. The Director of IAB will establish and use an appropriate suspense file, list, or data system to ensure that the actions are reviewed and appropriate corrective action as needed is taken.
Documentation/Output: Documentation demonstrating establishment of the suspense file. Suspense Date: 10/01/16 Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors
Step Number: 3 Action: VIPD organizational units receiving recommendations for changes in policy or training as referenced in Step 2, above, review such requests and report back the results of their review and/or any changes effected to the IAB within 30 days.
Documentation/Output: Monthly updates from the suspense file referenced in Step 2, above, indicating status of all such forwarded requests for action by other VIPD entities. Suspense Date: 11/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Responsible Unit Commanders
Sub-Paragraph: e Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Linked With: 31-f Content: Patrol and other applicable officers carry less lethal alternatives at all times.
Step Number: 1 Action: VIPD will ensure that appropriate department policy or directives are in place to mandate inspections of officers to ensure the carrying of less lethal weapons.
Documentation/Output: Revisions to appropriate department policy or directives forwarded to IMT and DOJ for review.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

93

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 182 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and ongoing as required Responsible Person: Dr. Bellot
Step Number: 2 Action: VIPD will review inspection reports by line supervisors in both patrol and other units, where carry of less lethal alternatives is mandated, to determine if the requirements of the sub-paragraph are being complied with. Such review reports will be provided starting 09/01/16 and continue on a monthly basis thereafter.
Documentation/Output: Reports of initial data gathering back to 01/01/15 and monthly inspections forwarded to the IMT for review Suspense Date: 10/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Zone Commanders
Step Number: 3 Action: VIPD will take appropriate administrative action against those officer(s) who fail to comply with the less lethal alternatives carry requirement or supervisors who fail to conduct inspections and/or fail to take appropriate action to correct observed deficiencies in their subordinates.
Documentation/Output: Reports detailing administrative action taken by VIPD resultant of Step 2 activities forwarded to IMT and DOJ for review. Suspense Date: 11/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Zone Commanders
Sub-Paragraph: f Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Linked With: 31-g Content: In Use of Force incidents, choke holds, and similar carotid holds were not used, except where deadly force was authorized.
Step Number: 1 Action: VIPD will review all cases since 01/01/16 where a choke hold was noted and list what action was taken against any involved officer if deadly force was not authorized.
Documentation/Output Results of the review listing Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Audit Unit
Step Number: 2 Action: If the review in Step 1 determines that changes in policy or training are required the VIPD will ensure that such recommendations, including any from FRB reviews, are forwarded to the appropriate entity for action. The IAB Supervisors will establish an appropriate suspense file, list, or data system to

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

94

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 183 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
ensure that the actions are reviewed and appropriate corrective action as needed is taken.
Documentation/Output: Update from IAB suspense file detailing transmissions of requests for policy review and update other VIPD organizational units. Suspense Date: 10/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors
Step Number: 3 Action: VIPD organizational units receiving recommendations for changes in policy or training as referenced in Step 2, above, will review such requests and report back the results of their reviews and/or any changes effected to the IAB within 30 days.
Documentation/Output: Updates to IAB suspense file showing return of completed requests previously logged under Step 2, above. Suspense Date: 11/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Organizational units involved
Sub-Paragraph: g Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Linked With: 32-34 Content: In Use of Force incidents where the Use of Force review concluded that the force was inconsistent with policy or legal standard, the VIPD took corrective action against the officer (SC Compliance Requirement wording updated 11/12/14 and also linked back to 33 and 34).
Step Number: 1 Action: VIPD will review all cases closed since 01/01/16 and forward, as well as cases previously identified by the AIU and reported in quarterly audits to determine in which the Use of Force was found not to be consistent with VIPD policy and the CD and list those along with the disciplinary action (if applicable) or other actions taken to correct previous violations.
Documentation/Output: Report detailing the results of review Suspense Date: 09/01/16and ongoing Responsible Person: Police Chiefs
Step Number: 2 Action: In cases where the disciplinary action was not taken or where the alternative corrective actions were not completed the VIPD will take appropriate action against the involved officer(s) or supervisor(s) (consistent with any applicable CBAs and other binding legal constraints) and update the associated records within IAPro.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

95

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 184 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Documentation/Output: Monthly reports of actions taken Suspense Date: 10/01/16 and ongoing monthly Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors
Step Number: 3 Action: Based on the review, VIPD will identify those officers and supervisors who fail to comply with policy and provide further non-punitive remedial actions to ensure future compliance.
Documentation/Output: List of personnel who continue to fail to follow policy as determined by the review in Step 1 and 2, annotated with administrative actions taken by management to ensure future compliance. Suspense Date: 11/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors
Sub-Paragraph: h Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Linked With: 39 Content: Sworn personnel do not possess or use unauthorized firearms or ammunition.
Step Number: 1 Action: VIPD will conduct a semi-annual random inspection of firearms and ammunition carried by VIPD personnel to ensure compliance with policy.
Documentation/Output: Report detailing the results of the inspections. Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and ongoing and semi-annually thereafter Responsible Person: Police Chiefs in coordination with AIU; AIU has option to conduct separate inspections.
Step Number: 2 Action: Based on the results of Step1, above, the VIPD will annotate their findings to verify if the administrative action taken resulted in disciplinary or other alternative action and if it did, were the prescribed actions completed.
Documentation/Output: Report from Step 1, updated with findings of Step 2 Suspense Date: 10/01/16 and ongoing as indicated in Step 1 Responsible Person: Police Chiefs and IAB Supervisors where remedial actions or policy issues were identified
Sub-Paragraph: i Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Linked With: 39

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

96

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 185 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Content: In cases where an officer is found to be in possession of unauthorized firearms or ammunition, there is evidence that an investigation was conducted and appropriate corrective action was taken
Step Number: 1 Action: See process in sub-paragraph h, above
Documentation/Output: Reports generated in sub-paragraph h, above. Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Police Chiefs and IAB Supervisors where remedial actions or policy issues were identified
Sub-Paragraph: j Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Linked With: 39 Content: Critical Firearm Discharges are documented in an RRR.
Step Number: 1 Action: VIPD will review all reports of critical firearm discharges since 01/01/16 forward and list those cases in case sequence number, including a notation as to the presence of an RRR in the IAPro file system and investigative action by FIT.
Documentation/Output: Certification from the FIT supervisor and results of FRB review. Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and ongoing from FIT and FRB actions Responsible Person: FRB Administrator
Step Number: 2 Action: Based on the review conducted in Step 1 above, the VIPD will take appropriate administrative action against involved officers and their supervisors at the time of the discharge, for failure to comply with VIPD policy and CD requirements for the completion of an RRR. The IAPro case file for the associated critical firearm discharge will be updated as to the results of these new actions.
Documentation/Output: Reports of actions taken resultant of review and/or certification in Step 2. Suspense Date: 10/01/16 and ongoing from FIT and FRB actions Responsible Person: Police Chiefs
Step Number: 3 Action: VIPD will produce an administrative report detailing the actions taken as a result of Steps 1 and 2, above and distribute those reports on a semi-annual basis.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

97

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 186 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Documentation/Output: Semi-annual reports to VIPD command staff and DOJ/IMT Suspense Date: 11/01/16 and ongoing semi-annual thereafter Responsible Person: AIU
Sub-Paragraph: k Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Linked With: 31-a through g Content: In reported incidents involving off-duty officers taking police action, the offduty officer's conduct comports with policies regarding off-duty officers taking police action and 31 (a) - (g) of the Consent Decree.
Step Number: 1 Action: VIPD will review all offense reports starting with 01/01/16 forward and compare those to cases in the IAPro system to determine compliance with the requirements of the sub-paragraph.
Documentation/Output: Report generated as a result of the review published on a monthly basis. Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and ongoing monthly thereafter Responsible Person: Police Chiefs in coordination with AIU (quarterly audits)
Step Number: 2 Action: Based on the review in Step 1, above, VIPD will take appropriate administrative action against involved officer(s) who have failed to properly report actions taken off-duty.
Documentation/Output: Monthly listing of administrative actions taken against off-duty officers for failure to report Use of Force in accordance with policy. Suspense Date: 10/01/16 and ongoing monthly thereafter Responsible Person: Police Chiefs
Sub-Paragraph: l Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Linked With: 40-a Content: Off-duty officers notified on-duty sworn personnel or local law enforcement officers before taking police actions, except in exigent circumstances.
Step Number: 1 Action: VIPD starting with 09/01/16 will review incidents and take action against all off-duty officers taking police action and failing to notify on-duty personnel as required by VIPD policy.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

98

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 187 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Documentation/Output: Report of actions taken, published on a monthly basis, Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and ongoing monthly thereafter Responsible Person: Police Chiefs
Sub-Paragraph: m Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Linked With: 40-b Content: In incidents where an off-duty officer taking police action appeared to have consumed alcohol, the off-duty officer submitted to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.
Step Number: 1 Action: Using the review noted in sub-paragraph l, above, the VIPD will also review whether the file notes if the officer did or did not consumer alcohol and was a field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests
Documentation/Output: Report of findings of the review. Suspense Date: 09/01/16 ongoing monthly thereafter Responsible Person: Police Chiefs
Step Number: 2 Action: Based on the review in Step 1, VIPD will take appropriate administrative action against all off-duty officers who take police action and fail a subsequent sobriety test.
Documentation/Output: Report of actions taken, published monthly. Suspense Date: 10/01/16 ongoing monthly thereafter Responsible Person: Police Chiefs
Sub-Paragraph: n Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Linked With: 47 and 34-e Content: In reportable Use of Force incidents, the investigating supervisor had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he/she was not involved in the Use of Force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize conduct leading to the Use of Force incident
Step Number: 1 Action: IAB will include monitoring of compliance with this sub-paragraph by including it on the previously referenced IAB checklist which is used by the assigned analysts to check each newly initiated case for compliance with CD requirements.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

99

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 188 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Documentation/Output: Updated IAB checklist documenting inclusion of this requirement. Suspense Date: 10/01/16 and monthly thereafter by the 10th of each subsequent month. Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors
Step Number: 2 Action: IAB will prepare a monthly report demonstrating that all newly initiated cases (IAB and field generated) were checked for compliance with this requirement and that all cases not complying have been returned for corrective action.
Documentation/Output: Report detailing monthly summaries of cases checked and cases returned for corrective action. Suspense Date: 10/01/6 and monthly thereafter by the 10th of each subsequent month Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors
Sub-Paragraph: o Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Linked With: 52 Content: Use of force investigations include documented findings of all of the considerations required by paragraph 52, which include:
1. the police action was in compliance with policy, training and legal standards, regardless of whether the complainant suffered harm; 2. the incident involved misconduct by any officer; 3. the use of different tactics should or could have been employed; 4. the incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling or other nondisciplinary corrective measures; and 5. the incident suggests that the VIPD should revise its policies, training, or tactics.
Step: 1 Action: The VIPD will review all Use of Force and associated Force Tools policies to determine continued compliance with Consent Decree and Constitutional Policing standards.
Documentation/Output: Copy of analysis report detaining the review and determination of compliance; publication of updated, revised policies or current policies (showing review date) if no changes were necessary Suspense Date: 10/01/16 ongoing Responsible Person: Dr. Bellot in conjunction with the UOF working group and Training Director.
Step Number: 2

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

100

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 189 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Action: The VIPD will bring all Use of Force and Force Tools related lesson plans and materials, including those for special units, into compliance with policy and generally accepted training development requirements (adult learning focus and ISD/ADDIE)
Documentation/Output: Detailed report listing all training materials associated with any of the UOF policies or Force Tools, to include a certification that each lesson plan contains, as a minimum, evaluable performance/learning objectives, maximization of adult learning techniques and practices that recognize the needs of adult learners and instructional responses thereto; copies of all revised/updated lesson plans, copies of certifications granted to Force Tool developers of training materials. Suspense Date: 10/01/16 and ongoing annually thereafter Responsible Person: Training Director
Step Number: 3 Action: IAB will review all cases since 01/01/16 to determine the three requirements of the paragraph were documented either positively or negatively in the final case evaluations of incident and officer performance.
Documentation/Output: Report generated by the review Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors
Step Number: 4 Action: Based upon the report generated by the review in Step 3, VIPD will take appropriate action to correct the deficiencies detected and, within limits contained in the various union contracts, take appropriate action against those VIPD personnel who failed to comply with the VIPD reporting required contained within VIPD policy and covered by this paragraph.,
Documentation/Output: Report generated by the review Suspense Date: 02/03/17 and ongoing Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors with Police Chiefs
Sub-Paragraph: p Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Linked With: 53 Content: When administrative investigations are referred to the VIAG or other appropriate agency, the VIPD has documentation that it has completed, to the extent possible, its own administrative investigation.
Step Number: 1 Action: The VIPD will review all cases between 01/01/16 and 07/15/16 forwarded to the VIAG (or other appropriate agency) and determine if the VIPD actions were compliant with the requirements of Paragraph 53.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

101

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 190 of 231 VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016

Documentation/Output: Report with results of the review Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors
Step Number: 2 Action: Of those cases referred, the VIPD will determine if all administrative actions available were exercised and the case completed.
Documentation/Output: Report from Step 1, annotated with results of Step 2 actions Suspense Date: 09/15/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors
Sub-Paragraph: q Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Linked With: 64-c Content: IAPro EIP reports are generated and distributed to appropriate sworn personnel (e.g., Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, and supervisors) on a monthly basis.
Step Number: 1 Action: VIPD will produce, distribute, and verify receipt of EIP reports generated from the IAPro system on a monthly basis commencing 08/0/1/16 to personnel noted in the paragraph.
Documentation/Output: IAPro EIP reports; distribution lists and acknowledgements of receipt Suspense Date: 09/10/16 continuing monthly by the 10th of each subsequent month Responsible Person: EIP Analysts on STT and STX
Sub-Paragraph: r Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Linked With: 64-f Content: The VIPD is utilizing the EIP. Underlying documentation should include documentation of EIP meetings, the Early Intervention Unit Action Plan and Early Intervention Unit Assessment, attendance records of VIPD personnel and all followup documentation for completed intervention.
64-f requires: The protocol will require that intervention options include discussion by deputy chiefs, managers, supervisors, and officers; counseling; training; and supervised, monitored, and documented action plans and strategies designed to modify activity. All interventions will be documented in writing and entered into the automated system (appropriate intervention options will be employed based on the evaluation described in subsection (e) above).

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

102

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 191 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Step Number: 1 Action: VIPD will review current EIP operating process, territory wide, to identify points inconsistent with established policies and protocols as well as requirements of 64-f.
Documentation/Output: Based on the review VIPD will prepare a detailed Memorandum for Record of results of the review and proposed actions to be taken to correct inconsistencies Suspense Date: 09/01/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: Acting Police Chief Marsh
Step Number: 2 Action: If inconsistencies are found, VIPD will correct and forward documentation of the corrective action the DOJ/IMT for review.
Documentation/Output: Report detailing corrective action and results Suspense Date: 09/20/16 and ongoing Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors
Step Number: 3 Action: VIPD will review EIP reports generated and detail actions taken in response to alerts noted in the referenced reports.
Documentation/Output: Monthly reports of EIP alerts and actions taken in response. Suspense Date: 09/15/16 and ongoing by the 15th of each month Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors
Step Number: 4 Action: Based on the reports generated in the above, VIPD will review all policies and directives to determine if modifications or revisions are necessary.
Documentation/Outputs: Revised policies and/or directives for review by DOJ/IMT Suspense Date: 10/01/16 and ongoing as appropriate Responsible Person: Dr. Bellot and Policy Committee
Sub-Paragraph: s Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Linked With: 64-k Content: Deputy Chiefs, managers, and supervisors have initiated EIP interventions based on activity and pattern assessment contained in the RMS.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

103

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 192 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
64-k requires: The protocol will require regular reviews, at no less than quarterly intervals, by appropriate managers of all relevant risk management system information to evaluate officer performance territorywide, and to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all VIPD units in order to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents.
Step Number: 1 Action: Using IAPro, VIPD will monitor the frequency of reviews of territory-wide risk management information to ensure quarterly compliance (or compliance more frequently as may be required by VIPD policy).
Documentation/Output: At a minimum, quarterly comparisons of territorywide risk management system information will be generated and distributed to the supervisory and command personnel, within the VIPD organizational structure. Suspense Date: 10/10/16 and ongoing on a quarterly basis within 10 days of the end of future calendar quarters Responsible Person: EIP Analysts
Step Number: 2 Action: VIPD will ensure that management personnel within the various organizational units review and report back on actions regarding data in the reports including counseling, meetings, training, initiation of administrative actions, etc.
Documentation/Output: At a minimum, monthly reports by VIPD management personnel on actions taken in response to the quarterly data reports. Suspense Date: 10/30/16 ongoing on a quarterly basis within 30 days of the end of future calendar quarters Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors
Sub-Paragraph: t Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Linked With: 64-g Content: EIP interventions are based on all relevant and appropriate information, including the nature of the officer's assignment, crime trends and crime problems, and not solely the number or percentages of incidents in any category of information recorded in the risk management system.
Step Number: 1 Action: Prepare monthly reports including current status of intervention plans that detail compliance with the sub-paragraph and distribute to Deputy Chiefs, Chiefs, and IMT.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

104

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 193 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Documentation/Output: Referenced monthly reports Suspense Date: 09/15/16 and ongoing by the 15th of each subsequent month Responsible Person: EIP Analysts
Step Number: 2 Action: Managers will prepare monthly reports that detail actions taken by them on the related EIP plans and other risk management data. Reports will demonstrate the required analysis as detailed on the compliance requirement and the sub-paragraph and distribute to Deputy Chiefs, Chiefs, and IMT.
Documentation/Output: Monthly management reports Suspense Date: 10/30/16 and ongoing by the 30th of each month. Responsible Person: Managers and command personnel with assigned EIP plan responsibilities
Sub-Paragraph: u Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Linked With: 64-h Content: In instances when officers are transferred to a new section or unit, Deputy Chiefs, managers and supervisors for the relevant section or unit promptly review the RMS records of such officers.
Step Number: 1 Action: Commanders will review the risk management profile on all recently assigned officers within 5 days of assignment.
Documentation/Output: Monthly report from the VIPD that lists all recently transferred officers and the related check made by their new commanders of their risk management profile. Manning chart or staffing list detailing all current VIPD personnel (see also V, Step 2) Suspense Date: 09/15/16 and ongoing by the 15th of each month Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors
Sub-Paragraph: v Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Linked With: 64-i Content: The VIPD has established a protocol for evaluating whether Deputy Chiefs, managers and supervisors are able to use the RMS effectively.
Step Number: 1 Action: VIPD will develop an audit tool to physically check the capabilities of supervisors and above to access the risk management RMS (IAPro and other related systems) and use the system to check on the risk profile of their subordinates as well as ascertain the current risk management status of employees under their supervision. The audit tool will be reviewed by IMT and DOJ prior to use.

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

105

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 194 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Documentation/Output: Protocol developed; review and approval by IMT and DOJ. Suspense Date: 09/20/16 Responsible Person: AIU
Step Number: 2 Action: VIPD will, using the audit tools developed in Step 1, initiate a physical check of all supervisors and above regarding their ability to use the risk management system to identify potential risk issues with subordinates and to ascertain the current risk management status of employees under their supervision.
Documentation/Output: An updated manning chart showing the location and chain of command of all active VIPD personnel. Report documenting that this initial check has been completed to include the audit tools used to determine the capabilities of the personnel checked, using the previously noted manning chart. Suspense Date: 09/20/16 and ongoing as audits completed Responsible Person: IAB Supervisors
Sub-Paragraph: w Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Linked With: 70 Content: Disciplinary penalty decisions are consistent with the penalties set forth in the Disciplinary Matrix.
Step Number: 1 Action: The VIPD will review the current disciplinary matrix and update as needed. Revised matrix will be reviewed by IMT and DOJ.
Documentation/Output: Revised and approved matrix Suspense Date: 10/15/16 Responsible Person: Mr. Tony Emanuel
Step Number: 2 Action: Using the revised matrix, VIPD will monitor the selection of discipline and report out the results with regard to sub-paragraph objectives. A report detailing the results of the monitoring, including deficiencies found will be prepared monthly. (Note: concurrent monitoring under paragraph 72 exists)
Documentation/Output: Report generated monthly Suspense Date: 12/15/16 and ongoing by the 15th of each month Responsible Person: Mr. Tony Emanuel

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

106

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 195 of 231
VIPD Action Plan 2Q2016
Paragraph: 101 Current Status: Not in Substantial Compliance
CD Content: The VIPD shall implement immediately all provisions of this Agreement that involve the continuation of current VIPD policies, procedures, and practices. The remaining provisions shall be implemented either by the specified implementation date or, for those provisions that have no specified implementation date, as soon as is reasonably practicable and no later than 150 days after this Agreement’s effective date.
Suspense Date: 02/03/17 Responsible Person: Police Commissioner Richards, Attorney General Walker, Governor Mapp
Paragraph 101, although carried as a paragraph Not in Substantial Compliance, is not deemed conducive to this Action Planning format.
Step Number: 1 Action: NA
Documentation/Output: NA Suspense Date: 02/03/17 Responsible Person: Police Commissioner Richards, Attorney General Walker, Governor Mapp

Rev 12 072716 FINAL

107

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 196 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

Goal 1Q6-1 Original Order Date 02/26/2016 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 91

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

Paragraph 32, All

Status Synopsis
1Q2016 - VIPD did not produce a compliance plan for this goal and did not complete the Court ordered "Action Plan" either. IMT activity for this goal (paragraph) can be found in the base report with noted activity by the Workgroup on case review and return for corrective action when not in compliance with policy or the CD.

Goal 1Q6-2 Original Order Date 02/26/2016 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 91

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

Paragraph 33, ALL

Status Synopsis
1Q2016 - VIPD did not produce a compliance plan for this goal and did not complete the Court ordered "Action Plan" either. IMT activity for this goal (paragraph) can be found in the base report with noted activity by the Workgroup on case review and return for corrective action when not in compliance with policy or the CD.

Goal 1Q6-3 Original Order Date 02/26/2016 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 91

Description

Action Officer Checf Hector

Paragrpah 44, ALL

Status Synopsis
1Q2016 - VIPD did not produce a compliance plan for this goal and did not complete the Court ordered "Action Plan" either. IMT activity for this goal (paragraph) can be found in the base report with noted activity by the Workgroup on case review and return for corrective action when not in compliance with policy or the CD. In addition, the Workgroup has been steadily reducing the number of incomplete investigations.

Goal 1Q6-4 Original Order Date 02/26/2016 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 91

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

Paragraph 69, All

Status Synopsis
1Q2016- the VIPD brought sub-paragraph 69-a into substantial compliance during the quarter. IMT is aware of the published audit schedule and is awaiting compliance with that schedule prior to awarding compliance with 69-b.

Goal 1Q6-5 Original Order Date 02/26/2016 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 91

Description

Action Officer Checf Hector

Paragrpah 58

Status Synopsis
1Q2016-The VIPD did not produce an Action Plan to address this or other 1Q2016 goals as required by the Court. The efforts of the VIPD to address deficiencies with non-compliant sub-paragraphs are detailed elsewhere in the base report. Their efforts have not resulted in compliance with the goal.

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID:
appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 1 of 32

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 197 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

Goal 1Q6-6 Original Order Date 02/26/2016 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 91

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

Paragrpah 70, All

Status Synopsis
1Q2016-The VIPD did not produce an Action Plan to address this or other 1Q2016 goals as required by the Court. This paragraph deals with the Disciplinary Matrix and has been in Substantial Compliance since 12/18/13. The parties have indicated a need to review the current relevancy of the matrix components to current trends and experience by other agencies and to update it as necessary. The VIPD did not complete its review process, thus the goal was not met. The IMT has chosen to continue the original Substantial Compliance of the paragraph pending both the VIPD review and an IMT special study on the implementation of discipline compared to case adjudication. The efforts of the VIPD to address deficiencies with non-compliant sub-paragraphs are detailed elsewhere in this report. Their efforts have not resulted in compliance with the goal.

Goal 1Q6-7 Original Order Date 02/26/2016 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 91

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

Paragrpah 73, All

Status Synopsis
1Q2016- The VIPD did not produce an Action Plan to address this or other 1Q2016 goals as required by the Court. The efforts of the VIPD to address deficiencies with non-compliant sub-paragraphs are detailed elsewhere in the base report. Their efforts have not resulted in compliance with the goal.

Goal 1Q6-8 Original Order Date 02/26/2016 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 91

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

Paragraph 77, All

Status Synopsis
1Q2016-The VIPD did not produce an Action Plan to address this or other 1Q2016 goals as required by the Court. The efforts of the VIPD to address deficiencies with non-compliant sub-paragraphs are detailed elsewhere in the base report. Their efforts have not resulted in compliance with the goal.

Goal 2Q5-5 Original Order Date 08/21/2015 Current Suspense Date 11/06/2015 Days OD 273

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

Train investigators and reviewers on the new Summary investigation Report

Status Synopsis
3Q2015-IMT was awaiting copies of the training schedule, curriculum materials (including lesson plans, Power Points, handouts, etc.), Course of Instruction with performance objectives, and other training materials, including attendee rosters, for this course. Submitted materials did not meet IMT standards to justify compliance. IMT will work with VIPD to improve both the quality of the training as well as the documentation needed to prove compliance. VIPD further did not follow IMT Procedure 15-1, VIPD

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016

Quarterly Report

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 2 of 32

IMT System ID: appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 198 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

Submission of Paragraph or Goal Completion, dated 08/07/15 when submitting the documentation. 4Q2015- Status remains unchanged as IMT has not been provided appropriate documents and VIPD has not requested compliance review. 1Q2016-Status remains unchanged as IMT has not been provided appropriate documents and VIPD has not requested compliance review.

Goal 2Q5-6 Original Order Date 08/21/2015 Current Suspense Date 08/21/2015 Days OD 350

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

Train investigators and reviewers on the new Citizen Complaint Checklist

Status Synopsis
3Q2015-IMT was awaiting copies of the training schedule, curriculum materials (including lesson plans, Power Points, handouts, etc), Course of Instruction with performance objectives, and other training materials, including attendee rosters, for this course. Submitted materials did not meet IMT standards to justify compliance. IMT will work with VIPD to improve both the quality of the training as well as the documentation needed to prove compliance. VIPD further did not follow IMT Procedure 15-1, VIPD Submission of Paragraph or Goal Completion, dated 08/07/15 when submitting the documentation. 4Q2015- same status as 4Q5-5; no receipt of documentation or request for compliance from VIPD. 1Q2016- Status remains unchanged as IMT has not been provided appropriate documents and VIPD has not requested compliance review.

Goal 32-b Original Order Date 08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 91

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

=>95% of RRRs indicate each and every type of force that was used.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. Appendix A: The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting period. Cases still fail to list all types of force that was used in the event. Paragraph generally This paragraph is still stagnated and progress has been incremental at best. Both VIPD and the IMT have discussed potential actions they can take to drive compliance forward. 1) Identify supervisor weaknesses and meet and counsel them individually.

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID:
appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 3 of 32

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 199 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

2) Assess supervisor ability to write, review and analyze force incidents; and improve training delivery, 3) Have Chief's conduct force tracking thru commanders call 4) Train Chief's and D/Chief's on analyzing force patterns and practices 5) Train supervisors on techniques to coach and mentor subordinates on thru force incidents. 6) Use technology to advance the force review and analysis process. Install and operate the in car video system, personal worn cameras etc. 1Q2016 - Focusing on requiring RRRs to indicate each and every type of force that was used in force incidents, the VIPD has increased its compliance rate, but still falls short of meeting the established goals of 95% or better compliance. Both the VIPD audits and IMT case reviews confirm this status. The UOF Working Group has been reviewing each investigation and included RRRs to ensure compliance with requirements and returning deficient ones back to the investigating officers for corrective action. The IMT will continue to monitor during the next quarter.

Goal 32-c Original Order Date 08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 91

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

=>95% of RRRs contain an evaluation of each type of force used by a supervisor.

Status Synopsis

4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is

covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report.

Appendix A:

The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting

components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting

period.

Paragraph generally

This paragraph is still stagnated and progress has been incremental at best. Both VIPD

and the IMT have discussed potential actions they can take to drive compliance

forward.

1) Identify supervisor weaknesses and meet and counsel them individually.

2) Assess supervisor ability to write, review and analyze force incidents; and

improve training delivery,

3) Have Chief's conduct force tracking thru commanders call

4) Train Chief's and D/Chief's on analyzing force patterns and practices

5) Train supervisors on techniques to coach and mentor subordinates on thru force

incidents.

6) Use technology to advance the force review and analysis process. Install and

operate the in car video system, personal worn cameras etc.

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016

Quarterly Report

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 4 of 32

IMT System ID: appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 200 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

1Q2016- Focusing on requiring RRRs to indicate each and every type of force that was used in force incidents, the VIPD has increased its compliance rate, but still falls short of meeting the established goals of 95% or better compliance. Both the VIPD audits and IMT case reviews confirm this status. The UOF Working Group has been reviewing each investigation and included RRRs to ensure compliance with requirements and returning deficient ones back to the investigating officers for corrective action. The IMT will continue to monitor during the next quarter.

Goal 32-f Original Order Date 08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 91

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

=>95% of the reports will include an audio or videotaped statement, unless the level of force used is at the lowest level as described by DOJ approved VIPD policy.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. Appendix A: The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting period. Paragraph generally This paragraph is still stagnated and progress has been incremental at best. Both VIPD and the IMT have discussed potential actions they can take to drive compliance forward. 1) Identify supervisor weaknesses and meet and counsel them individually. 2) Assess supervisor ability to write, review and analyze force incidents; and improve training delivery, 3) Have Chief's conduct force tracking thru commanders call 4) Train Chief's and D/Chief's on analyzing force patterns and practices 5) Train supervisors on techniques to coach and mentor subordinates on thru force incidents. 6) Use technology to advance the force review and analysis process. Install and operate the in car video system, personal worn cameras etc. 1Q2016- Focusing on requiring RRRs to indicate each and every type of force that was used in force incidents, the VIPD has increased its compliance rate, but still falls short of meeting the established goals of 95% or better compliance. Both the VIPD audits and IMT case reviews confirm this status. The UOF Working Group has been reviewing each investigation and included RRRs to ensure compliance with requirements and returning deficient ones back to the investigating officers for corrective action. The IMT will continue to monitor during the next quarter.

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016

Quarterly Report

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 5 of 32

IMT System ID: appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 201 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

Goal 33-a Original Order Date 08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 91

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>95% of the identified use of force incidents, the officer using force notified his/her supervisor immediately as required by VIPD policy.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. Appendix A: The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting period. Paragraph generally 33: This paragraph has received special action by the VIPD in its attempt to reach greater compliance. During this quarter the Chief's in both districts issued orders that zone commanders appoint on call supervisory personnel to respond to use of force incidents when on duty personnel are not available. Both IMT reviews and VIPD audit's disclosed the failure of police supervisory personnel in be available when force events occur. We further recommend 1) That the Chief's work together to create a unified scheduling system throughout the Territory for the call out and regularly audit the call out to ensure compliance. 2) Drive home the importance of leadership oversight thru their Commanders Call 3) Require supervisors to report to VITEMA when they respond to a force event, when they arrive, and when they have completed their work on scene.

1Q2016 - 1Q2016 - The response by supervisors to use of force incidents remains a problem and is a focus of both the IMT and the VIPD. Based on analysis of recent activity, the IMT suggested the following as a solution: Chiefs of Police need to actively manage Commissioner's Directive 001-2016/ On-Call Supervisors to Respond to Use of Force. The Directive specifically covers for disciplinary action against anyone who fails to comply with the Directive. The IMT strongly believes the current policy of using an on-call supervisor list is not the solution to the problem. The essentially allow police operations to be commanded by a police private during weekends, holidays and late hours does not meet professional policing standards or adequate supervision of an armed force. It also fails the people the of the Virgin Islands on a continual basis.

The solution is to adjust the working schedules of supervisors to ensure that at least ONE supervisor is on duty 24/7 on each island. This supervisor does not have to be

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016

Quarterly Report

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 6 of 32

IMT System ID: appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 202 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

from patrol, but rather could be any supervisor, including those assigned to day work administrative jobs. They could rotate through such supervisor assignments and still perform their administrative jobs, but at a different hour of the day. Most well managed and responsible law enforcement agencies ensure the presence of supervisors and many actually mount a duty-commander position that assumes command of the department in the absence of the police chief. The IMT believes the VIPD must make this transition now before serious problems occur. The IMT will be commenting on this during the next scheduled court hearing.

Goal 33-b Original Order Date 02/20/2015 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 91

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>90% of the incidents where the supervisor was required to respond to the scene, he/she responded within a reasonable amount of time.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. Appendix A: The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting components and found that there is no change in compliance during the reporting period. Paragraph generally 33: This paragraph has received special action by the VIPD in its attempt to reach greater compliance. During this quarter the Chief's in both districts issued orders that zone commanders appoint on call supervisory personnel to respond to use of force incidents when on duty personnel are not available. Both IMT reviews and VIPD audit's disclosed the failure of police supervisory personnel in be available when force events occur. We further recommend 1) That the Chief's work together to create a unified scheduling system throughout the Territory for the call out and regularly audit the call out to ensure compliance. 2) Drive home the importance of leadership oversight thru their Commanders Call 3) Require supervisors to report to VITEMA when they respond to a force event, when they arrive, and when they have completed their work on scene. 1Q2016 - 1Q2016 - The response by supervisors to use of force incidents remains a problem and is a focus of both the IMT and the VIPD. Based on analysis of recent activity, the IMT suggested the following as a solution: Chiefs of Police need to actively manage Commissioner's Directive 001-2016/ On-Call Supervisors to Respond to Use of Force. The Directive specifically covers for disciplinary action against anyone who fails to comply with the Directive. The IMT

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016

Quarterly Report

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 7 of 32

IMT System ID: appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 203 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

strongly believes the current policy of using an on-call supervisor list is not the solution to the problem. The essentially allow police operations to be commanded by a police private during weekends, holidays and late hours does not meet professional policing standards or adequate supervision of an armed force. It also fails the people the of the Virgin Islands on a continual basis.

The solution is to adjust the working schedules of supervisors to ensure that at least ONE supervisor is on duty 24/7 on each island. This supervisor does not have to be from patrol, but rather could be any supervisor, including those assigned to day work administrative jobs. They could rotate through such supervisor assignments and still perform their administrative jobs, but at a different hour of the day. Most well managed and responsible law enforcement agencies ensure the presence of supervisors and many actually mount a duty-commander position that assumes command of the department in the absence of the police chief. The IMT believes the VIPD must make this transition now before serious problems occur. The IMT will be commenting on this during the next scheduled court hearing.

Goal 33-c Original Order Date 08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 91

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>90% of the incidents did the supervisor respond to the scene,he/she examined the

person for injury,

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016- IMT reviewed this area during the quarter and issues still remain with compliance. See base report for additional.

Goal 33-d Original Order Date 02/20/2015 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 91

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>05% of the incidents where a supervisor responded to the scene, he/she

interviewed the subject for injury or complaint of pain.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016- Issues still remain with compliance and the workgroups are focusing on this area.

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID:
appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 8 of 32

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 204 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

Goal 33-e Original Order Date 02/20/2015 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 91

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In => 95% of the incidents where medical attention to the subject was need the supervisor ensured that care was provided.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is

covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016 - IMT continues to monitor this although improvements have been seen.

Goal 34-a Original Order Date 08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 06/30/2016 Days OD 36

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>95% of the reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he/she was not involved in the use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize or participate in conduct leading to the use of force incident), will review, evaluate, and document each use of force.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016- IMT continues to monitor this area as needed.

Goal 34-b Original Order Date 08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 12/18/2015 Days OD 231

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completes the supervisor's narrative description of the RRR in a manner that comports with the requirements of paragraph 34 of the Consent Decree.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is

covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016- See Appendix A to the base report, as well areas within the base report where this is addressed.

Goal 34-c Original Order Date 02/20/2015 Current Suspense Date 06/30/2016 Days OD 36

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>90% of the reportable use of force incidents, the supervisor completed his/her

review and evaluation according to VIPD's use of force policies and all other

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016

Quarterly Report

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 9 of 32

IMT System ID: appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 205 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

requirements of 31 of the Consent Decree and include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer/s conduct.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016 - No progress has been made on this goal and the workgroups have this as an action item. The VIPD needs to review its problem solving protocols and revisit the planning stages for compliance with this goal. New strategies need identification and plans for implementing them developed.

Goal 34-e Original Order Date 08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 12/18/2015 Days OD 231

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>95% of the reportable use of force incidents, the investigating officer had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he/she was not involved in the use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize or participate in conduct leading to the use of force incident), in order to be able to investigate each use of force.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016 - No progress has been made on this goal and the workgroups have this as an action item. The VIPD needs to review its problem solving protocols and revisit the planning stages for compliance with this goal. New strategies need identification and plans for implementing them developed.

Goal 35-a Original Order Date 08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 06/30/2016 Days OD 36

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>90% of the interviews conducted during use of force reviews, leading questions were avoided.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016 - No progress has been made on this goal and the workgroups have this as an action item. The VIPD needs to review its problem solving protocols and revisit the planning stages for compliance with this goal. New strategies need identification and plans for implementing them developed.

Goal 35-b Original Order Date 02/20/2015 Current Suspense Date 06/30/2016 Days OD 36

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>90% of the use of force reviews, all relevant evidence, including circumstantial,

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID:
appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 10 of 32

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 206 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

direct and physical evidence is documented and appropriately considered, and credibility determinations made, if feasible.
Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016 - No progress has been made on this goal and the workgroups have this as an action item. The VIPD needs to review its problem solving protocols and revisit the planning stages for compliance with this goal. New strategies need identification and plans for implementing them developed. See base quarterly report for additional information on this goal area.

Goal 35-c Original Order Date 02/20/2015 Current Suspense Date 02/20/2015 Days OD 532

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>90% of investigations where material inconsistencies are present between witness statements, reasonable efforts are made to resolve the inconsistencies.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is

covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016 - No progress has been made on this goal and the workgroups have this as an action item. The VIPD needs to review its problem solving protocols and revisit the planning stages for compliance with this goal. New strategies need identification and plans for implementing them developed. See base quarterly report for additional information on this goal area.

Goal 36-a Original Order Date 08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 06/30/2016 Days OD 36

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

=>90% of the Use of Force reports, the supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, who supervised the officer using the force, conducted the investigation of all uses of force or injury resulting from the use of force by that officer. This requirement does not apply to the lowest level use of force as defined in DOJ approved VIPD policy

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016 - No progress has been made on this goal and the workgroups have this as an action item. The VIPD needs to review its problem solving protocols and revisit the planning stages for compliance with this goal. New strategies need identification and plans for implementing them developed. See base quarterly report for additional information on this goal area.

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID:
appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 11 of 32

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 207 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

Goal 36-b Original Order Date 08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 06/30/2015 Days OD 402

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, all witnesses, to the extent practicable, are interviewed in the investigating supervisor's reports.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016 - No progress has been made on this goal and the workgroups have this as an action item. The VIPD needs to review its problem solving protocols and revisit the planning stages for compliance with this goal. New strategies need identification and plans for implementing them developed. See base quarterly report for additional information on this goal area.

Goal 36-d Original Order Date 08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 06/30/2015 Days OD 402

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>90% of Use of Force reports, Supervisors, or designated investigating officers or units, shall ensure that all use of force reports for all levels of force identify all officers

who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report.

1Q2016 - No progress has been made on this goal and the workgroups have this as an action item. The VIPD needs to review its problem solving protocols and revisit the planning stages for compliance with this goal. New strategies need identification and

plans for implementing them developed. See base quarterly report for additional information on this goal area.

Goal 44-i Original Order Date 08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 91

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

=>90% of complaints are documented and resolved in writing and completed investigations into complaints comport with the provisions of the Consent Decree.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is under review by the IMT and final action on compliance will be determined after the Feb 2016 Summit.However, despite efforts by the IMT team on-site, there was no resolution from the Summit and remains awaiting formalization of schedule formats territory-wide. The IMT continues to stand ready to assist as needed. Appendix A: As reported previously and repeatedly by the IMT, the VIPD has attempted to resolve

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID:
appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 12 of 32

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 208 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

the timeliness problems by issuing Commissioner's directives in both Districts, which mandate the completion of all outstanding 2013 and 2014 investigations. There has also been a focus on completing 2015 cases. As a result of these directives the number of outstanding cases for both Districts was reduced significantly. More recently, as a result of the November 2015 summit, the Chief of St Croix reassigned supervisors to his office to complete their overdue cases. St Thomas chose an alternative plan to address the same issue. Originally, the due date for these overdue cases to be completed was mid-January 2016. At the request of VIPD this date was extended to February 5, 2016. IMT will assess the effectiveness of these efforts. VIPD needs to clearly identify the specific reasons for the delay and address same. Additionally, VIPD must continue to hold managers and supervisors accountable for inappropriate delays. 1Q2016- Again, the VIPD fall short on timeliness of cases. As reported in the last quarterly report, "as a result of the November 2015 summit, the Chief of St Croix reassigned supervisors to his office to complete their overdue cases. St Thomas chose an alternative plan to address the same issue. Originally, the due date for these overdue cases to be completed was mid-January 2016. At the request of VIPD this date was extended to February 1, 2016."

The IMT evaluation of these efforts during the current Quarter, was limited to the actual reduction of outstanding cases as of January 1, 2015. While St Croix showed a significant reduction in outstanding cases for this period of time, the efforts on St Thomas did not show progress. When queried as to what those efforts were, the STT Chief stated that the supervisors continued to receive weekly reminders of overdue cases and were reminded to complete same. This was the same approach which had been utilized for the last few quarters without significant results. Most recently, when IMT requested of a number of supervisors/managers what the current outstanding numbers were, no one could provide a definitive answer.

We should note that although the VIPD focused on cases since 1/1/15 in order to not continue to dig themselves into a larger hole, the IMT has made clear that VIPD is responsible for successfully closing all cases as of 1/1/12. When asked why this sub-paragraph would not reach compliance during the First Quarter, a number of reasons were provided, including: not enough supervisors; special events (Carnival); scheduled training; technical issues; and others. While the IMT does not disagree with the aforementioned reasons, none of these were new or unanticipated when the VIPD identified this Paragraph as an attainable goal for this Quarter.

On St Croix, two individuals were identified as to be disciplined. One has not been available to be served the paperwork yet. A second supervisor had the charges dropped due to what VIPD described as "the complicity of IA actions." At this time, the IMT has not seen any paperwork that reflects how this issue was addressed by senior

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID:
appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 13 of 32

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 209 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

management to ensure that it was not repeated nor has the IMT received an explanation of the "complicity of IA actions" These are but a couple of examples which reflect that, despite the efforts of the working group, the actions (or lack thereof) of senior supervisors/managers are not significant and consistent enough to assist in moving this area into compliance.

The Working Group created an Investigative Case Management Log with an accompanying Directive in an attempt to assist investigators/supervisors to record their actions and be more aware of the time restraints. IMT reviewed and approved same during this Quarter.

Goal 4Q5-4 Original Order Date 02/06/2016 Current Suspense Date 02/06/2016 Days OD 181

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

Establish process for on-call Supervisor(s) to respond to Use of Force incidents when off duty.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is under review by the IMT and final action on compliance will be determined after the Feb 2016 Summit.However there was no resolution from the Summit and remains awaiting finalization of schedule formats territory-wide. 1Q2016 - Virgin Islands Police Commissioner Delroy Richards signed Order 001-2016, effective December 18, 2015, which requires a supervisory response to use of force incidents. The IMT and the Use of Force Working Group conducted an audit since implementation.

Throughout the Territory there was forty-nine (49) force incidents where supervisory call-out was required for the time frame of December 18, 2015 - April 26, 2016.

a. 49 Use of Force Incidents

14 of those incidents, the supervisor responded to the force incident. 13 of those incidents, the supervisor did not respond to the force incident. 22 of those incidents, the supervisor did not need to respond to the force incident.

b. 14/27 = 52% of the incidents, the supervisor did not respond to the force incident. This needs a follow up for compliance and reason(s) for non-compliance to the Commissioner's Directive.

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016

Quarterly Report

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 14 of 32

IMT System ID: appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 210 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

c.

13/27 = 48% of the incidents, the supervisor did respond to the force incident

consistent

with policy.

Four of the supervisory non-responses (4) occurred in the St. Thomas Police District and Nine (9) failures to respond occurred in the St. Croix District. A memo was sent to the Police Chiefs of their respective districts to explain why a supervisor filed to respond the use of force incident. Formal response and explanation has not been received and approved by the IMT at the time of this writing. It is however clear that the Commissioner's directive has moved the VIPD to get supervisors to the use of force scenes about half the time as required by policy. The reasons for failure have to be examined to learn how improvements can be made for compliance. We would recommend that the Chiefs of Police should be tasked to accomplish this review. In the base report, the IMT made the following recommendation regarding this problem of supervisory response to use of force incidents:

"Chiefs of Police need to actively manage Commissioner's Directive 001-2016/ On-Call Supervisors to Respond to Use of Force. The Directive specifically covers for disciplinary action against anyone who fails to comply with the Directive. The IMT strongly believes the current policy of using an on-call supervisor list is not the solution to the problem. The essentially allow police operations to be commanded by a police private during weekends, holidays and late hours does not meet professional policing standards or adequate supervision of an armed force. It also fails the people the of the Virgin Islands on a continual basis.

The solution is to adjust the working schedules of supervisors to ensure that at least ONE supervisor is on duty 24/7 on each island. This supervisor does not have to be from patrol, but rather could be any supervisor, including those assigned to day work administrative jobs. They could rotate through such supervisor assignments and still perform their administrative jobs, but at a different hour of the day. Most well managed and responsible law enforcement agencies ensure the presence of supervisors and many actually mount a duty-commander position that assumes command of the department in the absence of the police chief. The IMT believes the VIPD must make this transition now before serious problems occur. The IMT will be commenting on this during the next scheduled court hearing."

Goal 4Q5-5 Original Order Date 02/06/2016 Current Suspense Date 02/06/2016 Days OD 181

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

VIPD will bring backlog of cases current by designating a time period for supervisors

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016

Quarterly Report

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 15 of 32

IMT System ID: appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 211 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

responsible for the delinquent cases to complete the investigation of each delinquent case.
Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016- See previous comments under 44-i

Goal 4Q5-8 Original Order Date 02/06/2016 Current Suspense Date 02/06/2016 Days OD 181

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

Training Division will collaborate with the other three (3) working groups to identify and respond with training support to Consent Decree issues and areas identified by the working groups. Training Division’s support will include assessment of the needs; identification of the trainees; development of the curricula; delivery of training; and, in conjunction with the audit unit, evaluation of the training effectiveness.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal should be a part of an overall revision of all lesson plans. While there is a priority to revise and update CD related lesson plans; the entire system needs review and revision. There was an Instructor "Retreat" in Nov. 2015; there is a meeting scheduled to take place by 1-29-16 to advance this goal. Another meeting was scheduled for 12-17-15 which IMT believed would produce a lesson plan revision schedule. Progress should be reported during Monthly meeting 2-3-16 but was not. We would very much want to come away from our next "summit meeting" with VIPD with a revision plan. There was progress made but no finalization of the results of this review at the Summit. IMT reviewed initial drafts and made comments. VIPD to finalize and submit for formal review. VIPD in it's 02/12/16 Court filing extended the compliance date to 03/31/16. This goal remains Not Complete. 1Q2016- VIPD submitted a Compliance Request on 02/12/16, The IMT denied compliance on 02/24/16 for several reasons including that not all CD related lesson plans were reviewed, reviews did not include specific references to changes, etc. Additional information is provided within the Compliance evaluation memo and the Training section of the report.

Goal 58-c Original Order Date 05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/23/2014 Days OD 805

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

=>90% of any identified problems and/or training needs have been relayed to the appropriate VIPD entity.

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID:
appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 16 of 32

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 212 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016- To better address the resolution of issues not related to training which are identified through the course of an investigation, the Working Group drafted a Request for Non-Training Issue Support Form with an accompanying Directive. The intent was for this is be formally issued during this Quarter. The IMT will assess in future quarters the effectiveness of same. See also 44-i

Goal 58-d Original Order Date 05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/23/2014 Days OD 805

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

=>90% of the cases where there is a determination that modification to or additional

training is required, there is documented evidence that VIPD implemented additional

training.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016- See 58-c

Goal 58-e Original Order Date 05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/23/2014 Days OD 805

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

=>90% of the cases where the VIPD identified policy or equipment deficiencies, there is

documented evidence that corrective measures were implemented.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016- See 58-c

Goal 60-d Original Order Date 08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 06/30/2016 Days OD 36

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

=>95% of all injuries to prisoners will be entered into RMS with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report.

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID:
appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 17 of 32

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 213 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

Goal 69-b Original Order Date 08/15/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 91

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

The protocol establishes a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all VIPD zones.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. Appendix A: During early 2015 there was a period of time when the VIPD Audit submissions were severely delayed The IMT believes that this reflects a change period for the current administration and will not be repeated. While the Audits continue to improve, the IMT hopes that these Audits will be completed in a more timely fashion than has occurred previously. During the last quarter the IMT received a VIPD proposed Audit SOP. Since the audits had been delayed, the IMT looks forward to assessing to what level the draft is being appropriately applied. As stated in earlier reports, the IMT strongly encourages the VIPD to enhance the Audit staff, prepare annual audit plans, and complete /submit audits in a timely fashion. 030416-VIPD request for compliance was denied based on lateness of audits.

Goal

70

Description

Original Order Date 05/06/2016 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 91
Action Officer Chief Hector

Complete revision to Disciplinary Matrix and publish

Status Synopsis
1Q2016- The VIPD has been attempting to create a revised Disciplinary Matrix for a prolonged period of time (Paragraph 70). During the First Quarter, the IMT provided additional samples of other agencies' approaches and met with the point person for this project. At this time, the VIPD continues to work on creating a revised Disciplinary Matrix.

Goal 71-b Original Order Date 02/20/2015 Current Suspense Date 06/30/2016 Days OD 36

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

=>90% of the time, these established time periods are not violated except for in exigent circumstances and with the Police Commissioner's written approval for tolling and notice to the complainant.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016- This continues to be a problem for the VIPD. The assigned workgroup has begun to review and impact this issue by review and return for corrective action,

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID:
appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 18 of 32

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 214 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

investigative reports.

Goal 71-c Original Order Date 02/20/2015 Current Suspense Date 02/20/2015 Days OD 532

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

In the limited circumstances when an extension is necessary, appropriate tolling provisions will be outlined in the policy.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is

covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016 - The assigned workgroup has begun a focused review of this issue and has been having some limited impact. They will continue their efforts and iMT will continue

to monitor during 2Q2016.

Goal 72-a Original Order Date 02/20/2015 Current Suspense Date 06/30/2016 Days OD 36

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>90% of the cases where the matrix calls for discipline, discipline is imposed.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016 - The assigned workgroup has begun reviewing this issue and the IMT will be conducting a special study to analyze compliance during 2Q2016.

Goal 72-b Original Order Date 02/20/2015 Current Suspense Date 06/30/2016 Days OD 36

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

In =>90% of the cases where discipline is imposed, there is evidence that the VIPD has also considered non-disciplinary corrective action.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is directly related to a sub-paragraph and the current status is covered in detail in Appendix A to the IMT 4Q2015 Report. 1Q2016 - See 72 a

Goal 73-a Original Order Date 05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 91

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

The Training Division has coordinated and reviewed all use of force training. This review occurs: at least semi-annually and needs to be comprehensive and analytical.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-IMT has not seen a revised directive for the Training Advisory Committee since our last comments which itemized several issue that IMT had with VIPD's more recent version.

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016

Quarterly Report

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 19 of 32

IMT System ID: appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 215 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

It took a full quarter to develop a survey instrument to be used to evaluate training. The form should have been developed, tested and issued in the time it took to develop it. Paragraph 73 requires the VIPD to conduct a semi-annual review of use of force training to ensure quality, consistency and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy. Since initiation of the Consent Decree, the VIPD has interpreted this requirement to refer only to a companion requirement that use of force policy be reviewed semi-annually. To that end, the VIPD has ensured only that use of force training is consistent with, and in compliance with, applicable law and VIPD policy. Our belief is that any use of force policy review requires assessment and analysis of how well outcomes reflect training objectives.

IMT hopes that upcoming meetings with the Audit Unit may helpful in finalizing training evaluation criteria.

Court Hearing Notes; This is one of the two paragraphs that VIPD proposes to put into compliance during 1Q16. I think that they may have the system in place but it still may be subject to audit and review at the end of the quarter. There needs to be a memo from the AG's Office naming Sherri as his designee for purposes of the CD She semi-annually must produce a memo indicating that she has reviewed UOF policy and lesson plans to ensure that they are consistent with VIPD law and policy. She also needs to attest the completion of a process designed to assess the quality of UOF training. The process of evaluating the quality needs to include:
Quiz at the end of training Evaluation of class and instructor(s) at end of training Quiz 30 days after training to test retention (procedures for failures) Surveys w/I 6 mos to officers and supervisors assessing the results of training objectives in the field(UVI might be helpful) Report to Sherri (for inclusion in her report) Report to Training Advisory Committee for their review.

Each in-service training period should start the cycle over with any needed adjustments built into the next cycle (this also feeds into those topics which become the subject of roll call training - this part still needs some work as does the clear documentation and disposition of remedial training.

1Q2016- Requirements within Paragraphs 73, 74 and 78 mandate use of force policy and lesson plan reviews semi-annually. There is also a requirement for semi-annual evaluations of the quality of use of force training. The VIPD enacted several policies and practices that will be employed as a part of this process, namely the development

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID:
appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 20 of 32

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 216 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

of a training survey tool and an instructor evaluation form. Several critical steps remain that must be taken by the Training Bureau to ensure that evaluation of use of force training adheres to basic rules of reliability and validity. The survey should be created to measure how well the training objectives were met in the field. The survey should produce measurable outcomes that are validated by supervisors and managers and the survey must reach and query enough officers to make the results meaningful.

Goal 74-a Original Order Date 05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/31/2016 Days OD 66

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff reviews all use of force training.

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff obtains legal review of all use of force

training curricula.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal was established to produce a survey instrument for the evaluation of training. A trial run was made with disappointing results. There is also the need to re-address the components of the survey instrument. IMT believes that VIPD has to re-visit the persons that would be queried in a training survey and the object of the survey which should match the training objectives. This goal should be revised to incorporate these issues or combined with one of the other goals that lend themselves to evaluation of the training product(s).
1Q2016 - Requirements within Paragraphs 73, 74 and 78 mandate use of force policy and lesson plan reviews semi-annually. There is also a requirement for semi-annual evaluations of the quality of use of force training. The VIPD enacted several policies and practices that will be employed as a part of this process, namely the development of a training survey tool and an instructor evaluation form. Several critical steps remain that must be taken by the Training Bureau to ensure that evaluation of use of force training adheres to basic rules of reliability and validity. The survey should be created to measure how well the training objectives were met in the field. The survey should produce measurable outcomes that are validated by supervisors and managers and the survey must reach and query enough officers to make the results meaningful.

Goal 74-c Original Order Date 05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/31/2016 Days OD 66

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed a process to continually

select and evaluate VIPD officer trainers.

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID:
appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 21 of 32

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 217 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-The Compliance Audit Report addresses this issue in much more detail than the goal report. In the Audit, assessors found several shortcomings in the updated instructor files but substantiate that the most recent certifications have been added to individual trainer records. The goal calls for a revision of the Commissioner's Directive which would include the instructor evaluation procedure. To date, we have not reviewed a draft of the revision. Court Hearing Notes: VIPD just re-issued the directive governing this process. The Training Advisory Committee should review the selection process (vetting) and should take an interest in the instructor certifications. We and the Audit Unit should review the instructor files again and check their inclusion in PowerDMS. 1Q2016- Requirements within Paragraphs 73, 74 and 78 mandate use of force policy and lesson plan reviews semi-annually. There is also a requirement for semi-annual evaluations of the quality of use of force training. The VIPD enacted several policies and practices that will be employed as a part of this process, namely the development of a training survey tool and an instructor evaluation form. Several critical steps remain that must be taken by the Training Bureau to ensure that evaluation of use of force training adheres to basic rules of reliability and validity. The survey should be created to measure how well the training objectives were met in the field. The survey should produce measurable outcomes that are validated by supervisors and managers and the survey must reach and query enough officers to make the results meaningful.

Goal 74-d Original Order Date 05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/31/2016 Days OD 66

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have reviewed and provided written approval of all curricula, course schedules and lesson plans.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-We would think that this goal could have been incorporated into the goal(s) related to the revision and updating of all lesson plans (4Q5-8)

Court Hearing Notes: VIPD asked for compliance on the basis of their submission of

several UOF related lesson plans that were revised by several instructors. We denied

compliance. This is the sub-paragraph most in need of help from UVI - during 2-3

separate occasions, we have recommended that rather than teach a repetitive IDC

course from UVI, it would more advantageous to have a consulting relationship with UVI

and get them to help revise all of their CD related lesson plans. Their practice of having

lesson plans written and re-vised by a squad of instructors is ill-advised. Most

departments this size have all of their lesson plans prepared by a very small group,

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016

Quarterly Report

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 22 of 32

IMT System ID: appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 218 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

many of whom also write policy. Their needs to be more symmetry between the policy and lesson plan revisions. This remains a work in progress. 1Q2016- Requirements within Paragraphs 73, 74 and 78 mandate use of force policy and lesson plan reviews semi-annually. There is also a requirement for semi-annual evaluations of the quality of use of force training. The VIPD enacted several policies and practices that will be employed as a part of this process, namely the development of a training survey tool and an instructor evaluation form. Several critical steps remain that must be taken by the Training Bureau to ensure that evaluation of use of force training adheres to basic rules of reliability and validity. The survey should be created to measure how well the training objectives were met in the field. The survey should produce measurable outcomes that are validated by supervisors and managers and the survey must reach and query enough officers to make the results meaningful.

Goal 74-e Original Order Date 05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/31/2016 Days OD 66

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

The Training Director and/or his/her staff, in conjunction with the Chiefs and Deputy

Chiefs, have created a process for the development, implementation and approval of all

Roll Call training curricula.

The Training Director and/or his/her staff, in conjunction with the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs, have developed, implemented and approved all Roll Call training curricula.

The Training Director and/or his/her staff have maintained written documentation of this process.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-IMT has no idea why it would take until 3-15-16 to complete the revision of this policy. This should be a goal that is completed in a more shorter period of time than it is taking IMT has no idea why it would take until 3-15-16 to complete the revision of the Roll Call Policy 10.4, which has been under review for a over a year. It was first brought to the attention of the VIPD by the IMT in November of 2014, at which time the VIPD admitted the policy was not working and agreed to review and update it. This should be a goal that is completed in a much more shorter period of time than it is taking. This goal remains Not Completed. See also sub-paragraph 74-e, Appendix A.

Court Hearing Notes: This sub-paragraph continues to languish with no concerted effort by VIPD. While the strict interpretation of the paragraph calls for a roll call training policy to be established in conjunction with the Chiefs. The only effort on the table was a policy outlining the conduct of roll call rather than one outlining how roll call training is to be established and delivered. We envisioned that the coordination of roll call training would be coordinated with the Training Advisory Committee. VIPD has been unable to stand

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016

Quarterly Report

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 23 of 32

IMT System ID: appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 219 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

up the Training Advisory Committee. Ironically, a 2009 version of the Training Bureau Standard Operating Procedures call for the establishment of a "Training Committee" whose mission and duties mirror most of the very same tasks that we have been asking the Training Advisory Committee to perform. 1Q2016- Requirements within Paragraphs 73, 74 and 78 mandate use of force policy and lesson plan reviews semi-annually. There is also a requirement for semi-annual evaluations of the quality of use of force training. The VIPD enacted several policies and practices that will be employed as a part of this process, namely the development of a training survey tool and an instructor evaluation form. Several critical steps remain that must be taken by the Training Bureau to ensure that evaluation of use of force training adheres to basic rules of reliability and validity. The survey should be created to measure how well the training objectives were met in the field. The survey should produce measurable outcomes that are validated by supervisors and managers and the survey must reach and query enough officers to make the results meaningful.

Goal 74-f Original Order Date 05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/31/2016 Days OD 66

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have created and maintained a training record system that captures attendance records, instructor and student evaluations, and test results.

For >90% of the conducted Consent Decree related training sessions, evaluation review forms were collected from class participants

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-While VIPD is working on the mechanics of entering records into PowerDMS, there is no SOP outlining the exact records that must be maintained and the record components for each record category. This is information that MIS will need to properly establish the record keeping system. There is some "getting the horse before the cart" in this goal. It might be helpful if there was protocol on which records need to be maintained and how. While the VIPD Division of Training "Standard Operating Procedures" is dated, there are sections which, if not applicable, might be helpful in organizing this kind of protocol.

Court Hearing Notes: Our sense is that this procedure should be a duty of the Training Advisory Committee much in the way the Policy Review Committee is functioning now. While there are probably several other methodologies for achieving compliance with this

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016

Quarterly Report

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 24 of 32

IMT System ID: appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 220 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

sub-paragraph, it is not currently being addressed. 1Q2016- Requirements within Paragraphs 73, 74 and 78 mandate use of force policy and lesson plan reviews semi-annually. There is also a requirement for semi-annual evaluations of the quality of use of force training. The VIPD enacted several policies and practices that will be employed as a part of this process, namely the development of a training survey tool and an instructor evaluation form. Several critical steps remain that must be taken by the Training Bureau to ensure that evaluation of use of force training adheres to basic rules of reliability and validity. The survey should be created to measure how well the training objectives were met in the field. The survey should produce measurable outcomes that are validated by supervisors and managers and the survey must reach and query enough officers to make the results meaningful.

Goal 74-g Original Order Date 05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/31/2016 Days OD 66

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed a process to review use of

force incidents to identify patterns and trends that will influence training needs.

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have conducted semi-annual reviews of use of force incidents to evaluate training needs.

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff have developed, reviewed and implemented all use of force training curricula (including lesson plans).

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-A system for assessing patterns in UOF incidents is scheduled to be completed by 2-19-16. We would endorse this as a high priority. The audit unit could lend significant support in the creation of this kind of analysis. IMT is meeting with the Audit Unit personnel in 1Q2016 to address analysis methodology as well as the mechanism to addressing any deficiencies found.

Court Hearing Notes: There should also be a nexus to the semi-annual analysis and evaluation of in-service training which feeds into the decision-making regarding future training. 1Q2016- Requirements within Paragraphs 73, 74 and 78 mandate use of force policy and lesson plan reviews semi-annually. There is also a requirement for semi-annual evaluations of the quality of use of force training. The VIPD enacted several policies and practices that will be employed as a part of this process, namely the development of a training survey tool and an instructor evaluation form. Several critical steps remain that must be taken by the Training Bureau to ensure that evaluation of use of force training adheres to basic rules of reliability and validity. The survey should be created to measure how well the training objectives were met in the field. The survey should

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016

Quarterly Report

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 25 of 32

IMT System ID: appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 221 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

produce measurable outcomes that are validated by supervisors and managers and the survey must reach and query enough officers to make the results meaningful.

Goal 77-a Original Order Date 05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 91

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

The Director of Training and/or his/her staff has maintained current and substantially

complete training records for =95% of VIPD Officers.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-The IMT has randomly reviewed examples of this sub-paragraph and its supporting components and found this is one area where the VIPD Training Bureau has accomplished a significant portion of their goal but still has problems with the quantity and quality of those records associated with instructors. All in-service training records have been entered into PowerDMS and the records have been audited. Goal remains Not Completed See also sub-paragraph 77-a, Appendix A
Court Hearing Notes: VIPD believes that it has one full year of in-service records that would put this paragraph into compliance. We indicated that we should have two years of records for this paragraph. There is probably only one year of instructor records. If was most important that VIPD initiate a process for re-positing all of the required records in some systematic way. Once VIPD indicates that they have two full years of attendance and lesson plan files and one year of instructor records, we will audit the files and if they are in order, we will award substantial compliance for this paragraph. 1Q2016 - The IMT has requested that the VIPD produce two years of documented records in compliance with this paragraph. We believe that there are two years of records that reliably document in-service participant attendance. The IMT also believes that the VIPD, with some effort, could produce two years of lesson plans that would match the classes taught in the same time period. A two-year chronology of instructors and their subject matter just doesn't exist. The IMT believes that the VIPD should memorialize processes and procedures that reliably capture instructional data for at least one (1) year to comply with this paragraph.
The IMT continues to work with the VIPD on the standardization and automation of instructor files. We reported two quarters ago on our inspection findings along with recommendations that would ensure the accuracy and completeness of the records. We continued to provide guidance and technical assistance as paper files are organized and entered into PowerDMS.

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID:
appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 26 of 32

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 222 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

Goal 77-b Original Order Date 05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/06/2016 Days OD 91

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

=>95% of the training records shall, at a minimum, include the course description and duration, curriculum, and instructor for each officer.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal will be extremely hard to attain. While trainee attendance records have been entered into PowerDMS, historic and current lesson plans and instructor records have not. The paragraph requirement is that all three records be accessible. Historically, matching classes with specific instructors and creating an accurate history

of lesson plans through the years. There has been a misinterpretation of the IMT's aim with regard to this provision of the CD. As the department migrated to PowerDMS and were encouraged by us to make it

the primary repository of training records, the notion that we were demanding that a "one button push" should create a report with all three components of the requirement. We've tried very hard to explain that we have never demanded such a system. We

believe that if all three elements exist in reliable databases, it would be reasonably retrievable which is what we interpret the paragraph requires.

Court Hearing Notes: VIPD believes that it has one full year of in-service records that would put this paragraph into compliance. We indicated that we should have two years of records for this paragraph. There is probably only one year of instructor records. If was most important that VIPD initiate a process for re-positing all of the required records in some systematic way. Once VIPD indicates that they have two full years of attendance and lesson plan files and one year of instructor records, we will audit the files and if they are in order, we will award substantial compliance for this paragraph.

1Q2016- The IMT has requested that the VIPD produce two years of documented records in compliance with this paragraph. We believe that there are two years of records that reliably document in-service participant attendance. The IMT also believes that the VIPD, with some effort, could produce two years of lesson plans that would match the classes taught in the same time period. A two-year chronology of instructors and their subject matter just doesn't exist. The IMT believes that the VIPD should memorialize processes and procedures that reliably capture instructional data for at least one (1) year to comply with this paragraph.

The IMT continues to work with the VIPD on the standardization and automation of instructor files. We reported two quarters ago on our inspection findings along with recommendations that would ensure the accuracy and completeness of the records. We continued to provide guidance and technical assistance as paper files are organized and entered into PowerDMS.

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID:
appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 27 of 32

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 223 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

Goal 81-b Original Order Date 05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/31/2016 Days OD 66

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

Training should include factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This goal is a subset of a broader training and agency requirement. It is also one of the thornier issues of the CD because, we believe, because it requires more than the provision of training for managers and command staff but also "implementation" in the form of more accountable behavior on the part of the command staff. While difficult to quantify and/or measure, it is our collective opinion that the command staff of VIPD does not handle command level activities in a manner that we would expect to find in a police organization the size of VIPD. There are significant issues associated with coordination of work between and among units at a command level; command decision making and the administration of policy, procedures and discipline to name a few. VIPD Counsel has indicated that the "implementation" of this paragraph should be measured elsewhere in the CD. We have no objection to the implementation of the parameters of this paragraph being measured elsewhere in the CD but, to date, VIPD has not recommended a different paragraph where we would assess and report on implementation. Until we agree on a different paragraph with which to measure implantation, we feel that we must apply the litmus test to this paragraph because it goes to the core objective of the consent decree. This specific issue is also addressed in the T&M Report. 1Q2016 - The IMT's highest recommended priority remains the engagement of assistance from a local college or university to assist with the development of lesson plans and evaluation methodologies with measurable outcomes. The objectives in lesson plans should correlate to surveys and evaluations in a manner that produces measurable outcomes.

The IMT also recommends that prior to the beginning of the upcoming in-service training period, a detailed plan be prepared that describes the entire training cycle complete with evaluations and reporting requirements. Specifically, the plan should include, but not be limited to the lesson plan, quizzes, class and instructor evaluations, post-training knowledge quiz and qualitative survey and summary.

Goal 81-d Original Order Date 05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/31/2016 Days OD 66

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

The training shall include techniques designed to promote proper police practices.

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID:
appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 28 of 32

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 224 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-There is a suspense date of 12-12-15 for the accomplishment of several important preparatory steps associated with assessment of relevant supervisory and management training. The date has passed and, as of yet, we have not seen results of this work. For some time, the IMT was critical of the fact that most, if not all, command staff members did not attend in-service training. The reasons given for this practice were completely unsatisfactory and did not justify the flawed philosophy. During the first in-service training session in 2015, supervisors their own classes. We were very disappointed when the most recent in-service were general sessions for all ranks. We don't understand this. 1Q2016- The IMT's highest recommended priority remains the engagement of assistance from a local college or university to assist with the development of lesson plans and evaluation methodologies with measurable outcomes. The objectives in lesson plans should correlate to surveys and evaluations in a manner that produces measurable outcomes.
The IMT also recommends that prior to the beginning of the upcoming in-service training period, a detailed plan be prepared that describes the entire training cycle complete with evaluations and reporting requirements. Specifically, the plan should include, but not be limited to the lesson plan, quizzes, class and instructor evaluations, post-training knowledge quiz and qualitative survey and summary.

Goal 81-f Original Order Date 05/23/2014 Current Suspense Date 05/31/2016 Days OD 66

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

And will be made a part of annual in-service training.

Status Synopsis
4Q2015-This is the same as 81-d 1Q2016 - see 81-d

Goal CC17 Original Order Date 05/15/2015 Current Suspense Date 07/22/2015 Days OD 380

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

Creation of a standardized protocol to ensure proper dissemination of Directives and other protocols Territory Wide; Paragraph 44 Timeliness of Cases

Status Synopsis
3Q2015-Draft Audit protocols and SOP pending VIPD review. IMT had not received SOP during 2Q2015; Draft SOP received during 3Q2015 and is being reviewed by IMT and goal status could change before court hearing, 4Q2015-Draft was reviewed and deemed compliant by IMT. However, IMT has not

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID:
appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 29 of 32

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 225 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

received a FINAL published copy or any request for Goal Completion certification from the CD Coordinator. Additionally, IMT has not seen specific implementation of the SOP into VIPD activity. IMT continues to hold this goal as Not Complete 1Q2016- This process continues to be a work in progress. The VIPD proposed and published a directive that established a binder system at each Zone. They then published another directive that established somebody to keep the binder up to date. The personnel without computers would then be able to refer to that binder (one each Zone) for any questions regarding the directives. This however does not solve the real problem which is how does the officer refer to a binder in the station when he is on the road? The IMT suggests that the solution may in fact be to purchase a three ring binder for each field person without a laptop and let them print put copies of policy and file in their own binder which can be readily accessible within the patrol vehicle.

Goal M&S12 Original Order Date 05/15/2015 Current Suspense Date 05/15/2015 Days OD 448

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

M&S will with the assistance of 911 create a code for vehicle pursuits and have all vehicles for VIPD listed at 911 so vehicle accidents involving police Vehicles can be track; Paragraph 60i

Status Synopsis
3Q2015-Had meeting with VITEMA; problem is that software at STX allows for secondary entry of pursuit with a robbery etc; STT does not have a similar software function. While we recognize that VIPD continues to work with VITEMA to address this issue, IMT has not been provided/shown how to access pursuit listings territory-wide Acknowledge that VIPD reports providing vehicle listing to VITEMA See also M&S 11 above 1Q2016- the IMT has not been provided with any pursuit reports substantiating the above system this quarter.

Goal M&S16 Original Order Date 05/15/2015 Current Suspense Date 06/30/2016 Days OD 36

Description

Action Officer Chief Hector

Finalize the development of additional protocols for the Audit unit; Paragraph 69

Status Synopsis
3Q2015-Draft Audit protocols and SOP pending VIPD review. IMT had not received SOP during 2Q2015; Draft SOP received during 3Q2015 and is being reviewed by IMT and goal status could change before court hearing, 4Q2015-Draft was reviewed and deemed compliant by IMT. However, IMT has not received a FINAL published copy or any request for Goal Completion certification from

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID:
appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 30 of 32

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 226 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

the CD Coordinator. Additionally, IMT has not seen specific implementation of the SOP into VIPD activity. IMT continues to hold this goal as Not Complete 1Q2016- The iMT has yet to receive a signed and approved copy of the AIU SOP.

Goal TRNG22 Original Order Date 05/15/2015 Current Suspense Date 08/01/2015 Days OD 370

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

Reorganize the Training Advisory Committee.; Paragraph 74g

Status Synopsis
3Q2015-Pending review of directive 4Q2015-This goal speaks more specifically to the reorganization of the Training Advisory Committee but lists no steps for its achievement. The last version of the directive establishing the TAC was published without the incorporation of our latest revisions. We are also unclear about who is the chair of this committee. 1Q2016- The Training Advisory Committee continues to be a work in progress with several iterations of the policy being reviewed but not approved by the IMT.

Goal TRNG23 Original Order Date 05/15/2015 Current Suspense Date 12/18/2015 Days OD 231

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

Create and implement new protocol for monitoring and evaluating UOF training; Paragraph 73a

Status Synopsis
3Q2015-Pending review of Kirkpatrick training and implications for adoption of

components by the VIPD. 4Q2015-See comments in 73a 1Q2016 - see 73-a

Goal TRNG25 Original Order Date 05/15/2015 Current Suspense Date 03/31/2016 Days OD 127

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

Revise and implement Roll Call Policy; Paragraph 74e

Status Synopsis
3Q2015-IMT reviewed the submitted directive and finds it did not follow IMT recommendations and needs further refinement and possible separation into two or more separate directives. IMT will work with the Training Division Director to expedite the corrections. 4Q2015-See 74e above

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID:
appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 31 of 32

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 227 of 231

Court Ordered Goals Not in Substantial Compliance Status Report
As Of End of 2Q2016

Appendix C to 2Q2016 IMT Report

1Q2016- See 74e

Goal TRNG26 Original Order Date 05/15/2015 Current Suspense Date 03/31/2016 Days OD 127

Description

Action Officer Chief Foy

Development of the Kirkpatrick method of evaluating training; Paragraph 73a

Status Synopsis
3Q2015-Initial training completed in 1Q2015; deadline for completion extended by VIPD to 12/18/15 by the VIPD through court filing. 4Q2015-See 73a above 1Q2016- see 73a

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID:
appendix_D_QtrRep_216

Total Goals Not in Substantial Compliance 61

Days OD in RED Indicate Missed Suspense Date

Page 32 of 32

Many of these Goals have been included in the recently developed Action Plan 2, which can be reviewed in Appendix B to the basic 2Q2016 Report

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 228 of 231

Paragraph 100 Sub-Paragraph Linkage to Original Paragraphs

Appendix D to 2Q2016 Report

The following lists the Consent Decree paragraph(s) where the Paragraph 100 Sub-Paragraphs were originally located.

Sub-Paragraph a
Sub-Paragraph b
Sub-Paragraph c
Sub-Paragraph d
Sub-Paragraph e
Sub-Paragraph f
Sub-Paragraph g
Sub-Paragraph h
Sub-Paragraph

Substantial Compliance Requirement All uses of force comply with VIPD policies and applicable law.
Substantial Compliance Requirement As appropriate, Officers disengaged, contained the area, conducted surveillance, waited out the subject, and/or called in specialized units.
Substantial Compliance Requirement When feasible, an individual is allowed to submit to arrest before force is used.
Substantial Compliance Requirement In use of force incidents, the use of force review concludes that sufficient less lethal alternatives were used where appropriate based on the totality of circumstances.
Substantial Compliance Requirement Patrol and other applicable officers carry less lethal alternatives at all times.
Substantial Compliance Requirement In use of force incidents, choke holds and similar carotid holds were not used, except where deadly force was authorized.
Substantial Compliance Requirement In use of force incidents where the use of force review concluded that the force was inconsistent with policy or legal standard,, the VIPD took corrective and/or disciplinary action against the officer. (SC Compliance Requirement wording updated 11/12/14; also inked back to paragraphs 33 and 34)
Substantial Compliance Requirement Sworn personnel do not possess or use unauthorized firearms or ammunition.
Substantial Compliance Requirement

Linked Paragraph 031
Linked Paragraph 031C
Linked Paragraph 031D
Linked Paragraph 031F
Linked Paragraph 031F
Linked Paragraph 031G
Linked Paragraph 032
Linked Paragraph 039
Linked Paragraph

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_C_4Q2015

Page 1 of 4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 229 of 231

Paragraph 100 Sub-Paragraph Linkage to Original Paragraphs

Appendix D to 2Q2016 Report

The following lists the Consent Decree paragraph(s) where the Paragraph 100 Sub-Paragraphs were originally located.

i
Sub-Paragraph j
Sub-Paragraph k
Sub-Paragraph l
Sub-Paragraph m
Sub-Paragraph n
Sub-Paragraph

In cases where an officer is found to be in possession of unauthorized firearms or ammunition, there is evidence that an investigation was conducted and appropriate corrective action was taken.
Substantial Compliance Requirement Critical Firearm Discharges are documented in an RRR.
Substantial Compliance Requirement In reported incidents involving off-duty officers taking police action, the off-duty officer's conduct comports with policies regarding off-duty officers taking police action and 31 (a) - (g) of the Consent Decree.
Substantial Compliance Requirement Off-duty officers notified on-duty sworn personnel or local law enforcement officers before taking police actions, except in exigent circumstances.
Substantial Compliance Requirement In incidents where an off-duty officer taking police action appeared to have consumed alcohol, the off-duty officer submitted to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.
Substantial Compliance Requirement In reportable use of force incidents, the investigating supervisor had no involvement in the incident (i.e., he/she was not involved in the use of force incident, his/her conduct did not lead to an injury, and he/she did not authorize conduct leading to the use of force incident. (Also found in paragraph 47; Updated 11//12/14)
Substantial Compliance Requirement

039
Linked Paragraph 039
Linked Paragraph 031A-G
Linked Paragraph 040A
Linked Paragraph 040B
Linked Paragraph 047
Linked Paragraph

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_C_4Q2015

Page 2 of 4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 230 of 231

Paragraph 100 Sub-Paragraph Linkage to Original Paragraphs

Appendix D to 2Q2016 Report

The following lists the Consent Decree paragraph(s) where the Paragraph 100 Sub-Paragraphs were originally located.

o Sub-Paragraph
p
Sub-Paragraph q
Sub-Paragraph r
Sub-Paragraph s
Sub-Paragraph t

Use of force investigations include documented findings of all of the considerations required by 52.
Substantial Compliance Requirement When administrative investigations are referred to the VIAG or other appropriate agency, the VIPD has documentation that it has completed, to the extent possible, its own administrative investigation.
Substantial Compliance Requirement RMS reports are generated and distributed to appropriate sworn personnel (e.g., Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, and supervisors) on a monthly basis.
Substantial Compliance Requirement The VIPD is utilizing the EIP. Underlying documentation should include documentation of EIP meetings, the Early Intervention Unit Action Plan and Early Intervention Unit Assessment, attendance records of VIPD personnel and all follow-up documentation for completed intervention.
Substantial Compliance Requirement Deputy Chiefs, managers and supervisors have initiated EIP interventions based on activity and pattern assessment contained in the RMS.
Substantial Compliance Requirement EIP interventions are based on all relevant and appropriate information, including the nature of the officer's assignment, crime trends and crime problems, and not solely the number or percentages of incidents in any category of information recorded in the risk management system.

052 Linked Paragraph
053
Linked Paragraph 064C
Linked Paragraph 064F
Linked Paragraph 064K
Linked Paragraph 064G

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016 Quarterly Report
IMT System ID: appendix_C_4Q2015

Page 3 of 4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 225 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 231 of 231

Paragraph 100 Sub-Paragraph Linkage to Original Paragraphs

Appendix D to 2Q2016 Report

The following lists the Consent Decree paragraph(s) where the Paragraph 100 Sub-Paragraphs were originally located.

Sub-Paragraph u
Sub-Paragraph v
Sub-Paragraph w

Substantial Compliance Requirement In instances when officers are transferred to a new section or unit, Deputy Chiefs, managers and supervisors for the relevant section or unit promptly review the RMS records of such officers.
Substantial Compliance Requirement The VIPD has established a protocol for evaluating whether Deputy Chiefs, managers and supervisors are able to use the RMS effectively.
Substantial Compliance Requirement Disciplinary penalty decisions are consistent with the penalties set forth in the Disciplinary Matrix.

Linked Paragraph 064H
Linked Paragraph 064I
Linked Paragraph 070

Appendix D To IMT 2Q2016 Quarterly Report

Page 4 of 4

IMT System ID: appendix_C_4Q2015

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 167-1 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 1 of 2
Government of The Virgin Islands of the United States

August 24, 2015

VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT
Police Operations and Administrative Services #45 Mars Hill, Frederiksted St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 00840
(340) 778-2211
Alexander Farrelly Justice Complex Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 00802 (340) 774-2310
Leander Jurgen Command Cruz Bay
St. John, U.S.V.I. 00830 (340) 693-8880
Patrick Sweeney Complex RR 02, Kingshill
St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 00850 (340) 778-2244

VIPD’S STATUS REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDING AUGUST 21, 2015

This Progress Report is submitted pursuant to the mandates established by the United States District Court in the Civil Order 2008-158 and amended on May 22, 2014.
USE OF FORCE
“Authorize and contract training for Force Review Board personnel” - This training was initially scheduled for August 10, 2015 by the FBINA, but was pushed back to the latter part of August, specifically August 24-28, 2015 at the request of the FBINA. However, due to “Hurricane Danny”, this training was postponed and a new date is not yet determined.

“Conduct training for Force Investigation Team (FIT) personnel” Individuals from both Districts identified as members of FIT attended and completed shooting reconstruction training at North Western University, Illinois, from June 22-24, 2015. A course outline for this training was provided to IMT and USDOJ on May 14, 2015. Electronic copies of certificates for the completion of this course were submitted to IMT /USDOJ July 30, 2015. An on-site follow-up training was planned for August 24-28, 2015 by the FBINA for CIB (Criminal Investigation Bureau) personnel and select Attorneys from the VIAG subsequently selected to be a part FIT. This will be conducted once
Facsimile (340) 715-5517 St. Thomas (340) 778-2373 St. Croix (340) 776-6236 St. John

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 167-1 Filed: 08/24/15 Page 2 of 2 Compliance Page 2 of 2 Progress Report
a new training date is established. Copies of the applicable policies were already forwarded to the Instructors for their review prior to the initiation of this training. Also, Course outline associated with this training was forwarded to IMT. Biographical information for the Instructors of these trainings was submitted to IMT/USDOJ August 9, 2015. “Develop O.C. Spray Matrix Chart” - matrix was prepared this quarter.
MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISON
“IAPRO Application Training for Commanders and Managers” - The VIPD has completed this training for Commanders and Managers in both Districts during this quarter.
CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS “Train Investigators and reviewers on the new Summary Investigative Report” - The VIPD conducted training for Officers in the St. Thomas/St. John District and in the St. Croix District during this quarter. “Train Investigators and Reviewers on the new Citizen Complaint Checklist” - The VIPD conducted training in the St. Thomas/St. John District and St. Croix District during this quarter.
Facsimile (340) 715-5517 St. Thomas (340) 778-2373 St. Croix (340) 776-6236 St. John

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 184-1 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 1 of 2
Government of The Virgin Islands of the United States

November 20, 2015

VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT
OFFICE OF THE POLICE COMMISSIONER

VIPD’S STATUS REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 6, 2015 MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION

Police Operations and Administrative Services
#45 Mars Hill, Frederiksted
St. Croix,VI 00840 (340) 778-2211
Criminal Justice Complex Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, VI 00802 (340) 774-2211
Leander Jurgen Command Cruz Bay
St.John, VI 00830 (340) 693-8880

 Submit draft revised disciplinary policy and matrix to USDOJ and IMT Status: COMPLETED The draft revised copy of this policy was submitted by VIPD to the IMT for review.

CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS  Update existing flowchart for Citizen Complaint Process and the adjudicative process.
Status: COMPLETED a. On October 27th Lieutenants Mirrett Benta and Colbourne met with Ann Marie at which time Ann Marie reviewed the draft flow chart. Ann Marie offered recommendations to improve the flow chart and advised that the Group revise the flow chart accordingly, and resubmit to her attention for final review and approval. The Group made recommended changes to the flow chart and re-submitted to Ann Marie on October 31st for final review. b. On November 3rd Ann Marie approved changes made to the flow chart. Lieutenant Benta asked if the flow chart could be printed and posted. c. Ann Marie replied on November 4th advising the Work Group that the flow chart must go to USDOJ for review and final approval. d. On November 4, 2015 the flow chart was sent to Greg Davila for forwarding to USDOJ. USDOJ responded on November 6th with recommendations. Those recommendations were addressed following the November 12th & 13th Summit, following discussion with Ann Marie. e. At the November 12th Summit the M&S and CCP Work Group had a discussion with Ann Marie regarding the flow chart being sent to USDOJ. Members argued that previous flow
Facsimile (340) 715-5517 St. Thomas * (340) 778-2373 St. Croix * (340) 776-6236 St. John

Cchaasret:s3w:0e8re-cnvo-0t0s1e5n8t -tCo VUGSD-ROMJ forDfoincaulmaepnptro#v: a1l8. 4A-1t thFaitletdim: 1e1, /A2n0n/1M5 arPieasgaeid2tohfe2Group will be given credit for meeting the November 6th deadline.
TRAINING  Complete the test in-service evaluation survey form.
Status: COMPLETED VIPD completed the first draft test in-service form and forwarded to IMT for review and comments on July 23. The IMT reviewed the form and forwarded comments back to VIPD on July 26, 2015. VIPD redrafted form as per IMT recommendations and final draft was sent for approval to IMT during September of the 3rd quarter.
USE OF FORCE  Incorporate OC Spray Formula into OC Spray Policy.
Status: COMPLETED The Policy was sent back to DOJ and IMT on October 27, 2015 with answers to the comments and recommendations. On November 3, 2015 received the policy with DOJ recommendations. On November 5, 2015 the policy was returned to VIPD with comments to be reviewed. The comments were reviewed and sent back to IMT and DOJ on November 6, 2015. On November 10, 2015, DOJ sent the revised policy to VIPD with approval on November 10, 2015.
 Develop a Data Base for OC Spray Use Territorially. Status: PENDING This goal is pending as IMT Palmer is assisting with the development of the data base. This should be completed within a short time. Once completed the status will be updated.
 Force Levels reporting flowchart for Use of Force process Status: PENDING This goal is pending and was reviewed on 11/3/15 with the IMT who provided technical assistance. On 11/6/2015 the drafts were sent back to IMT and sent to DOJ. During the summit on November 12-13, 2015, the comments were reviewed along with DOJ who provided feedback. The final drafts were resubmitted on Friday, November 13, 2015 with recommended changes from DOJ and IMT.

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 197-1 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 1 of 3
Government of The Virgin Islands of the United States VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE POLICE COMMISSIONER February 19, 2016 VIPD’S STATUS REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDING FEBRUARY 5, 2016 USE OF FORCE 4Q5-1 - Develop Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the Force Review Board (FRB). Status: Compliance 4Q5-2 - Develop Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the Force Investigation Team (FIT). Status: Compliance 4Q5-3 – Chiefs of Police will hold at least two (2) Use of Force Review Boards for the 4th quarter. Status: Not in Substantial Compliance Acting Director of Internal Affairs, Sergeant Marsh, spoke to Chet and Palmer of the monitoring team regarding the requirement of this goal. They stated that they will speak to Monitor Gruber and DOJ in reference to changing the goal to 2 force review boards total. This should be done within the next quarter. This goal was not completed because the SOPs were not completed in time. The initial SOPs were sent to the IMT on December 22, 2015 and returned on January 8, 2016. Upon return of the documents, the IMT suggested that IMT and VIPD work together on the SOPs during the summit. The SOPs were worked on during the week of February 8-12 with VIPD and IMT.
4Q5-4 - Establish process for on-call Supervisor(s) to respond to Use of Force incidents when off duty. Status: Compliance
1

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 197-1 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 2 of 3
CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS
4Q5-5:
VIPD will bring backlog of cases current by designing a time period for supervisors responsible for the delinquent cases to complete the investigation of each delinquent case.
The Virgin Islands Police Department started out with approximately 537 cases territorially, which was inclusive of Citizens Complaints, Administrative Investigations and Use of Force cases. To date, 373 of the 537 cases have been completed territorially leaving approximately 164 cases active and pending completion. The Deputy Chiefs in each district have been tasked with identifying supervisors and commanders with delinquent cases and initiate administrative actions against them.
MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
4Q5-6:
VIAGO will provide the VIPD with a log of all criminal proceedings initiated as well as civil lawsuits and administrative claims served upon the Attorney General Office in 2015 resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel.
The VIAGO has been providing the required logs of all criminal proceedings initiated as well as civil lawsuits and administrative claims served upon the Attorney General Office in 2015 resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel. We are awaiting the IMTs and USDOJ agreement that VIPD has met the goal.
4Q5-7:
VIPD will conduct IAPRO Summit on December 21, 2015 in an effort to better track status of cases and bring about increased managerial accountability.
The IAPRO Summit was conducted and this goal met compliance on January 13, 2015.
TRAINING
4Q5-8
Review all CD related lesson plans to identify opportunities to insert adult learning delivery techniques and components to enhance student learning and competency, resulting in a schedule for rewrite with completion by the end of 1Q16. This is Phase I of a two part goal, Phase II being the rewriting of the lesson plans during 1Q16, which should be inserted for that quarter.
2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 197-1 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 3 of 3
The Training Bureau was able to coordinate with the University of the Virgin Islands to assist in providing training in Adult Learning Principles for the members of the training academy staff and academy instructors as suggested by the IMT. Between both districts, fifteen (15) individuals were selected. The course curriculum was developed and sent to the IMT for approval, which they approved. The Training was scheduled and was completed on January 26, 2016.
A one-day work session to review and discuss several consent decree related lesson plans was held. The purpose was to assign lesson plans to individuals who attended the adult learning training to review and see where adult learning principles could be inserted into the lesson plans if needed. During the work session, individuals focused on performance objectives, took notes, documented suggested changes, and created sample lesson plans based on notes. Sample lesson plans that were discussed and revised were forwarded to the IMT on February 1, 2016 for review along with the attendance rooster.
The final step of this goal was to create a table that showed re-writes of lesson plan, persons who will review and update lesson plans, description of the adult learning principles that were inserted, and performance objectives. This chart would show lesson plans and dates for completion during the 1Q2016. All forms and goal progress were discussed with the IMT at the Consent Decree summit on February 11, 2016.
4Q5-9
Training Division will collaborate with the other the three (3) other CD working groups to identify and respond to their identified training support needs that further compliance with the CD. Training support will include assessment of the needs; identification of the trainees; development of the curricula; scheduling and delivery of the training and, in conjunction with the audit unit, design and subsequent evaluation of the training's effectiveness.
Request for Training Support Form was created. VIPD received final go ahead with form on February 5, 2016. Training work group met to discuss the Training Support Request form and possible training solutions. A Work Group Training Support Development Plan form was created which the working groups will utilize to select trainings and should address concerns that are goals. Forms were provided to both Lt. Benta and Director Marsh. Lt. Benta of the M&S and CCP work group, has requested that training support be provided on 7.3. Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint. Sergeant Marsh of the UOF work group has requested that training support be provided on 3.2-Reporting, Investigating and Review of Use of Force, and that the training should reinforce the supervisors and commander ability to properly review and analyze uses of force reports.
3

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 208-1 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 1 of 8

Government of The Virgin Islands of the United States
VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT
OFFICE OF THE POLICE COMMISSIONER

May 20, 2016

VIPD’S STATUS REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDING MAY 6, 2016

Work Group № 1 - USE OF FORCE

Paragraphs:

32-b, c, & f

33

34-a, b, c, & d

 On February 19, 2016 the Use of Force Working Group (“UOFWG”) met and discussed strategies of achieving substantial compliance with the 32 b, c, f; 33 b; and 34 a, b, c, d. It was decided that the Acting Director of Internal Affairs would provide a case listing of closed and open cases from January 1, 2016, weekly to the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs and that a copy of the cases submitted to the Deputy Chiefs would be reviewed at the UOFWG Friday meetings. It was also decided that the status of cases would be discussed and memorialized in Commanders Call and supervisors who fail to timely complete investigations and respond to scene will be held accountable and disciplinary charges will be filed against them. The UOFWG also discussed the need to remind supervisors of the importance of forwarding of cases in Blue Team and having cases routed through proper personnel prior to getting to the Deputy Chiefs. It was also decided that if a Deputy Chief rejects an investigation due to discrepancies, the Deputy Chief should memorialize the reason in a document, upload the document and return the investigation. The UOFWG discussed the importance of supervisors actively investigating cases rather than using the extension as excuse. The UOFWG discussed creating a checklist for the Deputy Chief to use while reviewing the cases. It was determined that this would be beneficial and user friendly and could serve as a selfaudit, rather than waiting for the audit from the audit unit. The UOFWG also committed to holding a Force Review Board (“FRB”) review during the quarter.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 208-1 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 2 of 8
 Consistent with the strategies developed on February 19, 2016 by the UOFWG, on n a weekly basis Acting Director of Internal Affairs provided to the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs a case listing of open and closed cases filed between January 1, 2016 to present. The status of cases were discussed and memorialized in Commanders call. Cases which are submitted to the Deputy Chiefs were reviewed at Use of Force Working Group (“UOFWG”) Meetings. Discrepancies in investigations were documented and uploaded and the investigation returned to the supervisor for corrective action. A checklist was develop to for Deputy Chiefs to use while reviewing cases.
 Chiefs decided that if supervisors fail to timely complete investigation respond to scene they will be held and disciplinary charges will be filed against them. An issue was raised as to who would be assigned the UOF case(s) to investigate, if the officers that respond and use force are from different zones. A solution suggested was that the supervisor from the zone in which the force was used would be the one to investigate the UOF.
 At the March 4, and March 11, 2016 meeting other strategies were identified or developed. UOFWG members suggested to the Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs that were present that supervisors should review the Blue Team entries of the officers prior to the officers sending them out, as doing so would limit the deficiencies in the reports. It was suggested that where officers from different zones respond to a use of force incident, the supervisor for the zone for the officer that used force would be the one to investigate the use of force.
 On March 4 and 11, and April 1 and 8, 2016, the UOFWG met and reviewed cases turned into the Chief’s office for compliance. The UOFWG reviewed use of force complaints UOFX2016-0002, 0004 0006, 0007, 0022, and 0027; UOFT 2016- 0003, 0004, 0005, 0012 and 0063. In reviewing the cases, several deficiencies were found. The deficiencies were documented and provided to the Deputy Chiefs for the respective districts to address with the supervisors. Meetings were held with the supervisors to address and correct deficiencies with respect to the investigative reports. Concerns raised by the supervisors pertaining to the investigations were clarified during the meetings with the UOFWG or Deputy Chief. The corrected reports were not returned in a timely manner to the UOFWG to measure for substantial compliance.
 During the reviews of the cases, the work group members reviewed the cases for boiler plate language, supervision notifications, consistencies in reports and also analysis of the force to include risk management issues. Though VIPD was unable to meet substantial
Facsimile (340) 715-5517 St. Thomas * (340) 778-2373 St. Croix * (340) 776-6236 St. John

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 208-1 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 3 of 8
compliance with the paragraphs this quarter, VIPD believes that it made progress in formulating steps to monitor and target supervisors that have issues and address and correct them. Where there is a need for additional instruction, focused instruction with the supervisor aids in better understanding of what is required in the documents for compliance with these and other consent decree related paragraphs.  April 4 and 6, 2016, the UOFWG, led by Acting Director of Internal Affairs, met with commanders and supervisors in both districts and had a Roll Call Training on review of Use of Force & Citizen Complainant Investigations. The UOFWG reviewed with the commanders and supervisors deficiencies in use of force reports and how they need to be corrected for compliance with these paragraphs.  On April 15, 2016 Chief Foy and Chief Hector, with the assistance of IMT, held two (2) FRB's each for a total of four (4) FRBs. The cases that were presented by the FITs in each district were UOFT2011-0152 & UOFT2011-0024 (STX FIT) and UOFX20100034 & CX-0022-08 (STT FIT). Additionally, on May 12, 2016 at the IMT Summit, Chief Foy and Chief Hector, with IMT assistance, held one (1) FRB each for a total of two (2) FRBs. The cases that were present by the FIT's in each district were UOFX20140020 (STT FIT) and UOFT2011-0075/FAT2011-0019 (STX FIT). UOFWG members and others also attended FIT/FRB Training held in STX on April 11-15. In doing so, UOFWG met 4Q5-3.  On April 26, 2016, Act. Dir. Sgt. J. Marsh and Det. V. Newton conducted a brief audit/review of the UOF cases in IAPRo from December 19, 2016 to present April 26, 2016. This was done to see if the supervisor(s) who were required to travel to the scene, were traveling to the scenes of UOF incidents in both districts. Two charts/tables were prepared – one with the St. Thomas information and the other with St. Croix data. The charts/tables were sent to IMT.  This quarter, the UOFWG increased its members from three (3) to five (5) members.
Facsimile (340) 715-5517 St. Thomas * (340) 778-2373 St. Croix * (340) 776-6236 St. John

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 208-1 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 4 of 8

Work Group № 2 – CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS

Paragraph:

44-I

 Directive for Investigative Case Management Log was executed by the Police Commissioner on May 5, 2016. Investigative Case Management Log and directive were distributed on May 6, 2016. They were distributed to all sworn personnel territory-wide via e-mail. The Investigative Case Management Log seeks to assist supervisors and commanders with tracking the progress and actions taken throughout the life of an investigation. The log seeks to track the interaction with complaints and witnesses, interviews conducted, periodic status reports provided to complainants, statements taken, request and receipt of relevant documents and any other action taken throughout the investigation.
 Training conducted on the Investigative Case Management log was conducted at Commander’s Call in both districts – May 9, 2016 on St. Thomas and May 16, 2016 on St. Croix. Training involved going over the directive with supervisors and commanders as well as filling out the Investigative Case Management log..
 To reduce the back log of outstanding cases, written directive was sent to supervisors and commanders informing them of 2015 delinquent cases and they were given schedule or limited time period within which to complete 2015 cases. Some achieved the goal while others did not, despite best efforts of some supervisors. Manpower shortage and other major activities and events during this quarter contributed to VIPD’s ability to achieve substantial compliance with this goal. See tables below for comparison of completed cases for cases received January 2015 – January 25, 2016 for the period ending February 6, 2016 and May 18, 2016.

Facsimile (340) 715-5517 St. Thomas * (340) 778-2373 St. Croix * (340) 776-6236 St. John

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 208-1 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 5 of 8

Raw Data Requested with Percentages for January 2015-January 25, 2016 as of 2-6-2016

TERRITORIAL
Citizen Complaints Administrative Investigations Use of Force
ST. CROIX

RECEIVED
275 159 132
RECEIVED

COMPLETED

173

(62.91%)

87

(54.72%)

78

(59.09%)

COMPLETED

ACTIVE

102 (37.09%)

72

(45.28%)

54

(40.91%)

ACTIVE

Citizen Complaints

139

Administrative

90

Investigations

Use of Force

45

87

(62.59%)

52 (37.41%)

58

(64.44%)

32

(35.56%)

35

(77.78%)

10

(22.22%)

ST. THOMAS RECEIVED

COMPLETED

ACTIVE

Citizen Complaints

136

Administrative

69

Investigations

Use of Force

87

86

(63.24%)

50

(36.76%)

29

(42.03%)

40 (57.97%)

43

(49.43%)

44

(50.57%)

Facsimile (340) 715-5517 St. Thomas * (340) 778-2373 St. Croix * (340) 776-6236 St. John

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 208-1 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 6 of 8

Raw Data Requested with Percentages for January 2015-January 25, 2016 as of 5-18-2016

TERRITORIAL
Citizen Complaints Administrative Investigations Use of Force
ST. CROIX

RECEIVED
276 160 138
RECEIVED

COMPLETED

209

(75.72%)

112

(70.00%)

89

(64.49%)

COMPLETED

ACTIVE

67 (24.28%)

48

(30.00%)

49

(35.51%)

ACTIVE

Citizen Complaints Administrative Investigations Use of Force
ST. THOMAS

139 92 51
RECEIVED

105

(75.53%)

72

(78.26%)

42

(82.35%)

COMPLETED

34 (24.47%)

20

(21.74%)

9 (17.65%)

ACTIVE

Citizen Complaints

137

Administrative

68

Investigations

Use of Force

87

104 (75.91%) 40 (58.82%) 47 (54.02%)

33 (24.09%) 28 (41.18%) 40 (45.98%)

Work Group № 3 – MANAGEMENT & SUPERVISION

Paragraphs:

58

 Non-Training Issue Support Form was created and directive executed by the Police Commissioner on May 5, 2016. Directive for Non-Training Issue Support Form and form were distributed to all sworn personnel territory-wide via e-mail on May 6, 2016. The Non-Training Issue Support Form seeks to document and formalize the procedures that Commanders, Supervisors, Investigators, Division and Unit Heads should follow when non-training issues are identified during the investigation and review of citizen complaints or officer misconduct.

Facsimile (340) 715-5517 St. Thomas * (340) 778-2373 St. Croix * (340) 776-6236 St. John

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 208-1 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 7 of 8

Paragraph:

69

 April 19, 2016, VIPD reassigned Lieutenant Maria Colon-Jones to Audit & Inspection Unit. The monitors informed VIPD at the last monthly IMT meeting that VIPD would have to submit two timely audits to achieve substantial compliance.

Paragraph:

70

 VIPD has been working on revising the disciplinary matrix to make it more user

friendly and to address the concerns raised by VIPD officers and personnel.

VIPD has consulted with and had several discussions with the IMT regarding the

matrix.

Work Group № 4 – TRAINING

Paragraph:

73

 During this quarter it was recommended that a letter be drafted giving VIPD’s legal counsel authorization to review VIPD’s Use of Force policies and lesson plans. That letter was approved by Attorney General Claude Earl Walker on March 21, 2016.
 During this quarter a test survey was conducted. The result from the survey was forwarded to the IMT for review and comments. IMT identified several issues and made several recommendations pertaining to the evaluation process.
 In April, it was recommended by IMT that in order to achieve compliance Training had to develop a full evaluation component to evaluate training. The evaluation process will be put in place for the upcoming In-Service training scheduled for July 2016. Processes will include: course evaluation, course test, instructor evaluation which is completed immediately after training, a retention test to be completed 30-60 days after training; attendees will complete a course In-service survey evaluation within 90 days after training; supervisors will complete an

Facsimile (340) 715-5517 St. Thomas * (340) 778-2373 St. Croix * (340) 776-6236 St. John

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 208-1 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 8 of 8

assessment evaluation of officers 4 months after training. In-Service training is

scheduled to begin in July 2016.

Paragraph:

77

 For compliance during this quarter, it was recommended by the IMT that separate

instructor file be created for each instructor to be reviewed. Duplicate paper files

were created to be audited. The audit unit and IMT (Bob Stewart) reviewed the

files and made some additional recommendations after review.

 PowerDMS continues to be VIPD’s main database which captures all training files

to include instructor files, trainings and attendance. All the components of this

paragraph were put in place to achieve compliance. This training component was

audited by the Audit Unit (SAC Duggan and SAC Jones) and Training is waiting

for the hard copy paper files to be reviewed by the IMT. It was also recommended

by the IMT that copies of completed Instructor Attendance log sheet should be

included in each instructor’s files.

Facsimile (340) 715-5517 St. Thomas * (340) 778-2373 St. Croix * (340) 776-6236 St. John

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 227-1 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 1 of 6
Government of The Virgin Islands of the United States

August 19, 201 6

VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT
OFFICE OF THE POLICE COMMISSIONER

VIPD’S STATUS REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDING AUGUST 6, 2016 MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION

WORK GROUP STATUS REPORT

Paragraphs:

60 a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k,

72 a and b

Police Operations and Administrative Services
#45 Mars Hill, Frederiksted
St. Croix,VI 00840 (340) 778-2211
Criminal Justice Con,ex
St. Thomas, VI 00802 (340) 774-2211
Leander Jurgen Command Cruz Say
St.John, VI 00830 (340) 693-8880

60A

60. The new risk management system collected and recorded the following information:

a.

use of force,

b. canine bite ratios, c. the number of canisters used by officers, d. all injuries to prisoners, e.

all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with “resisting arrest”, “assault on a

police officer”, “disorderly conduct”, or “obstruction of official business”, f. all critical firearm

discharges, both on-duty or off duty, g. all complaints (and their dispositions), h. all criminal

proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and civil lawsuits

served upon, the Territory, and its officers, or agents, resulting from VIPD operations or the

actions of VIPD personnel, i. all vehicle pursuits, j. all incidents involving the pointing of a

firearm (if any such reporting is required), and k. all disciplinary action taken against officers.

Many of the sub sections of this paragraph are agreed to be in compliance but we are including steps taken to ensure that these sections remain in compliance.

60A

a. All use of force; (Monitoring Compliance; currently in Substantial Compliance)

• On July 8, 2016 the workgroup reviewed a random selection of 1A and arrest reports between the periods of 11/20/14 to 05/15/15 and from 02/12/16 to 05/31/16 to look for potential unreported uses of force.
• On June 17, 2016 a directive was created outlining the person or unit who will be responsible for obtaining the data for analysis. The creation of this directive ensured that the EIP analyst conducted monthly audits/inspections of the system which will be done by the 5 th of each month, to ensure all reported UOF entries are entered completely in the system.
Facsimile (340) 715-5517 St. Thomas * (340) 778-2373 St. Croix * (340) 776-6236 St. John

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 227-1 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 2 of 6
• On June 23, 2016 the workgroup chairperson distributed and reviewed the newly created directive to EIP analyst and group members to ensure they understand the requirements for conducting the monthly audits! inspections.
• On July 29, 2016, the M&S group conducted monthly inspections of randomly selected 1A and arrest reports from the current quarter and endured that all UOF incidents were being reported and entered in the lAPro (RMS) system. AIU included a review of these monthly inspections in the quarterly audit commencing with the second quarter of 2016.
60B Canine Bite Ratio • The Chiefs in both districts created a directive requiring Canine unit supervisors to submit, on a
weekly basis, utilizationldeployment reports to the EIP Analyst section. ***SUBMITTED ON MONDAYS*** • The Deputy Chiefs in both districts reviewed directives with Canine Supervisors ensuring that they comprehension of the requirements of the directive. • Commencing On June 21, 2016, Canine Units in both districts submitted weekly deployment reports to EIP Analyst. • The work group obtained CAD data from 911 displaying all K9 responses from l!1!15 to 07!15!l6 ensuring that all deployments during that period are captured and analyzed to determine bite ratios. • A directive was created which required the EIP Analyst to conduct quarterly analysis of Canine Bite ratios to comply with the EIP Protocol analysis requirements. • An interim database was created for canine unit supervisors to track all K-9 Unit deployments until lAPro’s release of the K-9 module this fall. The database can track minimally the same fields as on the deployment reports, to include: 1A Number, Crime Classification, Handler name, Canine name, Unit #Location, Date of Occurrence, Date reported, Time arrived, whether deployment resulted in an apprehension, and whether there was a bite!hold, and type of deployment. • At this present time deployment of K-9 units changed from their present Special Response deployment to a regular support role in support of patrol operations.
60C The number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers
• The measuring of equipment is currently available and in working order in both districts. • All commanders were notified to send their officers to training for canister inspection. • Measuring of officers’ canisters from each district was completed by the training bureau.
60D. All injuries to prisoners • All required posters were validated and present in all Zones and report processing areas. • Group Obtained 911 CAD listings for all reported Injury to Prisoner incidents between 1!1!15 and
05/06/16. An inspection was conducted to compare data in the IA-Pro system and ensured all incidents

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 227-1 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 3 of 6
were reported and required action taken. If no case found, initiate case and investigate; update compliance log with results. • Group obtained CAD listing for all reported Injury to Prisoner incidents between 05/06/16 and 07/15/16 and ensured that Injury to Prisoner incidents were reported, entered into TAPro, and required actions taken. • A report was submitted regarding steps 2 and 3 to the AIU, DOJ and IMT.
60E. All instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with “resisting arrest”, “assault on a police officer”, “disorderly conduct”, or “obstruction of official business”
• All data was gathered in the lAPro system on “discretionary arrests” from 1/1/15 to 07/15/16 and disseminate to M&S Group for review.
• All arrests and other reports obtained from Step 1 were reviewed for comparison with lAPro data where force was used and a citizen was charged with an enumerated charge were segregated (duplicated from the UOF incident for analysis purposes) in the system for subsequent analysis and review).
• A report was prepared along with revisions on Thursday, August 18, 2016 with findings added as an addendum to Quarterly reports and for use by Deputy Chiefs in their quarterly EIP reviews with Commanders and supervisors.
60f. All critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty
• On July 24, 2016, workgroup members reviewed all reported critical Firearm Discharges in the lAPro System, from 01/01/15 to 07/15/16 and ensured accuracy of data. All 1A reports and Use of Force reports concerning Critical Firearm Discharges were obtained and checked for consistency in reporting and accuracy with inputted lAPro data.
60H All criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the territory and its officers, or agents, resulting
from VIPU operations or the actions of VIPD personnel
• All quarterly report listings of criminal actions, civil suits and administrative claims between 01/01/16 and 07/15/16 from the VIAG were in accordance with agreements between the VIPD and the VIAG.
• On July 26, 2016, the workgroup members compared to lAPro record to determine if the lAPro system has been updated.
• All records were updated from the VIAG office.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 227-1 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 4 of 6
• All information in the lAPro system were reviewed for clarification by the VIAG and updated as necessary based upon information received.
• All reports have been received and the lAPro case files were updated accordingly, a certification memorandum was submitted to the CD Coordinator for forwarding to the DOJ and the IMT.
• Suspense date was establish to ensure that the processes in Steps 1-5 are repeated on a quarterly basis.
60! All vehicle pursuits
• All vehicle pursuit policy were reviewed and validated to determine reporting requirements consistent with the CD.
• All CAD data were reviewed for events categorized as pursuit and a list was created with appropriate information to link them with lAPro cases from 01/01 / 16 to 07/15/16.
• The work group members compared CAD data categorized as vehicle pursuits to lAPro pursuitbased case entries for the same period as reflected on the list created in Steps 1 and 2 to ensure required reporting has been complied with.
• The workgroup identified personnel involved in pursuits and their supervisors on all CAD categorized events where no lAPro report is found to appropriate Police Chief and request appropriate administrative review for compliance.
• Police Chiefs in both districts took appropriate action based upon the investigation and reported same back to the ATU for inclusion in the final report and subsequent quarterly audits.
• A report was prepared and submitted with findings from Steps 1-4 to CD Coordinator for submission to DOJ/IMT.
60J All incidents involving the pointing of a firearm if any such reporting is required
• The workgroup reviewed a random selection of 1A and accompanying arrest reports involving felony cases between 01/01/15 and 07/15/16 to determine those where there is some indication that an officer pointed a firearm at an individual or subject.
• A report was created a report which listed from the lAPro system, all cases with an occurrence date between the dates in Step 1 above, where a Use of Force report has been filed indicating an officer pointed a fireann during an incident or arrest.
• The workgroup compared the lists developed in Step 1 with the list developed in Step 2 and isolated those cases where no Use of Force report was initiated (e.g., none in file within lAPro) where one would have been required by Department Policy. Officers were identified that were involved as well as the supervisors and initiate appropriate action. through their Police Chief, as per department policy.
• According to the list developed in Step 3, steps where initiated to have required reports prepared and logged into lAPro.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 227-1 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 5 of 6

• The workgroup members provide reports detailing the results of Steps 1-4 to Compliance Coordinator and request which was forwarded to DOJ/IMT for review.

60K. All disciplinary action taken against officers • The workgroup created a listing of all cases in the lAPro system where the disposition was
sustained to determine whether they were appropriately duplicated as Disciplinary Action incidents as required by VIPD policy for EIP analysis.
Paragraph 72
72. Absent exceptional circumstances, the VIPD will not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix indicates the imposition of discipline. In a case where discipline has been imposed on an officer, the VIPD must also consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action is required.
• The workgroup developed a list of all sustained charges within VIPD in cases closed between 1/15/15 and 07/15/16.
• The workgroup Identified / documented discipline provided for each sustained charge. • The work group Assessed compliance of discipline imposed with existing disciplinary
policy/matrix; and identified all documented extenuating circumstances justifying variance from the policy/matrix.

• The workgroup used the listing from Steps 1 thru 3 to determine if sustained charges were altered or overturned and identify at what point, by whom, and if justification was noted in the action.
72b. In =>90% of the cases where discipline is imposed, there is evidence that the VIPD has also considered non-disciplinary corrective action.

• Of those cases identified in Step 1 above in sub-paragraph a, the workgroup members determined from the case files whether or not the VIPD Investigators, Supervisors, Commanders, Chiefs or the Commissioner have taken into consideration non-disciplinary action options when recommending or administering discipline.

TRAINING

Action Steps completed for Paragraph 60:

c.

The number of canisters of chemical spray used by officers; (currently in compliance)

Step 1

COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED Ensure measuring equipment is available and in working

order in both districts.

Date: June 3. 2016

Suspense Date: June 10, 2016 Completed Date: June 20, 2016

Responsible Person: Dir. G. McIntosh (assisted by Academy Supervisors Sgt. Sullivan SIT / Sgt. Lynch SIX)

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 227-1 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 6 of 6

Step 2

COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED Notify commanders to send their officers to training for

canister inspection.

Date: June 6, 2016

Suspense Date: June 9, 2016

Completed Date: June 22, 2016

Action Officer: Director G. Macintosh

Step 4 Weigh-in officer will initiate exception memo on all canisters that exceed the tare weight and forward to the appropriate district Police Chief for action.

Date: June 28, 2016 Suspense Date: June 30, 2016

Completed Date: June 30, 2016

Action Officer: Director Lynne Harrison

USE OF FORCE
The Use of Force Workgroup (UOFWG) has achieved several accomplishments during the 2 nd quarter of 2016. The first major accomplishment of the UOFWG was the successful scheduling and implementation of the UOF Investigative Training which was held on June 27-30, 2016 territorially. This training was mandatory and made possible with the assistance of the IMT personnel, Chet Epperson and Palmer Wilson through the VIPD Training Bureau. UOFWG members Acting Chief Jason Marsh, Deputy Chief Mark Corniero, Agent Chenelle Skepple and Detective Vivianne Newton have held and/or attended Commanders Call meetings with supervisory personnel in reference to reviewing use of force reports and investigations, the deficiencies that are being found, AIU Audit report pertaining to Use of Force, what is needed during use of force investigations in order to meet compliance with the paragraphs pertaining to use of force, the internal audit that has been conducted by UOFWG members for use of force cases entered and/or submitted from 01-15-16 to 07-15-16 and the supervisor’s responsibility in responding to use of force incidents. The UOFWG also ensured that the majority if not all VIPD enforcement personnel were trained during Roll Call Training on Commissioner’s Directive 08-2016 Supervisor Response to Use of Force Incidents. During the roll call training, the attendees were required to sign the Roll Call Training Sheet and received a copy of the Commissioner’s Directive 08-20 16. Additionally, the Blue Team Protocol was revised during this quarter and training was provided on this policy during In-Service Training held July 11, 2016 to August 6, 2016.
In closing, the UOFWG has also worked extremely hard in trying to obtain compliance for the use of force paragraphs within the Consent Decree. To date, we are close to obtaining compliance in paragraph 32 and possibly 33. As of August 18, 2016, as per IMT correspondence we have obtained compliance for subparagraphs 32B Steps 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 9; 32C Steps 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10; 32F Steps 1, 3, & 4; 33C Step 3 and 37B Step 1. The UOFWG will continue to hold weekly meetings to review use of force cases submitted to identify, document and con-ect any deficiencies found during the reviews. The use of force cases will also be reviewed in order to see if they meet the mandates of the Consent Decree paragraphs.

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 151-1 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 1 of 4
Government of The Virgin Islands of the United States

VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT

Police Operations and Administrative Services #45 Mars Hill, Frederiksted St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 00840
(340) 778-2211

Alexander Farrelly Justice Complex Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 00802 (340) 774-2310

MAY 25, 2015

Leander Jurgen Command Cruz Bay
St. John, U.S.V.I. 00830 (340) 693-8880

VIPD’S STATUS REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDING MAY 15, 2015

Patrick Sweeney Complex RR 02, Kingshill
St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 00850 (340) 778-2244

This Progress Report is submitted pursuant to the mandates established by the United States District Court in the Civil Order 2008-158 and amended on May 22, 2014.

I. USE OF FORCE
In response to the audit findings over the past quarters, the use of force work group developed several strategies to combat the deficiencies noted in the Audit. The quarterly compliance objectives reflect the workgroup’s efforts to address the Audit recommendations and improve the Virgin Islands Police Department’s overall compliance performance.
Compliance Objectives for Quarter:
1. Development of a UOF investigation Reviewer’s Checklist.
The use of force work group completed the development of a Response to Resistance Investigation Reviewers Checklist - CD-RCLV1-2015.

2. Issue Commissioner’s Directive for use of Reviewer’s Checklist.

The Response to Resistance Reviewer’s Checklist directive (0042015) was completed for the implementation of this Reviewer’s Checklist and approved by Police Commissioner Delroy Richards, Sr. on May 15, 2015.

Facsimile (340) 715-5517 St. Thomas (340) 778-2373 St. Croix (340) 776-6236 St. John

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 151-1 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 2 of 4
Compliance Page 2 of 4 Progress Report
3. Train Reviewing personnel on use of Checklist.
Training of commanders and supervisors with respect to the use of this Response to Resistance Investigation Reviewer Checklist will be coordinated either through commander’s call and or roll call during the week of May 25th – 29th.
4. Issue Commissioner’s Directive mandating Forensic personnel to comply with work product time limits for Level 1 Force Investigations.
The use of force work group completed the development of a Response to Resistance Level 1 Forensic Reports directive (00052015), that was approved by Police Commissioner Delroy Richards, Sr. on May 15, 2015. This directive will ensure the Forensic Unit adheres to timely submission practices for all response to resistance incidents that require forensic reports.
5. Continue training for all officers on UOF Reporting templates.
The use of force work group developed three templates: Witness Officer RRR, Involved Officer RRR, and a Supervisor Investigation Report. VIPD has trained about 95% of all supervisors and officers on the UOF Reporting templates.
6. Complete training for Forensic CSI staff on creating officer involved shooting sketches and trajectory.
Personnel from the Internal Affairs and Applicant Screening Bureau as well as the Forensic Unit have been identified for this training, and are scheduled to attend training at Northwestern University from June 22nd to 24th, 2015.
II. Management and Supervision
Court Goals for May 15, 2015 that were not met but are a work in progress:
• Status of finalization of MOA with VITEMA on information sharing to facilitate the requirements of paragraph 60 with the goal of moving it into compliance
VIPD on Wednesday, May 20, 2015 had a teleconference meeting to present several operational activities that are needed from VITEMA. VIPD also documented the items that are needed by VIPD on a continuous basis. VIPD’s Legal Counsel prepared the draft of the MOA between both agencies and forwarded it to everyone for review and comments. VIPD did review comments from both agencies and the document was Facsimile (340) 715-5517 St. Thomas (340) 778-2373 St. Croix (340) 776-6236 St. John

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 151-1 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 3 of 4 Compliance Page 3 of 4 Progress Report
corrected. VIPD is awaiting signature of the document by VITEMA. Once the MOA is fully executed, VIPD will send a copy to DOJ and IMT.
• Status of the revision to the Early Intervention Program protocol with the inclusion of the previously issued directive. On Thursday, May 21, 2015 the Early Intervention Program protocol was re-sent to IMT for review with the additional corrected information for review by the team.
III. CitizenComplaint Process Court Goals for May 15, 2015 that were not met but are a work in progress:
• The revision to Citizen Complaint Investigative Report form to include the commander’s recommendations for paragraph 58. The revision of the form is completed and a directive is being prepared for VIPD personnel to utilize the form so this goal can be completed.
• Status of submission to the Policy Committee to revise policy 7.3 and incorporate directive in the policy for paragraph 58 of the Unit Commanders Responsibilities The Policy Committee is working on formatting the revision of Policy 7.3 for submission to DOJ and IMT.
Court Goals for Nov 2014 & Feb 2015 & May 2015 that VIPD did not meet but are working towards compliance:
• Ensure that complaints are investigated in a timely manner and complete outstanding cases. VIPD will review all open cases and their status and prepare charges for those that don’t have the required documentation for an extension. A meeting will be scheduled with all identified personnel that need to complete their cases.
All other goals for the quarter for Citizen Complaint Process and Management and Supervision were met.
Facsimile (340) 715-5517 St. Thomas (340) 778-2373 St. Croix (340) 776-6236 St. John

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 151-1 Filed: 05/25/15 Page 4 of 4 Compliance Page 4 of 4 Progress Report
IV. Training 1. The Training Advisory Committee (“TAC”) SOP was reorganized through
assistance from the monitors as to the number of personnel that will make up the committee and number of times the committee will meet which will be quarterly instead if semi-annually. 2. TAC meeting was held on April 20, 2015. 3. The SOP for TAC was completed and finalized. 4. The roll call policy was completed on May 12, 2015. 5. The Kirk Patrick evaluation method training Bronze Level was conducted on a May 8, 2015. The training bureau is doing an evaluation on if or how VIPD will implement the Kirk Patrick evaluation method and still dialoguing with other departments stateside on their Kirk Patrick evaluations.
Facsimile (340) 715-5517 St. Thomas (340) 778-2373 St. Croix (340) 776-6236 St. John

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 128-1 Filed: 12/03/14 Page 1 of 6
Government of The Virgin Islands of the United States
December 3, 2014
VIPD’S STATUS REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 21, 2014
The VIPD has reviewed the IMT’s Compliance Status Report dated November 20, 2014. The IMT’s November 20, 2014 Report has changed compared to the IMT Report that was filed on August 29, 2014. The prior report is clearer than the November Report. At times, it is impossible to exactly what exactly is being assessed. Although VIPD agrees with many of the findings of the IMT, there are some findings or representations that it disputes or believes needs further clarification. This report addresses most of those issues that VIPD either disputes or has determined needs further clarification.
AUDIT & INSPECTION UNIT
On October 31, 2014, the Commissioner officially designated Police Lieutenant Sandra Colbourne as the Audit and Inspection Unit Commander. Lieutenant Colbourne has already begun performing her duties as the AIU Commander and is in the process of conducting an audit with other VIPD employees. Also Lieutenant Colbourne will work with the working groups in auditing the various provisions of the Consent Decree. Lieutenant Colbourne will not be conducting the audits by herself. She will be assisted by other VIPD employees. VIPD disagrees with the IMT that “single person staffing with temporary duty personnel is clearly deficient.” The audits conducted by the working groups have continued to improve and the assignment of Lieutenant Colbourne, with the assistance of working group members or temporary assigned staff should enhance the audits. At this time, VIPD does not agree that transferring the Department’s Compliance Coordinator to the AIU is in the best interest of VIPD. The Compliance Coordinator serves an important role in the management of records, exchanges of documents and information between VIPD and the IMT. As the parties are all aware, tracking the exchange of information and documents in a consent decree of this magnitude is no easy feat.
USE OF FORCE
With respect to the IMT’s comments regarding impediment to compliance as to paragraph 32 the IMT reports that “[t]the development of protocols, outcome measure and evaluation has not been completed.” It is unclear what this means. Does this relate to the Training Advisory Committee or lesson plans? If this pertains to the Training Advisor Committee, it is irrelevant to the training on the templates as it is the Director and the Use of Force working group that would be responsible for creation of any lesson plan, not the Training Advisory Committee.
Subparagraph 34 (c) and paragraph 37 were never reported as goals for any of the quarters. Yet, they are discussed in “Section III Court Goals and Paragraph Compliance Detail.” Although VIPD has brought this to the IMT’s attention the IMT has refused to remove discussions on these

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 128-1 Filed: 12/03/14 Page 2 of 6
paragraphs from the report. VIPD believes that this is contrary to the Court’s May 22, 2014 Order. The order specifically provides that “each party shall file a report regarding progress made towards achievement of the quarterly goals for the quarter that has ended.” Since subparagraph 34 (c) and paragraph 37 were never reported as goals for any of the quarters they should not have been included in the November quarterly report and should not be considered at the Hearing. Their inclusion defeats the objective that the “parties target meaningful and achievable goals”, if the IMT is free to add goals without any of the parties’ input.
MANAGEMENT & SUPERVISION
Paragraph 60(d) – the IMT reports that “there is also a draft of a flow chart currently being reviewed.” The flow chart was completed before the November 21, 2014. With respect to the directive for the records bureau, there has been no discussion with the IMT regarding incorporating this directive in a policy and the M&S has not informed the IMT that the directive will be incorporated in a policy. The November report is the first time M&S has learned from the IMT the directive will be incorporated in a policy.
Paragraph 60(h) the IMT reported they have been informed of a dated request from VIPD to VIAG re motor vehicle accident during the 3rd Quarter. The request to VIAG from VIPD was initiated on November 3, 2014. On November 13, 2014 a reminder request was sent to VIAG. On November 19, 2014, the information requested was sent to VIPD.
The IMT’s representation that “while materials are being received the materials are not always complete and usable” is incorrect. In 2013, the VIAG provided the VIPD with cases filed against VIPD dating back five years. VIPD requested additional data or clarification as to some of the cases that were provided. In fact, in the August quarterly report the monitors reported that “the monitors have been advised that as it relates to civil and administrative claims, the VIAG has provided the VIPD with the complaints and claims filed against VIPD and its officers. Where VIPD has requested additional information they have been provided.” M&S has not reported to the IMT that any information provided by VIAG in 2014 were not complete or usable. The IMT needs to update its data.
In its update on this subparagraph, the IMT reported that the response was received on 12/03/14. As noted above, the response to the request re motor vehicle accidents was provided to VIPD on November 19, 2014. What was sent to the IMT on December 3, 2014 was a letter to the Commissioner from the Attorney General regarding the forwarding of complaints and claims filed against VIPD and its officers. As the monitors reported, the AG does not believe that a MOA is necessary and instead has memorialized the process for the exchange of information in a letter to the Commissioner which he copied to supervisors in the Office of the Attorney General.
Page 2 of 6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 128-1 Filed: 12/03/14 Page 3 of 6
TRAINING
Training was unable to bring any new paragraph into compliance partly because the IMT moved the goal post further back and expanded the Consent Decree.
Notwithstanding Training and IMT’s differences with what is required to achieve substantial compliance, the Training Bureau had a sense of direction with the last quarterly report but it appears from the November report that the IMT wants training to start all over again even on matters that the IMT and Training had reached some consensus or agreement. A new member of the IMT team has been requesting documentation from training that was sent to the IMT in the past.
Training Review Committee
The Training Advisory Committee held a second meeting for this calendar year on October 3, 2014. A prior meeting was held this year on May 20, 2014. Most of the persons who attended the May 20, 2014 also attended the October 3, 2014 meeting. In its November 2014 Report the IMT reported that neither first responders not the lead from the Use of Force Working Group are members. The November 20, 2014 report is the very first time that the monitors have recommended that first responders and the lead from the Use of Force Working Group should be included as members. It was not discussed at the recent summit or in the August IMT report. In fact, the monitors have never complained about the composition of the committee and during the last court hearing represented that appropriate persons attended the May 20, 2014 meeting. The IMT’s representation that the lead from the Use of Working Group is not represented on the committee is incorrect. Captain Duggan who is the point person for the Use of Force Working Group attended both the May and October meetings. Additionally, Police Chief Parris whom she also represented is in fact the head of the Use of Force Working Group. Also Officer Bennerson, who attended both the May and October 2014 meetings is not a supervisor and is a first responder. He is a canine officer who works primarily on the streets, even though he is a part-time instructor at the Police Academy. The IMT’s representation that the proposed force Review Committee Chair was not included as requested by Captain Duggan is premature. As the monitors are well aware, a protocol which would formally establish the membership of the committee has not been completed. Additionally, the Force Review Board Policy has not been finalized or approved and the Chair of the Board does not exist as of this report. The protocol and membership on the committee were discussed during the October meeting. No decision was made to reject first responders, lead from the Use of Force Working Group, or the Chair of Force Review Committee as members.
The November report is also the first time that the monitors have raised the issue of directly routing suggestions to the committee. There is no legitimate basis why any suggestion anonymous or otherwise cannot be sent to the Training Director or left at the Training Academy and then provide to the committee when it meets. The committee consists of individuals who work in different divisions within VIPD. Since the committee’s focus is training, Training is the most appropriate entity to collect such information and then bring it to the committee’s attention when it meets.
The VIPD disagrees with the IMT’s assessment of the Advisory Committee Meeting. During the meeting some of the discussions include review of use of force incidents as reported by IAB territory-wide, the quality of training provided, areas where training may be needed,
Page 3 of 6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 128-1 Filed: 12/03/14 Page 4 of 6
further research to determine effectiveness of certain types of uses of force, and coordination of roll call training.
During the summit, there were discussions regarding a protocol for the Training Advisory Committee. Discussions regarding the content of the protocol revealed that the IMT now had a different and expansive view of the content of the protocol than what was previously represented to Training. Since Training was unclear as to what the IMT was now requesting, it asked Mr. Palmer to provide it with a sample of a protocol for a similar committee. To date, Training has not received such a sample. Training is awaiting receipt of a sample protocol from the IMT, so that it can formulate a protocol that will satisfy the IMT.
Instructor Selection Process
The IMT and training have discussed the instructor selection process on several occasions. During the August summit there were extensive discussions on the waiver requirement. In fact, VIPD was under the impression that the waiver issue had been resolved. In the August IMT Report the only comment that the IMT had with respect to the instruction selection process was “Despite the fact that a directive has been developed and issued concerning the selection and training of VIPD officers, trainers, there is still the need to develop standard definitions for the certification and re-certification of instructors. VIPD plans to add an addendum to its directive that would further define the classes of instructors and establish a formalized certification process for each of the instructors in VIPD.” VIPD in reliance on the discussions in the August summit and the August IMT Report revised the instructor selection directive consistent with the comments by the IMT in August Report. Training was shocked when the IMT raised the issue of the waiver after it submitted its revised directive regarding the instructor selection process. Training believed that this issue was resolved during the August Summit.
Kirkpatrick’s Four Level Evaluation Model
The IMT made numerous mention of the Kirkpatrick’s Four Level Evaluation Model. The first time that the IMT ever mentioned the Kirkpatrick model of training to the Director was the day after the November summit. The director believes that this type of evaluating is not conducive for policing and the size of the VIPD should be considered. Moreover, the Kirkpatrick model has been criticized. See below.
There are three problematic assumptions of the Kirkpatrick model
1) the levels are not arranged in ascending order, 2) the levels are not casually linked, and 3) the levels are positively inter-correlated (Alliger and Janak,(1989).
One part of Kirkpatrick’s four levels that has failed to uphold to scrutiny over time is Reaction. For example, a Century 21 trainer with some of the lowest level one scores was responsible for the highest performance outcomes post-training (level four), as measured by his graduates’ productivity. This is not just an isolated incident – in study after study the evidence shows very little correlation between Reaction evaluations and how well people actually perform when they return to their job (Boehle,
Page 4 of 6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 128-1 Filed: 12/03/14 Page 5 of 6
2006).
There is no requirement in the Consent Decree that VIPD adopt the Kirkpatrick model. These new the requirements have changed since Mr. Palmer Wilson came onboard has placed the Training Bureau at a disadvantage.
Power DMS
The IMT’s report on Power DMS was not truthful. The IMT reported that neither the Director of Training nor any one of his staff has the capability to sign on, operate, or load training data into Power DMS. They also reported that only Ms. Tweed from MIS can load data into the system. This type of reporting is irresponsible. The Training Bureau staff have uploaded all the current information on Power DMS, administered over 400 tests online and knows how to sign on to the system.
Paragraph 73. During the August IMT report paragraph 73 had two requirements - (1) review use of force training semi-annually and (2) ensure the quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy. The VIPD was in partial compliance with (1) and in partial compliance with (2). The IMT November report has paragraph 73 as having subsections a to h. Paragraph 73 of the Consent Decree has no subsection a to h. Thus, VIPD does not know what subsections a-h as reported by the IMT requires. It is impossible for VIPD to meet compliance by the IMT’s standard when the IMT appears to have unilaterally amended the Consent Decree the goal post is constantly being moved.
Paragraphs 74 and 77. In the August IMT Report, the IMT reported VIPD in substantial compliance with subsections (b) and (d) and partial compliance in all other subsection of paragraph 74. In this report the IMT has reported as follows
Subparagraph (a) - not in substantial compliance Subparagraph (c) - not in substantial compliance Subparagraph (d) - not in substantial compliance Subparagraph (e) - partial compliance Subparagraph (f) - not in substantial compliance Subparagraph (g) - not in substantial compliance
A similar change was made to paragraph 77 (b) which was changed from partial compliance in the August IMT Report to not in compliance in the IMT’s November Report. When asked why the subparagraphs were changed from partial compliance to not in substantial compliance, the IMT today reported that they decided amongst themselves, without any consultation with VIPD, that as it relates to training where there is no percentage for compliance the assessment they would no longer use partial compliance. Instead a paragraph would either be in compliance or not in compliance. This method of assessment as it relates to training is unfair and inconsistent. In none of the subparagraphs that the IMT now claims are not in substantial compliance is there any evidence that Training did not take any action during this quarter to move towards compliance, yet it gets a lower assessment. As the VIPD has informed the IMT its prior “all or nothing” method of assessment does not give VIPD credit for the work it has done and only serves to erode morale for those VIPD personnel that have worked tirelessly to
Page 5 of 6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 128-1 Filed: 12/03/14 Page 6 of 6 bring VIPD closer to achieving the objectives of the Consent Decree. For reasons unknown to VIPD, the IMT has unilaterally decided to revert to an assessment method for training that fails to take into consideration the efforts of Training. Paragraph 81. In the August IMT Report paragraph 81 has two requirements – (1) provide burden of proof training to al supervisor – In compliance and (2) provide supervisory training on leadership and command accountability – Partial Compliance. In the IMT November Report, paragraph 81 has three subsections. It is not clear from the report what are requirement of subsections and it is not clear whether Training is being assessed on the same criteria as in the August IMT Report.
Page 6 of 6

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 103 Filed: 06/02/14 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
1. THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS; and
2. THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.

)

)

C.A. No. 3:08-CV-158

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

REPORT REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ PROGRESS TOWARD ACHIEVING MAY 27, 2014 QUARTERLY GOALS

Pursuant to the Court’s May 22, 2014 Order (“May 22 Order”), Dkt. # 97, Plaintiff, the

United States of America, files this report regarding Defendants’ progress toward meeting its

Consent Decree goals for the quarter ending May 27, 2014.

At the February 25, 2014 hearing in the above-captioned matter, the Court ordered

Defendants to submit proposed quarterly goals in at least two areas of the Consent Decree.

Those goals were to be achieved by May 27, 2014. In response, on March 7, 2014, Defendants

notified the Court that, for the quarter ending May 27, 2014, they intended to achieve

substantial compliance with the following Consent Decree provisions: (1) Citizen complaint

process, ¶¶ 42-58, and (2) training, ¶¶ 73-81. Notice of VIPD’s Areas of Substantial

Compliance by May 27, 2014, Dkt. # 91. In its May 22 Order, the Court accepted these

quarterly goals. The Court further required each party to file a report after the end of each

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 103 Filed: 06/02/14 Page 2 of 4

quarter, to report on Defendants’ progress toward the achievement of their quarterly goals.1 Accordingly, the United States submits its report regarding Defendants’ progress toward compliance with the citizen complaint process and training provisions of the Consent Decree.
As detailed in the attached report from the independent monitors in this matter, Defendants have made significant progress toward compliance with the provisions of the Consent Decree regarding the citizen complaint process. Citizen Complaint Process Report, Appendix A. Indeed, the monitors have found Defendants in compliance with paragraphs 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53, and 57. The monitors also report that Defendants may be able to comply with paragraph 49 prior to the upcoming June 9, 2014 evidentiary hearing in this matter. Defendants are not yet in compliance with paragraphs 44, 46, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56, or 58. As detailed in the attached, to achieve compliance in these areas, Defendants must strengthen their training, improve supervisory and managerial accountability, and timely complete investigations.
In contrast, as detailed in the second attached report from the monitors, Defendants have made only limited progress on the training provisions of the Consent Decree. Training Management Oversight Report, Appendix B. As previously, the monitors again have found Defendants out of compliance with all paragraphs regarding training, i.e., paragraphs 73-81. As detailed in the attached, compliance with the training provisions will require steps including improving coordination between the Director of Training and the Police Chiefs; engaging in regular, thorough self-evaluation and analysis of use of force training; and improving leadership and command accountability. On a positive note, as detailed in the attached, with

1

Going forward, these reports generally will be due on the fourth Monday of May,

August, November, and February. May 22, Order at 5. For the current quarter, during a

telephonic status conference on May 20, 2014, the Court instructed the parties to file by June 2,

2014 their reports for the quarter ending on May 27, 2014.

2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 103 Filed: 06/02/14 Page 3 of 4

the purchase of a new software system, Defendants have made significant progress toward maintaining an adequate recordkeeping system for training records.

Dated June 2, 2014

Respectfully submitted,
FOR THE UNITED STATES:
JONATHAN M. SMITH Chief Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division
LAURA L. COON Special Counsel
_/s/ Marina Mazor_______________ MARINA MAZOR Senior Trial Attorney Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-6255 (telephone) (202) 514-0212 (facsimile)

3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 103 Filed: 06/02/14 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of Plaintiff’s Report Regarding Defendants’ Progress Toward Achieving May 27, 2014 Quarterly Goals was filed electronically on June 2, 2014, using the CM/ECF system, which will send electronic notification to the following:
Carol Thomas-Jacobs Assistant Attorney General V.I. Department of Justice 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade G.E.R.S. Complex, 2nd Floor St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802 Tel: (340) 774-5666 ext. 155
CJacobs@doj.vi.gov
____/s/ Marina Mazor _______ MARINA MAZOR Senior Trial Attorney Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division United States Department of Justice
4

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 113 Filed: 08/29/14 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
1. THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS; and
2. THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.

)

)

C.A. No. 3:08-CV-158

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

JOINT REPORT REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ PROGRESS TOWARD ACHIEVING AUGUST 15, 2014 QUARTERLY GOALS

Pursuant to the Court’s May 22, 2014 Order (“May 22 Order”), Dkt. # 97, Plaintiff, the

United States of America, and Defendants, the Territory of the Virgin Islands and the Virgin

Islands Police Department (“VIPD”) (collectively, “the parties”) file this report regarding

Defendants’ progress toward meeting their Consent Decree goals for the quarter ending August 29, 2014.1

Per the February 25, 2014 hearing in this matter, and the Court’s May 22 Order,

Defendants are required to submit to the Court a list of quarterly compliance goals that they

will achieve by the end of the third Friday of May, August, November, and February of each

calendar year. Defendants must submit these goals to the Court no later than 10 weeks before

1

Per the Court’s May 22 Order, the parties’ progress reports for the quarter ending on

August 15, 2014 were due on the fourth Monday of August, or August 25, 2014. On August

25, 2014, the parties moved the Court for an extension of time to file their progress reports on

Friday, August 29, 2014, so that the reports could be more accurately reflect the results of a

two-day summit between the parties and monitors on August 26 and 27, 2014. Joint Motion

for Extension of Time to File Progress Reports for the Quarter Ending August 15, 2014,

Dkt. # 111.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 113 Filed: 08/29/14 Page 2 of 7
the end of the associated quarter. May 22 Order at 5. Further, by the fourth Monday of each month listed above, the parties must submit progress reports regarding Defendants’ compliance with the goals identified for the preceding quarter. Id. Thereafter, on the fourth Thursday of each of the identified months, the parties must appear before the Court for an evidentiary hearing to apprise the Court of the status of the Consent Decree. Id.
For the quarter ending on August 15, 2014, Defendants submitted their goals in two filings in June 2014, after the Court directed the VIPD to submit additional proposed quarterly goals. Notice of VIPD’s Quarterly Goals for Quarter Ending August 15, 2014, June 6, 2014, Dkt. # 106; Notice of Filing of Virgin Islands Police Department’s Additional Quarterly Goals for the Quarter Ending August 15, 2014, June 27, 2014, Dkt. # 108. Combined, in those filings, Defendants identified as their goals compliance, by August 15, 2014, with the following paragraphs that were not yet in substantial compliance: 32(a-f), 33(a and e), 34(a, b, e, and f), 35(a and d), 36(a-g), 41, 44, 51, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 65, 69, 73, 74(e), 80, and 81. Id.
As detailed in the attached report (“Report”) from the independent monitors, although Defendants are not yet in substantial compliance with all of the Consent Decree paragraphs identified above, Defendants have made significant progress toward compliance. Moreover, as a result of a productive two-day summit between the parties and the monitors on August 26 and 27, 2014, the parties and monitors are in full agreement on the compliance status of all the provisions of the Consent Decree, including the paragraphs identified above. Report at 1. Accordingly, the parties jointly submit this report regarding Defendants’ progress toward achieving their goals for the quarter ending on August 15, 2014. Id.
2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 113 Filed: 08/29/14 Page 3 of 7

As detailed in the Report, of the paragraphs identified for compliance by August 15, 2014, Defendants are currently in substantial compliance with the following: 32c, 32e, 34f, 35d, 36c, 36e, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 65, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80.2 Defendants are not yet in substantial compliance with the following: 32a, 32b, 32d, 32f, 33a, 33e, 34a, 34b, 34e, 35a, 36a, 36b, 36d, 36f, 36g, 44, 58, 60, 69, 73, 74, 77, and 81. Except for sub-paragraph 35a, all of these paragraphs or subparagraphs are in partial compliance.
Specifically, first, as detailed in the attached, Defendants are in compliance with the following paragraphs and/or subparagraphs in the use of force paragraphs they identified for compliance: 32c, 32e, 34f, 35d, 36c, 36e, and 41. They remain out of compliance with subparagraph 35a and are in partial compliance with subparagraphs 32a, 32b, 32d, 32f, 33a, 33e, 34a, 34b, 34e, 35a, 36a, 36b, 36d, 36f, and 36g. In this area, as described in the attached, Defendants are aware of deficiencies in use of force investigations, as identified in their internal audits, and are taking steps to increase compliance. Id. at 5-9.
Second, in the area of citizen complaints, four of the six paragraphs that were not yet in substantial compliance as of the original May 27, 2014 deadline are now in substantial compliance.3 Those paragraphs are: 51, 54, 55, and 56. Compliance designations for paragraphs 51, 54 and 56 are the result of a decision to limit the assessment of timeliness of investigations to paragraph 44 only, along with compliance with the training component (paragraph 80) and improvement in the percentages of compliance as reflected in VIPD audits

2

This includes paragraphs that came into compliance during the quarter ending May 27,

2014.

3

Implementation for paragraphs 47, 50, 52, and 53, which are in compliance for policy

and training purposes, is measured under paragraph 100.

3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 113 Filed: 08/29/14 Page 4 of 7
and cases sampled by the monitors. Id. at 10. Additionally, paragraph 56 achieved compliance as a result of discussions with the monitors and VIPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau (“IAB”) and documentation that the monitors received from the IAB. Id. at 14. The monitors report that paragraph 44 remains out of compliance, because of the lack of timeliness of investigations, and inadequate supervisory/managerial accountability. Although the monitors report that they have observed improvement in identifying training needs, paragraph 58 remains out of compliance because deficiencies in identifying training needs still exist and must be addressed. Id. at 9-11, 15.
Third, in the area of management and supervision, paragraphs 61 and 65 are newly in compliance. Paragraphs 60 and 69 remain out of compliance. Paragraph 60 requires VIPD’s risk management system to collect and record various type of information. The system currently is recording most of that information, but three areas remain outstanding. Id. at 1517. Paragraph 69 requires Defendants to develop and implement a protocol for conducting audits. In their report, the monitors noted that although the working groups have been conducting quarterly audits, the monitors have advised VIPD to establish and staff an audit unit, per VIPD’s policy that requires such a unit. The monitors further report that although the working group audits have improved, they are not yet adequate. The monitors continue to work with Defendants to provide advice and technical assistance to bring Defendants’ audits up to acceptable standards. Id. at 18.
Fourth, Defendants have made significant progress in the area of training. In particular, paragraphs 76, 78, 79, and 80 are now in compliance. Paragraphs 73, 74, 77, and 81 remain out of compliance, though the monitors expect that these paragraphs “should” be able to come in to compliance in the next quarter. Id. at 18.
4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 113 Filed: 08/29/14 Page 5 of 7 In short, although Defendants were unable to comply with all of the paragraphs
identified in their June 6, 2014 and June 27, 2014 filings, they have made significant progress. In the next quarter, among other things, Defendants intend to accelerate their pace of progress, seek out additional technical assistance from the monitors, and work collaboratively with both the United States and the monitors in setting their goals for the upcoming quarter in advance of the due dates.
5

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 113 Filed: 08/29/14 Page 6 of 7

Dated: August 29, 2014

Respectfully submitted,
FOR THE UNITED STATES:
JONATHAN M. SMITH Chief Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division
LAURA L. COON Special Counsel
_/s/ Marina Mazor_______________ MARINA MAZOR Senior Trial Attorney Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-6255 (telephone) (202) 514-0212 (facsimile)
FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
VINCENT F. FRAZER Attorney General
____/s/ Carol Thomas-Jacobs_______ CAROL THOMAS JACOBS Assistant Attorney General V.I. Department of Justice 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade G.E.R.S. Complex, 2nd Floor St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802

6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 113 Filed: 08/29/14 Page 7 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of Joint Report Regarding Defendants’ Progress Toward Achieving August 15, 2014 Quarterly Goals was filed electronically on August 29, 2014, using the CM/ECF system, which will send electronic notification to the following:
Carol Thomas-Jacobs Assistant Attorney General V.I. Department of Justice 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade G.E.R.S. Complex, 2nd Floor St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802 Tel: (340) 774-5666 ext. 155
CJacobs@doj.vi.gov
____/s/ Marina Mazor _______ MARINA MAZOR Senior Trial Attorney Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division United States Department of Justice
7

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
1. THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS; and
2. THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.

)

)

C.A. No. 3:08-CV-158

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

AMENDED REPORT REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ PROGRESS TOWARD ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE WITH NOVEMBER 21, 2014 QUARTERLY GOALS

Comes now Plaintiff, the United States of America, and submits this amended report

regarding Defendants’ progress toward meeting its Consent Decree goals for the quarter ending

November 21, 2014. Plaintiff files this amended report in order to address concerns raised by

Defendants in their Status Report filed December 3, 2014, Dkt. # 128-1. Plaintiff files both a

clean and a redlined version of this amended report so the Court can clearly see changes to the

report made since it filed its initial report on December 3, 2014, Dkt. # 127-1.

Among other measures, this amended report: clarifies the assessment of the Audit &

Inspection Unit; explains why the report is not limited to quarterly goals; offers additional

explanation regarding findings of “partial compliance” and “not in substantial compliance;”

provides more detail regarding impediments to compliance; and supplements sections

regarding actions Defendants have taken.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 2 of 3

December 10, 2014

Respectfully submitted,
FOR THE UNITED STATES:
JONATHAN M. SMITH Chief Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division
LAURA L. COON Special Counsel
_/s/ T. Jackson Morse_______________ T. JACKSON MORSE MARINA MAZOR Trial Attorneys Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305-4039 (telephone) (202) 514-0212 (facsimile)

2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 131 Filed: 12/10/14 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of Plaintiff’s Amended Report Regarding Defendants’ Progress Toward Achieving Compliance with November 21, 2014 Quarterly Goals was filed electronically on December 10, 2014, using the CM/ECF system, which will send electronic notification to the following:
Carol Thomas-Jacobs Assistant Attorney General V.I. Department of Justice 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade G.E.R.S. Complex, 2nd Floor St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802 Tel: (340) 774-5666 ext. 155
CJacobs@doj.vi.gov
____/s/ T. Jackson Morse _______ T. JACKSON MORSE Senior Trial Attorney Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division United States Department of Justice
3

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 185 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
1. THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS; and
2. THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.

)

)

C.A. No. 3:08-CV-158

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

REPORT REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH QUARTERLY GOALS BY NOVEMBER 6, 2015

Pursuant to the Court’s August 21, 2015 Order, Dkt. # 165, Plaintiff, the United States

of America, files this report regarding Defendants’ efforts to meet the quarterly goals by the

deadline of November 6, 2015. Though the Virgin Islands Police Department (“VIPD”) met

all six goals, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) notes that VIPD generally did not do so until

very late in the quarter. In addition, though VIPD completed drafting or redrafting documents

as required by some of the goals, none of those documents are yet in final form, and a

considerable amount of work remains to be completed on each. Finally, although VIPD met all

six goals, for the fifth quarter in a row VIPD has once again failed to bring a single paragraph

of the Consent Decree into compliance. Overall, VIPD remains in substantial compliance with

31 of 51 paragraphs of the Consent Decree, with 20 paragraphs not in substantial compliance.

VIPD’s compliance status regarding the Consent Decree paragraphs has not budged since

August 2014.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 185 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 2 of 8
Quarterly Goals For the quarter ending November 6, 2015, VIPD was obligated to meet the following goals: 1. Revise OC policy to address weight variance and develop a database to record OC weights, to be implemented territory-wide. 2. Submit revised draft OC policy to USDOJ and IMT. 3. Develop a flowchart for Use of Force investigations and the adjudicative process. 4. Update existing flowchart for Citizen Complaint Process and the adjudicative process. 5. Complete the test in-service evaluation survey form. 6. Submit draft revised disciplinary policy and matrix to USDOJ and IMT. As noted above, VIPD met all of the goals set for this quarter. However, VIPD generally repeated its usual pattern of waiting until the final days of the quarter to do so, engaging in a flurry of activity just before the quarter’s end. Regarding the first and second goals, which required VIPD to revise its OC policy and submit it to the DOJ and the Independent Monitoring Team (“IMT”), VIPD produced drafts on September 29 and October 27, neither of which accounted for input from the DOJ. Finally, on November 10, VIPD provided a draft of the OC policy to the DOJ that did, in fact, begin to address DOJ’s concerns. DOJ approved a final version of this policy on November 18. Regarding the third and fourth goals, which required VIPD to develop or update flow charts regarding use-of-force investigations and the citizen complaint process, DOJ did not receive drafts of either until roughly the final week of the quarter. VIPD provided a draft of the use-of-force flow chart to the IMT (but not the DOJ) on October 29 and another draft to DOJ on November 6—the last day of the quarter. VIPD provided DOJ with a draft of the
2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 185 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 3 of 8
complaint process flow chart on November 4—just two days before the quarter ended. DOJ received another draft of the complaint flow chart on November 16. While the goals did not explicitly require VIPD to produce final versions of either of the charts, DOJ notes that considerable work remains to complete both of them.
VIPD completed the fifth goal, which required VIPD to produce an in-service survey form, in a relatively timely fashion; the IMT approved a final version on September 29. However, VIPD did not provide a revised disciplinary policy and matrix to DOJ and the IMT, per the requirements of the sixth goal, until November 3—a mere three days before the end of the quarter. In addition, the changes that VIPD made to the policy are generally confusing and only serve to weaken the policy rather than improve it.
Had VIPD also completed a significant amount of work this quarter regarding the 20 outstanding paragraphs of the Consent Decree, DOJ would be less concerned about the pace at which VIPD accomplished the six goals it set for itself—none of which were onerous. Regarding the Consent Decree, however, VIPD only managed to move a mere sub-paragraph into partial compliance—sub-paragraph 69.a. VIPD edged forward on this sub-paragraph by submitting a standard operating procedure of the Audit Unit to the IMT for review.
Moving forward into the next quarter, however, DOJ expects greater commitment and productivity from VIPD as it goes about identifying and achieving goals. During a Consent Decree Summit held on St. Thomas November 12 and 13, DOJ and the IMT worked closely with VIPD to identify all tasks necessary to attain both outstanding goals and consent decree paragraphs, create deadlines for the tasks, and assign a specific individual to each task to ensure its completion. In addition, DOJ has encouraged VIPD to provide, as part of next quarter’s goals filing, extensive detail regarding each goal that includes sub-goals and dates set
3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 185 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 4 of 8
incrementally throughout the quarter by which those sub-goals must be accomplished. By taking such an approach, VIPD will better position itself to work more efficiently and effectively throughout the next quarter.
Overall Compliance Efforts As noted above, an entire 15 months have passed since VIPD last attained compliance with a paragraph of the Consent Decree. Though the Territory’s leadership and VIPD’s command staff have set for themselves the aggressive deadline of August 2016 to attain substantial compliance with the Consent Decree—a mere nine months away—VIPD has been unable to overcome significant handicaps that prevent it from making any real, substantial gains toward compliance. One glaring shortfall, as both IMT and DOJ have repeatedly noted quarter after quarter, is VIPD’s paucity of committed supervisors who consistently complete their work and effectively lead their subordinates. Time and again, VIPD supervisors fail to respond to incidents of use of force; fail to properly assess officers’ use of force reports; fail to competently complete their review of the use of force; and fail to timely complete citizen complaint investigations. In addition, DOJ has recently learned that, due to a shortage of supervisors, there are shifts when VIPD does not even have a single supervisor on duty. VIPD absolutely must ensure that it has promoted a sufficient number of officers into supervisory positions and assigned an ample number of supervisors to patrol, for all shifts, where they are needed to respond to, review, and evaluate force incidents. Regarding training, as noted in previous DOJ and IMT reports, VIPD needs to conduct semi-annual, data-driven reviews of the quality and consistency of use-of-force training to ensure effectiveness and compliance with law and VIPD policy. VIPD should conduct these
4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 185 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 5 of 8
reviews in conjunction with its semi-annual reviews of the use-of-force policy. VIPD must also be sure to upload all required information into Power DMS for each officer. VIPD cannot ensure it is providing its officers with quality, effective training—and cannot comply with the consent decree—until it is effectively evaluating and tracking that training.
Problems with VIPD’s early intervention program (“EIP”) remain, as well. Supervisors have failed to respond to alerts in an effective manner. Of 44 alerts on St. Thomas during 2015, as noted in the Third Quarter IMT Report, the majority lacked the necessary assessments or action plans. While DOJ notes that VIPD has recently hired two data analysts to help improve VIPD’s adherence to the program and has recently begun offering additional EIP training to VIPD personnel, DOJ has yet to see a marked improvement in the way in which VIPD operates and adheres to its EIP program.
All of the above problems are ones that DOJ has identified each quarter for the past year, and the IMT has been identifying these problems—and many others—for much longer. Each quarter, the IMT produces an extensive report that marches through each paragraph and sub-paragraph of the Consent Decree and identifies exactly what VIPD must do to attain compliance with the relevant provision. Quarter after quarter, the IMT often repeats the same list of impediments and list of recommendations for each non-compliant provision because VIPD has failed to take any action to address the identified problems.
This is not to say that VIPD is completely stagnant. As noted above, unlike the past quarter, in which VIPD met none of the goals it set for itself, this quarter VIPD did meet every single goal. In addition, VIPD also took steps that, ultimately, will help it move toward compliance on Consent Decree provisions related to the investigations and reviews of uses of force. Specifically, during the first week in November, VIPD provided quality training for
5

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 185 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 6 of 8
personnel involved in the Force Review Board and Force Investigation Team. While more training is needed, the training conducted this past quarter is a positive move in the right direction.
As also stated in previous quarterly reports, DOJ remains confident that VIPD’s command staff is committed to achieving substantial compliance, and we note that VIPD’s consent decree compliance coordinator and consent decree audit manager both have enthusiastically assumed their relatively new roles. And perhaps it is worth noting that, though VIPD has made little forward progress regarding the outstanding 20 consent decree paragraphs, it has at least maintained compliance with 31 other paragraphs without losing that ground. VIPD is indeed inching forward. But while there are those individuals within VIPD who are striving to effect positive change, there also are many who remain stagnant. VIPD must ensure everyone is working together to attain compliance in order to ensure it moves forward in a timely manner.
Conclusion Though VIPD met the six goals set to be completed this quarter, VIPD failed to bring any consent decree paragraphs into compliance and managed only to move a single subparagraph from non-compliance to partial compliance. Especially considering its self-imposed August 2016 deadline for substantial compliance looming, VIPD must redouble its efforts to address foundational problems such as an insufficient staff of supervisors and a failure to properly assess and track training before it can begin to move substantially toward compliance.
6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 185 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 7 of 8

November 20, 2015

Respectfully submitted,
FOR THE UNITED STATES:
JUDY PRESTON Acting Chief Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division
LAURA L. COON Special Counsel
_/s/ T. Jack Morse_______________ T. JACK MORSE JEFFREY R. MURRAY Trial Attorneys Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305-4039 (telephone) (202) 514-0212 (facsimile)

7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 185 Filed: 11/20/15 Page 8 of 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of Plaintiff’s Report Regarding Defendants’ Efforts to Comply With Quarterly Goals by November 6, 2015 was filed electronically on November 20, 2015 using the CM/ECF system, which will send electronic notification to the following: Carol Thomas-Jacobs Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice G.E.R.S Building, 2nd Floor 34-38 Kronprinsdens Gade St. Thomas, VI 00802 cjacobs@doj.vi.gov Joycelyn Hewlett, Esq. Assistant U.S. Attorney Ron de Lugo Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse 5500 Veterans Drive, Suite 260 St. Thomas, VI 00802 Joycelyn.Hewlett@usdoj.gov
____/s/ T. Jack Morse _______ T. JACK MORSE Trial Attorney Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division United States Department of Justice
8

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 198 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
1. THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS; and
2. THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.

)

)

C.A. No. 3:08-CV-158

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

REPORT REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH QUARTERLY GOALS BY FEBRUARY 5, 2016

Pursuant to the Court’s August 21, 2015 Order, Dkt. # 165, the United States

Department of Justice (“DOJ”) files this report to assess the efforts of the Territory of the

Virgin Islands and the Virgin Islands Police Department (“VIPD”) to meet the quarterly goals

due February 5, 2016, and to update the Court regarding the status of the Consent Decree. Of

nine goals the VIPD was obligated to meet this quarter, the VIPD met only five—and of those

five, the DOJ has reservations about three. In addition, regarding VIPD’s overall compliance

with the 51 paragraphs of the Consent Decree, its status has now remarkably remained

unchanged for a full year and a half—31 paragraphs are in substantial compliance, and 20

paragraphs remain out of compliance. This quarter, aside from meeting just more than half of

its quarterly goals, VIPD merely managed to bring a single sub-paragraph into compliance.

Quarterly Goals

For the quarter ending February 5, 2016, per the VIPD’s notice filed November 22,

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 198 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 2 of 12
2015, Dkt. # 187, VIPD was obligated to meet the following goals:1 1. Develop Standard Operating Procedures for the Force Review Board. 2. Develop Standard Operating Procedures for the Force Investigation Team (“FIT”). 3. Chiefs of Police will hold at least two Use of Force Review Boards for the quarter. FIT members to observe or participate. 4. Establish process for on-call supervisors to respond to Use of Force incidents when off duty. 5. Bring backlog of cases current by designating a time period for supervisors responsible for the delinquent cases to complete the investigation of each delinquent case. 6. The Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office will provide the VIPD with a log of all criminal proceedings initiated by, as well as civil lawsuits and administrative claims served upon, the Attorney General in 2015 resulting from VIPD operations or the actions of VIPD personnel. 7. VIPD will conduct an IAPro summit on December 21, 2015, in an effort to better track the status of cases and bring about increased managerial accountability. 8. Determine where more effective adult learning can be applied and be more effective. . . .2 a. Identify training for adult learning concepts; b. Identify training dates and location; and c. Obtain course outline and training materials for review and approval.
1 Though not referenced in this list, several of these goals included sub-goals with deadlines sequentially scheduled throughout the quarter in order to help VIPD steadily move toward compliance. 2 The specific requirements for Goals 8 and 9 for the quarter ending February 5, 2016, are enumerated as the bulleted items beginning with the designation “a.” For brevity, DOJ has omitted portions of the preambles associated with goals 8 and 9. The entire text may be found in VIPD’s notice filed November 22, 2015, Dkt. #187.
2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 198 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 3 of 12
9. Training Division will collaborate with the other three working groups to identify and respond with training support to Consent Decree issues and areas identified by the working groups. . . . a. Design the training support process; and b. Meet with each of the working group and explain protocol.
As already noted, VIPD met five of these nine goals, albeit with some reservations. VIPD met (with reservations) the first and second goals, which required VIPD to develop Standard Operating Procedures (“SOPs”) for the Force Review Board and Force Investigation Team, respectively. Though these SOPS have not been finalized, DOJ considers VIPD to have met both goals because it has submitted multiple drafts to the Monitoring Team and DOJ. VIPD submitted its first draft on December 21, 2015. DOJ did not approve these versions in large part because they simply restated the policies they were meant to supplement. As DOJ noted in an email to VIPD on January 8, 2016, the SOPs, among other deficiencies, lacked necessary detail and provided insufficient guidance for officers regarding how to conduct FIT investigations and Force Review Board reviews. The parties agreed to revise the SOPs over the course of the most recent Summit, held February 10 and 11 on St. Croix, and DOJ was provided with the most recent draft on February 16. DOJ is currently reviewing the SOPs and hopes the Parties can agree on final versions soon.
VIPD also met (again, with reservations) the fourth goal, which required it to establish an on-call system whereby off-duty supervisors will be called and required to respond to useof-force incidents when no supervisors are on duty. While uncertain regarding the system’s efficacy at this point, DOJ is pleased that VIPD succeeded in putting a system into place and
3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 198 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 4 of 12
began on-call rotations. In addition, as DOJ noted in an email to VIPD on December 22, 2015, DOJ was concerned with VIPD’s initial actions to address this goal because two identical directives were distributed: one from Acting Deputy Chief Corneiro, on St. Croix, and one from St. Thomas Chief Foy. When different chiefs from different islands send out the same directive, it undermines VIPD’s efforts to function as a single police department, rather than two separate ones. Having alerted VIPD to this concern, DOJ was pleased to see Commissioner Richards distribute a department-wide directive on January 27, 2016 regarding the call-out procedure for off-duty supervisors. Soon, DOJ hopes to confirm that the on-call system is not only functioning but is doing so in an effective manner that enables the VIPD to timely respond to and investigate officers’ uses of force, even when no supervisor is on duty.
VIPD met the sixth goal, which required the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office to provide VIPD with a log of proceedings initiated as a result of VIPD officer actions. DOJ and the Monitoring Team received the log on January 5. On January 7, the Monitoring Team confirmed that VIPD is also entering the information from the log into its Early Intervention Program, called IAPro, thus bringing VIPD into compliance with Consent Decree paragraph 60(h).
Finally, VIPD met the seventh goal, which required the VIPD to conduct an IAPro summit on December 21 as part of an effort to equip its supervisors to better track the status of cases and increase accountability. The summit covered topics such as the input of remedial and missed training incidents; entry of use-of-force incidents; and new configurations and modules for the IAPro system. In light of the summit’s completion, DOJ expects VIPD to more effectively use its early intervention system to supervise, manage, and evaluate its officers.
4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 198 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 5 of 12
As acknowledged in the VIPD’s own February 12 filing that establishes new deadlines for delinquent goals, Dkt. # 194, VIPD failed to meet four of this quarter’s nine goals. Specifically, VIPD held no Force Review Boards, though it committed itself to conducting two; VIPD was unable to address a backlog of citizen complaint cases; VIPD neglected to complete course materials and schedule training regarding adult learning concepts; and VIPD failed to design and begin implementing a training support process designed to augment and improve VIPD’s current training regimen. These failures, like so many other shortcomings in quarters past, undermine the department’s push toward compliance with the Consent Decree and have stalled the momentum VIPD gained after meeting all of its goals during the previous quarter. Moving forward, once again, DOJ will continue to work with VIPD to meet its delinquent goals as well as the 20 outstanding provisions of the Consent Decree.
Overall Compliance Efforts In DOJ’s previous quarterly report regarding the VIPD’s efforts to meet its goals, DOJ emphasized—with some alarm—that the Territory’s self-imposed deadline of August 2016 to attain substantial compliance with the Consent Decree was a mere nine months away, yet the VIPD had not nudged a single paragraph into compliance for more than a year. That August deadline—which the Court has said it expects VIPD to meet—is now only six months away, and the dry spell during which VIPD has brought no new paragraphs into compliance now stands at a year and a half. The DOJ does not expect VIPD to meet the August 2016 deadline. DOJ does expect VIPD to develop and follow a viable, comprehensive compliance plan—that follows a rational timetable—that identifies all outstanding provisions; includes incremental action steps with useful, realistic deadlines designed to help VIPD comply with each outstanding provision; and identifies an individual responsible for completing each action step.
5

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 198 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 6 of 12
To date, despite numerous attempts, VIPD has yet to assemble a robust, thoughtful plan that incorporates all of these elements.
VIPD provided its most recent Compliance Plan and Status Report to DOJ and the Monitoring Team on February 10, 2016, as part of the VIPD Quarterly Status Report required by Paragraph 98 of the Consent Decree. Even if one ignores an apparent glitch that caused some information to be repeated, verbatim, in multiple locations in the report (information regarding Goal 4Q5-4 is repeated five times, for instance), a cursory glance at the document unveils a host of other deficiencies, all substantive, that are emblematic of VIPD’s compliance efforts as a whole. The report marches through numerous goals that have not been met or subparagraphs that are out of compliance and then lists “action steps” designed to serve as stepping stones that, if followed, will yield compliance with the relevant goal or paragraph (in some instances, a goal and a sub-paragraph are one and the same). Repeatedly, all “action steps” listed under a goal will have the exact same deadlines (for instance, December 18, 2015) rather than strategically sequenced deadlines designed to help VIPD make progress toward the goal incrementally. In addition, many of the deadlines in the report are not only duplicative but they also passed months ago (the deadline of December 18, 2015, which occurs more than 50 times in the report, passed two months ago) and some deadlines passed a year ago (for example, February 20, 2015) even though the tasks associated with those deadlines remain unfinished.
There are also problems with the “progress notes” associated with the goals and action steps in the report. Many progress notes are simply copied and pasted into different sections associated with different goals, and some progress notes seem to have little to do with the goals with which they are associated. For example, the fourth action step under Goal/Paragraph
6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 198 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 7 of 12
32(b) requires VIPD to train chiefs and deputy chiefs to analyze uses of force. The progress notes, which can also be found elsewhere in the report plugged into different goals, state that training was provided to “some commanders and supervisors” in November, with more trainings to be had “in the future.” The notes do not specify the training topics and they say nothing about specifically training chiefs and deputy chiefs. Neither do they say anything about when, exactly, the “future” training will take place. The report also repeatedly identifies VIPD directors—the director of training, for instance, or of internal affairs—as the action officer responsible for accomplishing an action step rather than the VIPD officers to whom the directors are (presumably) delegating so many of these tasks. The report also makes multiple references to an audit that is “being done already,” with no date by which the audit, now long overdue, will be complete. Other issues persist throughout the report, as well. Such problems cannot permeate a Compliance Plan if VIPD is to effectively use it to actually comply with its Court-ordered obligations.
Aside from an insufficient Compliance Plan, a plethora of impediments continue to hamper VIPD’s momentum. While DOJ has repeatedly identified such shortfalls in its previous quarterly reports, we will do so again here. Significant barricades blocking VIPD’s path include the insufficient supervision of officers; a sluggish auditing process; and inadequate training review methods.
VIPD’s most significant setback is perhaps its shortage of knowledgeable, capable supervisors who can effectively lead their subordinates. Ultimately, VIPD’s supervisors, managers, and commanders are responsible for writing force reports or ensuring they are written properly; reviewing the use of force or ensuring it is reviewed properly; investigating citizen complaints or ensuring they are investigated thoroughly; and training officers or
7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 198 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 8 of 12
ensuring they are trained properly. As DOJ has noted in the past, VIPD does indeed have a group of competent, committed leaders who are working hard to attain compliance and ensure VIPD is a progressive, modern policing agency. But this group is small. Both Commissioner Richards and Deputy Commissioner Griffin have repeatedly expressed their commitment to reform and have taken action to try to ensure success. Among other measures, they have put into place a Director of Professional Standards whose experience working as a police officer for a major police agency elsewhere is a tremendous asset. But such leaders are few within the VIPD, and their effectiveness is limited. Without a sizeable staff of committed, skilled supervisors, attaining substantial compliance—and then sustaining it—will continue to be a possibly insurmountable task. VIPD must either train its current cadre of supervisors to properly perform their duties or replace them with others who will.
VIPD must also ensure it is conducting audits in a timely, efficient fashion. The process of auditing—which Paragraph 69 of the Consent Decree requires—provides VIPD with an essential assessment of its training efforts, force reviews, complaint investigations, and other functions. In order for the information to be useful, however, the audits must be thorough, organized, and timely. VIPD has made tremendous progress in this area, and the commander of its Audits & Inspections Unit is very capable and committed to her work. However, the unit is small, and DOJ understands that its members have at times had difficulty gathering the information necessary to conduct their work. For this reason and others, audits— while greatly improved in quality over the course of the Consent Decree—are notoriously late. It was not until the second quarter of 2015 that VIPD produced audits for the third and fourth quarters of 2014 and the first quarter of 2015. And as of the date of this filing, neither the monitoring team nor the DOJ has received VIPD’s audits for the third and fourth quarters of
8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 198 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 9 of 12
2015. VIPD must dedicate more resources and information to its audit unit so that the unit may more efficiently identify and help address weaknesses in the department’s efforts to effectively police members of the Territory’s various communities.
VIPD needs to ensure it is properly training its officers, as well. While DOJ has observed some very good use-of-force scenario-based training that VIPD has provided to its officers, VIPD does not have in place a comprehensive, methodical system to “coordinate and review all use of force policy and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy,” per Paragraph 73 of the Consent Decree. Neither does the VIPD have in place a process to conduct needs assessments “to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained,” per Paragraph 74(g) of the Decree. In order to properly review its force training, which it must do at least twice a year, VIPD must assess and analyze how force is being used in the field by, for example, analyzing trends in use-of-force incidents and citizen complaints. If VIPD sees a spike in citizen complaints regarding the use of force, for instance, the surge may reveal a gap in training that needs to be filled. VIPD cannot ensure it is providing its officers with quality, effective training until it is effectively evaluating and tracking that training.
Conclusion It has been a year and a half since the VIPD brought into compliance a complete Consent Decree paragraph; thus we now find ourselves approaching year eight of the Decree with 20 of 51 paragraphs languishing out of compliance. Despite expectations that VIPD would push a few more paragraphs into compliance over the past three months, it failed to do so, instead only moving a single sub-paragraph into compliance and attaining about half of the quarterly goals the department set for itself. Meeting the August 2016 deadline now seems
9

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 198 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 10 of 12 more implausible than ever. But substantial compliance is still possible. With assistance from DOJ and the Monitoring Team, VIPD must create a rational, prudent compliance plan that sets realistic, incremental deadlines for attaining compliance with paragraphs and associated action steps. The plan must assign individual officers to ensure each action step is accomplished, and the plan must address the various barriers—such as insufficient supervision, overdue audits, and deficient training assessments—that have persistently prevented VIPD from gaining ground.
10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 198 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 11 of 12

February 19, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
FOR THE UNITED STATES:
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division
TIMOTHY D. MYGATT Deputy Chief
LAURA L. COON Special Counsel
/s/ T. Jack Morse_______________ T. JACK MORSE JEFFREY R. MURRAY Trial Attorneys Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305-4039 (telephone) (202) 514-0212 (facsimile)

11

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 198 Filed: 02/19/16 Page 12 of 12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of Plaintiff’s Report Regarding Defendants’ Efforts to Comply With Quarterly Goals by February 5, 2016 was filed electronically on February 19, 2016 using the CM/ECF system, which will send electronic notification to the following: Carol Thomas-Jacobs Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice G.E.R.S Building, 2nd Floor 34-38 Kronprinsdens Gade St. Thomas, VI 00802 cjacobs@doj.vi.gov Joycelyn Hewlett, Esq. Assistant U.S. Attorney Ron de Lugo Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse 5500 Veterans Drive, Suite 260 St. Thomas, VI 00802 Joycelyn.Hewlett@usdoj.gov
/s/ T. Jack Morse _______ T. JACK MORSE Trial Attorney Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division United States Department of Justice
12

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 207 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
1. THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS; and
2. THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.

)

)

C.A. No. 3:08-CV-158

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

REPORT REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH QUARTERLY GOALS DUE MAY 6, 2016

Pursuant to the Court’s August 21, 2015 Order, Dkt. # 165, the United States

Department of Justice (“DOJ”) files this report to assess the efforts of the Territory of the

Virgin Islands and the Virgin Islands Police Department (“VIPD”) to meet the quarterly goals

due May 6, 2016, and to update the Court regarding the status of the Consent Decree. Of eight

goals the VIPD identified for this quarter, the VIPD completed none. In addition, VIPD’s

overall compliance with the Consent Decree remains at 31 paragraphs, with 20 not in

substantial compliance, marking 21 months—seven quarters—in which VIPD has failed to

move any additional paragraphs into substantial compliance. This quarter, though VIPD again

made progress toward several paragraphs, VIPD merely managed to bring a single sub-

paragraph into compliance, and one paragraph dropped from out of substantial compliance.

Because of VIPD’s repeated failure to comply with the Consent Decree, many of the VIPD

deficiencies that DOJ identified more than seven years ago that result in constitutional

violations remain in place.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 207 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 2 of 11
Quarterly Goals In their notice regarding quarterly goals filed February 26, 2016, Dkt. # 200 (“Goals Notice”), the VIPD identified eight paragraphs that were reach to substantial compliance as its goals for the quarter ending May 6, 2016: Use of Force:
1. Paragraph 32 2. Paragraph 33 Citizen Complaint Process & Management and Supervision: 3. Paragraph 44 4. Paragraph 69 5. Paragraph 58 6. Paragraph 70 Training: 7. Paragraph 73 8. Paragraph 77 In addition, the Goals Notice stated that VIPD agreed to provide to DOJ and the Independent Monitoring Team (“IMT”), by March 11, 2016, a “comprehensive Compliance Plan that it will follow in order to meet the above goals” that was to include “incremental action steps associated with each paragraph listed above, identify the individual responsible for completing each action step, and meet the approval of the United States and the IMT.” As already noted, VIPD failed to bring any paragraphs into full compliance during the quarter, meaning that the VIPD also failed to achieve any of its eight goals. VIDP stumbled early in the quarter when it failed to provide a Compliance Plan that met the requirements of the Goals Notice. The “plan” that VIPD provided to DOJ and the IMT on March 15 (four days
2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 207 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 3 of 11
late) contained no incremental action steps and listed no individuals responsible for completing the goals; lacked detail and specificity; referenced a Goals Management System document, but did not include the document; omitted two paragraphs the plan was required to address (paragraph numbers 69 and 70); and, even though all goals were required to be completed by May 6, included deadlines as late as June 30. By failing to produce an adequate Compliance Plan, VIPD essentially ensured its subsequent compliance failures, as detailed below.
Paragraph 32: VIPD failed to bring Paragraph 32 or any of its outstanding subparagraphs into compliance. For Paragraph 32, VIPD must meet three outstanding subparagraphs: 32-b, 32-c, and 32-f (VIPD complied with other sub-paragraphs in previous quarters). Sub-paragraph 32-b requires that at least 95% of Response to Resistance Reports (use-of-force reports, or “RRRs”) indicate each and every type of force that was used. For the most recent quarter, only 55% of RRRs met this requirement. Sub-paragraph 32-c requires at least 95% of RRRs contain an evaluation, by a supervisor, of each type of force used by an officer. For the most recent quarter, only 36% of RRRs met this threshold. Sub-paragraph 32f requires that at least 95% of RRS include an audio or videotaped statement. For the most recent quarter, only 33% met this threshold.
Paragraph 33: VIPD failed to bring Paragraph 33 or any of its outstanding subparagraphs into compliance. For Paragraph 33, VIPD must attain between a 90 and 95% compliance rate for the following requirements: (a) Officer notified supervisor of use of force or allegation of use of force; (b) Supervisor responds to scene; (c) Subject examined for injury; (d) Supervisor interviewed subject for complaints of pain; and (e) Supervisor ensured subject received medical attention if necessary. Regarding each of these requirements, VIPD’s compliance rate was as follows, respectively: 49.6%; 55.0%; 21.6%; 20.8%; and 73.4%.
3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 207 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 4 of 11
Paragraph 44: VIPD failed to bring Paragraph 44 into compliance, for which it only has one outstanding requirement: sub-paragraph 44-i, which requires VIPD to resolve all complaints in a timely manner and eliminate its backlog of outstanding complaint investigations. Though VIPD has been unable to provide an exact number of outstanding cases, the total number includes cases from as far back as 2013.
Paragraph 58: VIPD failed to bring Paragraph 58 into compliance, for which it has to meet three outstanding sub-paragraphs. Sub-paragraph 58-c requires VIPD to relay at least 90% of identified problems or training needs to the appropriate VIPD entity; sub-paragraph 58d requires VIPD to document that additional training has been undertaken and documented in at least 90% of instances in which VIPD has determined that such training is required; and subparagraph 58-e requires VIPD to document that corrective measures were implemented in at least 90% of cases where VIPD identified policy or equipment deficiencies. VIPD has not met any of these thresholds this quarter (or in previous quarters).
Paragraph 69: Though VIPD failed to bring paragraph 69 in its entirety into compliance, it did comply with sub-paragraph 69-a, which requires VIPD to develop a protocol for conducting audits to be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. VIPD complied with this sub-paragraph by staffing the Audit and Inspections Unit with two full-time senior VIPD members. However, VIPD has yet to comply with sub-paragraph 69-b, which requires VIPD to establish and adhere to a regular and fixed auditing schedule that covers all VIPD zones. To comply with this sub-paragraph, VIPD must complete audits on time for two consecutive quarters. VIPD has yet to produce a timely quarterly audit.
Paragraph 70: VIPD failed to comply with paragraph 70, which requires VIPD to revise and maintain a disciplinary matrix that allows VIPD to impose appropriate punishments
4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 207 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 5 of 11
for offenses, including the use of excessive force; improper searches and seizures; discrimination; dishonesty; and a lack of fitness for duty.1 While DOJ acknowledges that VIPD has sought examples of model matrixes from other departments and is well into its revision process, DOJ notes that VIPD has not yet provided DOJ or the IMT with a revised matrix that has been approved.
Paragraph 73: VIPD failed to comply with paragraph 73, which requires VIPD to review all use of force policies and training at least semi-annually to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and VIPD policy. Though VIPD developed a training survey tool and an instructor evaluation form, both of which VIPD will use to evaluate its force training, VIPD is not yet consistently and comprehensively evaluating its use of force policies and training.
Paragraph 77: VIPD failed to comply with paragraph 77, which requires VIPD to maintain at least two years of training records on each VIPD officer that track the training each officer has received, including the course description and duration, curriculum, and instructor for each training event. While it seems VIPD may be able to produce two years of in-service attendance records and lesson plans, VIPD is unable to produce a two-year chronology of instructors for courses VIPD officers have taken.
Accordingly, while VIPD has once again made some progress this quarter, it failed to fully meet any of the eight goals it set for itself.
1 As noted on page 22 of Appendix A to the IMT’s Third Quarter Report for 2015, Dkt. # 182-1, a prior version of VIPD’s disciplinary matrix was approved by DOJ, and paragraph 70 was deemed to be in compliance. However, as noted in a DOJ email to VIPD on March 17, 2016, VIPD later implemented a disciplinary policy that included a matrix unlike that which DOJ had approved. As also noted on Page 22 of Appendix A to the IMT’s Third Quarter Report for 2015, IMT concluded, and VIPD agreed, that the matrix VIPD has been using is in need of revision.
5

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 207 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 6 of 11
Overall Compliance Efforts In recent quarters, DOJ has noted with increasing emphasis that VIPD appeared unlikely to achieve overall substantial compliance with the Consent Decree by August 19, 2016, the deadline VIPD set for itself on June 16, 2015. Given VIPD’s failure to bring any paragraph into compliance this quarter—including the eight paragraphs it specifically identified as goals for compliance—the possibility of VIPD meeting its August 19 deadline is now extraordinarily remote. This is not to say that VIPD has made no progress. Indeed, this quarter, VIPD has worked with DOJ and especially with the IMT to establish Standard Operating Procedures (“SOPs”) for its Force Investigation Team (“FIT”) and Force Review Board (“FRB”). It has put together multiple appendices to augment both documents (though some are still outstanding) and, in April, relevant VIPD members attended FIT and FRB training on the new SOPs, provided by the IMT. During the Summit in May, VIPD also conducted two trial Force Review Boards under the guidance of the IMT. Other accomplishments this quarter include the completion of an investigative case management log and directive, a non-training issue support form, and the revision of the roll call policy (though further revisions are needed). Though each of these accomplishments better prepares VIPD to comply with additional paragraphs, the fact remains that much work needs to be done for VIPD to attain substantial compliance with the 20 outstanding paragraphs. Considering the amount of work still left to be done, and the looming August deadline that is certain to pass unmet, it is essential that VIPD redouble its compliance efforts and rethink its strategy. As noted above, VIPD failed to produce an adequate Compliance Plan for this quarter and, as noted in the past several DOJ quarterly reports, VIPD has repeatedly been
6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 207 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 7 of 11
unable to construct such plans that lay out a path forward for either outstanding goals or paragraphs. Even VIPD’s most recent Quarterly Status Report, provided to DOJ on May 4, 2016, contains many of the same errors DOJ has identified regarding previous VIPD reports, such as erroneous dates and deadlines, a lack of basic information, and progress notes for goals or sub-paragraphs that have merely been copied and pasted into other goals or sub-paragraphs. VIPD should consider outsourcing the development of a Compliance Plan to an entity with more experience regarding project management and planning.
A robust Compliance Plan, once completed, should, among many other things, address those primary impediments that prevented VIPD from complying with any paragraphs this quarter. Regarding VIPD’s failure to comply with any force-related paragraphs, VIPD’s failure rests largely on the shoulders of supervisors who repeatedly fail to respond to incidents regarding a use of force, fail to ensure their subordinates are properly reporting force, and fail to thoroughly review the officer’s decision to use force. Moving forward, VIPD must have in place a plan to ensure supervisors are, as an initial step, at least responding to use-of-force incidents. VIPD recently put into place a plan to notify on-call supervisors whenever a use-offorce incident occurred during a shift when none were working. The plan has had mixed results, and may very well be unnecessary as DOJ recently learned that VIPD has long had in place a written directive requiring supervisors from other districts to cover districts that had no supervisors on duty (a directive that apparently had not been followed). Regardless of the method VIPD chooses to use—and DOJ recommends that VIPD never have a shift in any district during which no supervisors are on duty—VIPD must ensure that supervisors are responding to use-of-force incidents. Until they do so, it is impossible for them to also fulfill their subsequent duties regarding use-of-force reporting and reviews.
7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 207 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 8 of 11
As for VIPD’s repeated failure to comply with the Consent Decree’s requirement regarding the timely investigation of complaints—a failure that has been ongoing despite a concerted effort to address it—VIPD must ensure that it has an adequate number of personnel dedicated to such investigations. DOJ recently learned that there is only one individual in Internal Affairs dedicated to reviewing such cases. Given the lack of personnel devoted to this task, VIPD’s inability to eliminate its backlog of complaint investigations is unsurprising.
And regarding VIPD’s training deficiencies, VIPD should continue to input the appropriate data regarding instructors and training courses taught into PowerDMS. In addition, the Training Division must consistently identify and assess training needs, develop curricula and lesson plans, deliver the training, and evaluate its success. As the IMT has noted in its First Quarterly Report for 2016, VIPD should consider engaging support from a local university for assistance in developing training objectives, lesson plans, and evaluation strategies with measureable outcomes.
By completing, at a minimum, the tasks outlined above, VIPD will do much to comply with many of those paragraphs it attempted to comply with this quarter.
Conclusion It has been a year and nine months since VIPD brought into compliance a complete Consent Decree paragraph. This past quarter, VIPD managed only to bring a single subparagraph associated with its current eight goals into compliance. The August 2016 deadline for complete compliance will surely come and go—and at this pace, it will likely go without even a single additional paragraph in compliance. VIPD’s efforts, while well-intentioned, are simply not enough. Both this report and the IMT’s quarterly report—like so many past reports—have again laid out steps VIPD must take in order to gain compliance. But again,
8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 207 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 9 of 11 DOJ fears such steps will remain untaken. VIPD needs to rethink its compliance strategy and should reach out to agencies with expertise in program management and outcome-based evaluation strategies to propel it forward. DOJ and the IMT are ready to assist VIPD in this effort.
9

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 207 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 10 of 11

May 20, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
FOR THE UNITED STATES:
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division
TIMOTHY D. MYGATT Deputy Chief
LAURA L. COON Special Counsel
/s/ T. Jack Morse_______________ T. JACK MORSE JEFFREY R. MURRAY Trial Attorneys Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305-4039 (telephone) (202) 514-0212 (facsimile)

10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 207 Filed: 05/20/16 Page 11 of 11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of Plaintiff’s Report Regarding Defendants’ Efforts to Comply with Quarterly Goals Due May 6, 2016 was filed electronically on May 20, 2016 using the CM/ECF system, which will send electronic notification to the following: Carol Thomas-Jacobs Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice G.E.R.S Building, 2nd Floor 34-38 Kronprinsdens Gade St. Thomas, VI 00802 cjacobs@doj.vi.gov Joycelyn Hewlett, Esq. Assistant U.S. Attorney Ron de Lugo Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse 5500 Veterans Drive, Suite 260 St. Thomas, VI 00802 Joycelyn.Hewlett@usdoj.gov
/s/ T. Jack Morse _______ T. JACK MORSE Trial Attorney Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division United States Department of Justice
11

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 226 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
1. THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS; and
2. THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.

)

)

C.A. No. 3:08-CV-158

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

REPORT REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH QUARTERLY GOALS DUE AUGUST 5, 2016

Pursuant to the Court’s August 21, 2015 Order, Dkt. # 165, the United States

Department of Justice (“DOJ”) files this report to assess the efforts of the Territory of the

Virgin Islands and the Virgin Islands Police Department (“VIPD”) to meet the quarterly goals

due August 5, 2016, and to update the Court regarding the status of the Consent Decree. This

quarter, VIPD was obligated to comply with Paragraphs 62 and 70 of the Consent Decree.

While VIPD maintained a steady pace during the past three months and made much progress,

and while it completed many of the interim tasks associated with each paragraph, it nonetheless

failed to come into substantial compliance with the entirety of each paragraph. Thus, this

month marks the end of the second consecutive year during which VIPD has attained

substantial compliance with no Consent Decree paragraphs, and the tally remains static: 31

paragraphs are in substantial compliance, and 20 are not. In addition, as noted in this quarter’s

report by the Independent Monitoring Team (“IMT”), several paragraphs are also close to

slipping out of compliance.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 226 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 2 of 7
Efforts to Address the Action Plan The Action Plan for 2nd Quarter Consent Decree Paragraphs: 60 & 72, filed June 13, 2016, Dkt. # 217-1, requires VIPD to complete 61 “steps” associated with Paragraphs 60 and 72 and their sub-paragraphs, with deadlines set intermittently throughout the quarter. Of the 50 steps associated with Paragraph 60, VIPD completed 38. Of the 11 steps associated with Paragraph 72, VIPD completed 7. Thus, while VIPD made a substantial amount of progress, it nonetheless fell short of full compliance, as detailed below. Paragraph 60 Paragraph 60 requires VIPD to ensure that its risk management system collects and records information regarding certain types of incidents, such as uses of force; canine bites; injuries to prisoners; and critical firearms discharges, among others. VIPD has fallen short on the following requirements: Paragraph 60.b — Canine bite ratios Step 4 requires VIPD to obtain 911 canine response data between January 1, 2015 and July 15, 2016 to ensure that all canine deployments during that timeframe are captured and analyzed. As of August 18, 2016, VIPD had only provided DOJ and the IMT with canine data through June 13, 2016 – a full month shy of VIPD’s reporting obligation. Paragraph 60.c — Chemical spray Steps 3, 5, 6, and 7 require VIPD to weigh officers’ canisters of oleoresin capsicum (“O.C.”) in order to determine whether any officers may have discharged the devices (a use of force) without reporting it. For officers with canisters outside an acceptable variance rate, VIPD must account for the variance and may bring administrative action against officers for unreported use. VIPD must track the information in a database and prepare a report on the
2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 226 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 3 of 7
results of the review. According to a June 30, 2016 VIPD memo, 35 officers had canisters that had not been
weighed (22 officers on St. Thomas and 13 officers on St. Croix). A subsequent VIPD memo dated August 16, 2016 stated that 11 St. Croix officers still had not had their canisters weighed; it made no mention of St. Thomas officers. As of August 18, 2016, it appeared that at least 30 officers still needed to have their canisters weighed.
VIPD also has follow-up work to do regarding officers whose canisters were weighed and were found to be outside the acceptable variance rate. According to a report dated July 29, 2016, a total of 13 officers on St. Thomas had canisters outside the acceptable variance rate. The report states that five of the officers had submitted the appropriate use-of-force reports, but that VIPD is investigating the other eight officers. In addition, though VIPD’s August 16 memo stated that 25 St. Croix officers also had canisters outside the acceptable variance rate, VIPD has provided no information regarding the reasons for such variances or whether VIPD is investigating the discrepancies.1
Paragraph 60.e — Officer uses of force where subject is charged with “resisting arrest” or similar charges (“discretionary arrests”)
Step 3 requires VIPD to prepare a report that outlines findings VIPD has made based on a review of discretionary arrests between January 1, 2015 and July 15, 2016, to be used by the Deputy Chiefs in their quarterly Early Intervention Program reviews with commanders and supervisors. While VIPD submitted a tally of discretionary arrests made in the second quarter of 2016, dated August 2, 2016, VIPD failed to submit a report that analyzed the data, and there is no evidence that Deputy Chiefs have used any of the information as required by the step.
1 The latest deadline associated with Steps 3, 5, 6, and 7 was August 2, 2016. On August 18, 2016, at 6:14 p.m., DOJ received a completion report from VIPD regarding these steps. DOJ has not yet had an opportunity to review the report.
3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 226 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 4 of 7
VIPD has agreed to provide the information and documentation required. Paragraph 60.g — Complaints and their dispositions Steps 1, 2, and 3 require VIPD to check the status of complaint cases forwarded to
Internal Affairs between January 1, 2015 and July 15, 2016; ensure they are completed correctly and entered into IAPro; and create a report regarding findings made and actions taken. As of August 18, 2018, VIPD had failed to ensure or provide documentation that completed cases were properly entered into IAPro. In addition, six cases had not been completed at all; and while the supervisors assigned to those cases have been administratively charged, the cases remain unresolved, and it is unclear regarding what, exactly, the supervisors have been charged with and what actions will be taken against them.
Paragraph 60.k — Disciplinary action taken against officers Steps 2 and 3 require VIPD to review disciplinary action incidents in IAPro to ensure the data is accurate and complete, and to prepare a report outlining findings and corrective actions taken. While VIPD provided a list of disciplinary action incidents on July 22, 2016, the document did not contain the corrective action taken for multiple incidents listed. Paragraph 72 Paragraph 72, sub-paragraph (a) requires VIPD to ensure it is taking disciplinary action—and not merely non-disciplinary corrective action—in cases where the disciplinary matrix calls for discipline to be imposed. In cases where discipline has been imposed, subparagraph (b) requires VIPD to also consider whether non-disciplinary action is also called for. VIPD has fallen short on the following requirements: Paragraph 72.a — Imposition of discipline Step 5 requires VIPD to provide documentation that disciplinary action has been taken
4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 226 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 5 of 7
as appropriate for charges sustained between January 15, 2015 and July 15, 2016. As of August 18, 2016, DOJ had received no such documentation.
Paragraph 72.b — Non-disciplinary action Steps 1, 2, and 4 require VIPD to provide documentation that VIPD considered nondisciplinary action regarding the same charges identified in Paragraph 72.a. As of August 18, 2016, DOJ had received no such documentation.
Conclusion Throughout this past quarter, VIPD has put forth a good-faith effort to come into substantial compliance with both Paragraph 60 and Paragraph 72, and it has made a good deal of progress regarding each. However, VIPD remains shy of the mark on 16 steps associated with the two paragraphs, and thus it has made no movement regarding its overall Consent Decree status: 31 paragraphs are in substantial compliance, and 20 are not. It has now been two years since VIPD brought into compliance a complete Consent Decree paragraph. VIPD’s efforts, while well-intentioned, have again simply not been enough. Moving forward, DOJ recommends that VIPD reach out to agencies with expertise in program management and outcome-based evaluation strategies to propel it forward. In addition, it should continue to consider methods and opportunities to hire quality recruits and ensure supervisors are properly trained and dependable. As always, DOJ remains ready to assist VIPD in this effort.
5

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 226 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 6 of 7

August 19, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
FOR THE UNITED STATES:
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division
TIMOTHY D. MYGATT Deputy Chief
/s/ T. Jack Morse_______________ T. JACK MORSE JEFFREY R. MURRAY Trial Attorneys Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305-4039 (telephone) (202) 514-0212 (facsimile)

6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-CVG-RM Document #: 226 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 7 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of Plaintiff’s Report Regarding Defendants’ Efforts to Comply with Quarterly Goals Due August 5, 2016 was filed electronically on August 19, 2016 using the CM/ECF system, which will send electronic notification to the following: Carol Thomas-Jacobs Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice G.E.R.S Building, 2nd Floor 34-38 Kronprinsdens Gade St. Thomas, VI 00802 cjacobs@doj.vi.gov Joycelyn Hewlett, Esq. Assistant U.S. Attorney Ron de Lugo Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse 5500 Veterans Drive, Suite 260 St. Thomas, VI 00802 Joycelyn.Hewlett@usdoj.gov
/s/ T. Jack Morse _______ T. JACK MORSE Trial Attorney Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division United States Department of Justice
7

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 241 Filed: 11/18/16 Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
1. THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS; and
2. THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.

)

)

C.A. No. 3:08-CV-158

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

REPORT REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH QUARTERLY GOALS DUE NOVEMBER 4, 2016

Pursuant to the Court’s August 21, 2015 Order, Dkt. # 165, the United States

Department of Justice (“DOJ”) files this report to assess the efforts of the Territory of the

Virgin Islands and the Virgin Islands Police Department (“VIPD”) to meet the quarterly goals

due November 4, 2016, and to update the Court regarding the status of the Consent Decree.

This quarter, according to VIPD’s notice regarding quarterly goals filed Aug. 26, 2016, VIPD

was obligated to comply with Paragraphs 58, 69 and 77 of the Consent Decree. Dkt. # 231. As of November 15, 2016,1 VIPD had complied with Paragraphs 58 and 69, while still falling

short of compliance with Paragraph 77. However, this past quarter VIPD has also achieved

substantial compliance with Paragraphs 32, 71 and 72. VIPD also attained substantial

compliance with Paragraph 60 in the preceding quarter. Thus, whereas in August VIPD was

on the cusp of seeing two years pass without obtaining substantial compliance with any new

1 The quarter ended November 4, by which date VIPD had only complied with one of its three goals (moving Paragraph 69 into compliance) and had also moved Paragraphs 32 and 72 into compliance. This Notice covers VIPD activity through November 16, the date this Notice was drafted.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 241 Filed: 11/18/16 Page 2 of 11
Paragraphs, VIPD has now substantially complied with six new Paragraphs over the past two quarters—bringing its tally to 37 Paragraphs in substantial compliance, while 14 remain short of that mark. In addition, this past quarter, VIPD substantially complied with more than a dozen sub-paragraphs and met more than 100 action steps. Accordingly, while VIPD is unlikely to meet the February 28, 2017 deadline for substantial compliance with the Consent Decree, as outlined in its Comprehensive Compliance Plan filed with the Court July 29, Dkt. # 220, VIPD has nonetheless steadily increased its pace of compliance and has overcome obstacles that left it largely immobile for nearly two years.
Efforts to Meet the Quarterly Goals This past quarter, VIPD was obligated to comply with Paragraphs 58, 69, and 77, all of which entailed a total of 20 action steps. VIPD completed all 11 action steps associated with Paragraph 58 and all four associated with Paragraph 69. VIPD completed three of five action steps associated with Paragraph 77. Paragraph 58: Now in Substantial Compliance Paragraph 58 requires VIPD’s unit commanders to evaluate investigations of incidents in order to identify and address underlying problems and training needs. Commanders must forward such matters to the appropriate VIPD entity for resolution. To obtain substantial compliance, VIPD had to show that at least 90 percent of identified problems or training needs were relayed to the appropriate entity and appropriately addressed. While VIPD did not come into substantial compliance with this paragraph until November 15—eleven days after the end of the quarter—the VIPD’s success regarding this paragraph is a valuable step forward. To attain substantial compliance with this paragraph, VIPD has, among other measures, established a file in which recommended actions such as policy changes and remedial training
2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 241 Filed: 11/18/16 Page 3 of 11
are recorded before being forwarded to the appropriate entity. VIPD also instituted a tracking mechanism to ensure that the appropriate director or supervisor has followed up on such recommendations. According to VIPD’s Third Quarter Compliance Audit, the AIU identified nine investigations of incidents that took place during the third quarter. Of those, problems or training needs were identified in three, all of which were forwarded to the appropriate entity and addressed. Moving forward, VIPD should continue to submit documentation to the IMT and DOJ affirming that its system for identifying and addressing problems and training needs is continuing to function effectively.
Paragraph 69: Now in Substantial Compliance Paragraph 69 requires VIPD to develop a protocol for conducting audits and to establish a fixed schedule “to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all VIPD zones.” In the past, VIPD’s Audit Inspection Unit (AIU) has been insufficiently staffed and its audits, while thorough, have been late, often by several months. That trend has shifted. VIPD submitted audits for both the second and third quarter of 2016 on time, the latter of which was provided to the IMT and DOJ on November 2. The timely audits notwithstanding, both DOJ and the IMT continue to have concerns about the AIU’s staffing— the unit has two full-time, knowledgeable staffers, augmented by part-time staffers on an asneeded basis, and one of the full-time staffers recently (albeit temporarily) assumed the duties of the outgoing Training Director. Because the AIU nonetheless submitted its quarterly audit on time, however, with no apparent reduction in quality, DOJ and IMT now consider Paragraph 69 to be in substantial compliance. Moving forward, VIPD should continue submitting thorough audits in a timely fashion. Paragraph 77: Now in Partial Compliance
3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 241 Filed: 11/18/16 Page 4 of 11
Paragraph 77 requires VIPD to maintain training records for each officer that, at a minimum, include each course the officer has completed as well as the duration of that course, the instructor’s name, and the course curriculum. By November 4, the last date of this past quarter, VIPD had made scant progress on this paragraph and had met none of the five action steps associated with it. Since then, however, VIPD has belatedly met three of the five action steps. Specifically, VIPD’s training director audited the records currently housed in Power DMS (VIPD’s training database), identified missing training records, and established a work plan to upload them into the system. The plan lists specific target dates for incrementally uploading records throughout the upcoming quarter as well as personnel responsible for the tasks. However, until at least 95 percent of completed training records for the past two years have been uploaded, IMT and DOJ consider this paragraph to be out of compliance. DOJ expects VIPD to attain substantial compliance with this paragraph by the end of the next quarter.
Other Compliance Efforts In addition to its work moving Paragraphs 58, 69, and 77 toward compliance—as required by this quarter’s goals—VIPD has simultaneously been moving other paragraphs toward compliance, with a degree of success not seen since 2014. As previously noted, in addition to moving two quarterly goals paragraphs into substantial compliance this quarter, VIPD also moved paragraphs 32, 71 and 72 into substantial compliance, as detailed below. Paragraph 32: Now in Substantial Compliance Paragraph 32 requires VIPD to document all uses of force in detailed reports; supervisors must then evaluate and assess those uses of force. In order to obtain compliance with this paragraph, VIPD must comply with three outstanding sub-paragraphs: 32-b, which
4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 241 Filed: 11/18/16 Page 5 of 11
requires that at least 95 percent of force reports indicate each type of force that was used; 32-c, which requires at least 95 percent of force reports to contain an evaluation, by a supervisor, of each type of force used; and 32-f, which requires that at least 95 percent of force reports include an audio or videotaped statement. VIPD’s Comprehensive Compliance Plan, Dkt. # 220, lists 26 action steps designed to catapult VIPD into compliance. These steps include weekly reviews of force reports by the Use of Force Working Group; supervisory training in reporting, reviewing, and investigating force; requiring supervisors from other districts to respond to force incidents when no supervisors from that district are available; and coordinating with the information technology department to upload audio and video files.
VIPD completed the required action steps and thus has in place the structural foundation needed to meet the 95 percent threshold for complete, accurate, and timely force reports and reviews. Accordingly, DOJ and IMT consider VIPD to be in compliance with this paragraph. To be clear, however, though the structure is in place, VIPD is not yet producing force reports that consistently describe the force used; include a thorough, timely review by the supervisor; and that include an audio or videotaped statement from the officer. Indeed, supervisors at times do not even respond to force incidents—a problem that has plagued the department for years. Like other paragraphs of the Consent Decree, DOJ and IMT will evaluate the quality of force reports and reviews under Paragraph 100, which requires VIPD to implement “each and every provision” of the Consent Decree. Thus, among many other tasks related to other paragraphs, in order to move Paragraph 100 into compliance, VIPD must ensure that officers are properly completing force reports and supervisors are thoroughly investigating those uses of force.
Paragraph 71: Now in Substantial Compliance
5

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 241 Filed: 11/18/16 Page 6 of 11
Paragraph 71 requires VIPD to have in place a policy requiring timely completions of the complaint adjudication process and prohibits investigation extensions absent exigent circumstances. If an investigator seeks an extension, the commissioner must approve the request and the complainant must be notified. VIPD has had the requisite policy in place for some time. To obtain substantial compliance with the entire paragraph, VIPD had to ensure that in at least 90 percent of the cases where investigators sought extensions, the extensions were approved by the commissioner. On October 25, VIPD submitted a report to IMT and DOJ verifying that all extensions had been handled appropriately and received the commissioner’s approval. To maintain compliance, VIPD must continue to provide documentation showing that the commissioner signs off on all investigatory extensions and that the relevant complainants are notified.
Paragraph 72: Now in Substantial Compliance Substantial compliance with Paragraph 72 was a goal set and missed by VIPD in the second quarter of 2016. The paragraph requires VIPD to ensure it is taking disciplinary action—and not merely non-disciplinary corrective action—in cases where the disciplinary matrix calls for discipline to be imposed. In cases where discipline has been imposed, the paragraph requires VIPD to also consider whether non-disciplinary action is also called for. VIPD missed compliance with the paragraph during the second quarter because it failed to produce the necessary documentation to show that disciplinary action had been taken, as appropriate, and that VIPD considered non-disciplinary action in those cases. This past quarter, VIPD provided the required documentation. According to VIPD’s third quarter audit, there were 10 administrative cases where discipline was recommended and sustained. In all 10, appropriate disciplinary action was taken and non-disciplinary action was considered,
6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 241 Filed: 11/18/16 Page 7 of 11
though none imposed. Moving forward, VIPD should continue to provide documentation showing that VIPD is appropriately considering and imposing disciplinary and nondisciplinary action.
Major Remaining Obstacles and Next Steps While largely pleased with VIPD’s progress over the past quarter, which saw VIPD move five new paragraphs into the “substantial compliance” column, DOJ nonetheless notes that much work needs to be done as VIPD still has a total of 14 paragraphs outstanding related to use of force, citizen complaints, training, and management and supervision. Regarding the use of force, VIPD’s deficiencies remain significant—and remain the same as last year, and the year before that. VIPD has repeatedly failed to produce any adequate force lesson plans and has in place no mechanism to properly assess and refine use of force training. Many supervisory reviews of use of force incidents also continue to be incomplete or otherwise inadequate. In 2016 thus far, of 171 use of force incidents, VIPD has completed 48 of the investigations—less than a third. To its credit, VIPD has recently begun initiating complaints against officers and supervisory personnel for not completing use of force reports and investigations. Moving forward, as has been noted by the IMT in its current and previous quarterly reports, VIPD’s Deputy Chiefs should also explore new methods or alternatives to current practices to improve the quality and completion rates of force investigations. VIPD must also complete and finalize acceptable use of force lesson plans and implement a robust mechanism for assessing force training. Regarding citizen complaints, VIPD remains awash with a backlog of administrative investigations, a fact that has kept VIPD from complying with Paragraph 44 (which requires investigations to be timely). VIPD has outstanding complaints that date back more than four
7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 241 Filed: 11/18/16 Page 8 of 11
years, and it continues to fall behind with more recent complaints. In 2015, of 259 complaints, VIPD completed the investigations for 207, or roughly 80 percent. Thus far in 2016, of 153 complaints, VIPD has completed the investigations for 68, or roughly 45 percent. While the investigations of the complaints most recently filed in 2016 are not yet overdue, this year’s completion rate is markedly low. At the most recent Summit, VIPD discussed the possibility of hiring retired supervisors to help address the backlog. VIPD should continue to explore this and other options.
Regarding training, as noted above, VIPD gained ground regarding Paragraph 77, which requires VIPD to maintain training records. It is one of four training paragraphs that remain out of compliance. Moving forward, in addition to completing the training records database, VIPD must consistently review all force training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with the law; must conduct needs assessments to ensure force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained; and must make supervisory training on leadership and accountability a part of its semi-annual in-service training.
Conclusion Throughout this past quarter, VIPD has steadily worked toward substantial compliance on a number of Consent Decree paragraphs, an effort that moved five new paragraphs into substantial compliance and edged several other paragraphs closer to compliance. In order to maintain this momentum, VIPD must focus on the quality and completion of its force and citizen complaint investigations; finalize force lesson plans and put into place a reliable mechanism for the review of force training and curricula; and complete the task of assembling training files on all officers. While VIPD is unlikely to meet the February 2017 deadline for
8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 241 Filed: 11/18/16 Page 9 of 11 substantial compliance with the Consent Decree, VIPD has shown a renewed drive toward compliance that should eventually propel it into substantial compliance with the remaining 14 paragraphs. As always, DOJ remains ready to assist VIPD in this effort.
9

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 241 Filed: 11/18/16 Page 10 of 11

November 18, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
FOR THE UNITED STATES:
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division
TIMOTHY D. MYGATT Deputy Chief
/s/ T. Jack Morse_______________ T. JACK MORSE JEFFREY R. MURRAY Trial Attorneys Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305-4039 (telephone) (202) 514-0212 (facsimile)

10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 241 Filed: 11/18/16 Page 11 of 11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of Plaintiff’s Report Regarding Defendants’ Efforts to Comply with Quarterly Goals Due November 4, 2016 was filed electronically on November 18, 2016 using the CM/ECF system, which will send electronic notification to the following: Carol Thomas-Jacobs Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice G.E.R.S Building, 2nd Floor 34-38 Kronprinsdens Gade St. Thomas, VI 00802 cjacobs@doj.vi.gov Joycelyn Hewlett, Esq. Assistant U.S. Attorney Ron de Lugo Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse 5500 Veterans Drive, Suite 260 St. Thomas, VI 00802 Joycelyn.Hewlett@usdoj.gov
/s/ T. Jack Morse _______ T. JACK MORSE Trial Attorney Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division United States Department of Justice
11

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 357 Filed: 10/05/18 Page 1 of 3

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS and the VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2008-158 ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ATTORNEYS:

Gretchen Shappert, United States Attorney Joycelyn Hewlett, AUSA Sansara Cannon, AUSA United States Attorney’s Office St. Thomas, VI Jeffrey Murray, Esq. Aaron Fleisher, Esq. Paul Killebrew, Esq. United States Department of Justice Washington, D.C.
For the plaintiff,

Claude Walker, Attorney General Carol Thomas-Jacobs, AAG Terri L. Griffiths, SAAG Virgin Islands Department of Justice St. Thomas, VI
For the defendants.

ORDER GÓMEZ, J.
On July 6, 2018, the Court appointed Chief Robert McNeilly as an expert on police practices. Chief McNeilly was ordered to report to the Court on steps that the Virgin Islands Police

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 357 Filed: 10/05/18 Page 2 of 3
USA v. VIPD, et. al. Civil No. 8-158 Order Page 2
Department (“VIPD”) could take to advance compliance with the Consent Decree entered in this case. See ECF No. 331. On August 20, 2018, the Court filed two reports authored by Chief McNeilly, which contained numerous recommendations to VIPD. ECF No. 346. At a hearing in this matter on September 4, 2018, the Court ordered the Parties to adapt Chief McNeilly’s recommendations into a proposed order. In their joint report regarding Chief McNeilly’s recommendations, ECF No. 354, the Parties demonstrated that VIPD had already implemented many of Chief McNeilly’s recommendations, though several remained to be fully implemented and were addressed in a jointly proposed order, ECF No. 354-41.
After the Parties filed their joint report and proposed order, the Independent Monitoring Team (“IMT”) contacted the Court to inquire whether it should monitor VIPD’s progress in implementing Chief McNeilly’s recommendations. The Court held a telephonic status conference with the Parties on October 4, 2018, to discuss the IMT’s inquiry.
In the wake of that conference, the Court has considered the parties’ positions. At the same time, the Court is mindful that the VIPD Consent Decree currently is the oldest active United States Department of Justice initiated police department Consent Decree in the nation. The Court also understands that

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 357 Filed: 10/05/18 Page 3 of 3
USA v. VIPD, et. al. Civil No. 8-158 Order Page 3
the VIPD is one of the smallest, if not the smallest, police department that is under a Consent Decree. Given that backdrop, the Court appreciates the parties’ effort to adopt such inroads as will expedite the process by which VIPD will achieve substantial compliance with the provisions of the Consent Decree. To that end, the Court finds that accomplishment of the tasks outlined by Chief McNeilly is essential.
The premises considered, it is hereby ORDERED that when the IMT reports on VIPD’s compliance with the Consent Decree in its quarterly reports, it shall include VIPD’s efforts to implement Chief McNeilly’s recommendations to the extent that the IMT disagrees with, or finds deficient, any assessments regarding implementation of Chief McNeilly’s recommendations that may be submitted by the parties; and it is further ORDERED that the parties and the IMT shall collaboratively undertake such efforts as will avoid duplication of efforts, and as will minimize costs to the VIPD.
S\ Curtis V. Gómez District Judge

 Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, )

and THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE

)

DEPARTMENT,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

)

C.A. No. 3:08-CV-158

JOINT REPORT AND PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY COURT-APPOINTED EXPERT ROBERT MCNEILLY
Come now Plaintiff, United States of America (DOJ), and Defendants, the Territory of the Virgin Islands and the Virgin Islands Police Department (VIPD), with the concurrence of the Independent Monitoring Team (IMT), and jointly file this Report1 and Proposed Order to address the recommendations made by court-appointed expert Chief Robert McNeilly in his reports to the Court, Dkt. #346.
Introduction At the hearing in this matter on September 4, 2018, the Court ordered the Parties to submit a proposed order by September 18, 2018 to implement the recommendations that Chief McNeilly made in his reports, and to report to the Court on the status of compliance. As the Parties discussed with the Court, portions of Chief McNeilly’s reports—dated August 7 and 15, 2018—addressed provisions of the Consent Decree with which VIPD has since come into

1 This Report also serves as the Parties’ monthly reports regarding compliance, pursuant to the Court’s November 28, 2016 Order, Dkt. #245.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 2 of 16
compliance. The Parties and IMT therefore met immediately following the September 4 hearing to review the McNeilly reports and determine which of his recommendations applied to Consent Decree provisions that are still out of compliance. In addition, the Parties and IMT determined that VIPD could implement many of Chief McNeilly’s recommendations before September 18, while others can be addressed in the weeks and months to come pursuant to a jointly Proposed Order.
Section I below provides a brief statement regarding the current status of VIPD’s compliance with the Consent Decree. Section II reviews each of Chief McNeilly’s recommendations and indicates which recommendations have already been implemented, and which will be implemented going forward pursuant to the jointly Proposed Order that is attached to this Report. I. The Current Status of VIPD’s Compliance with the Consent Decree
Since the September 4 hearing, IMT has determined that VIPD has come into compliance with Paragraph 37(e), related to accountability for out-of-policy uses of force, and with Paragraph 64(h), related to monthly reports from VIPD’s risk management system. According to IMT, the provisions of the Consent Decree that remain out of compliance are:
• Paragraph 31(f), regarding the availability of less-lethal force alternatives; Paragraph 35(a), involving the use of leading questions during officer interviews2;
• Paragraph 37(b), related to supervisors being held accountable for the quality of their force investigations; Paragraph 37(d), related to remedial training;
2 As the Parties discussed at the September 4 hearing, VIPD and DOJ believe that VIPD has achieved compliance with Paragraph 35(a).
2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 3 of 16
• Paragraph 44(i), involving the timeliness of civilian complaint investigations; portions of Paragraph 64, related to VIPD’s risk management system;
• Paragraph 70(e), which requires discipline decisions to be consistent with VIPD’s disciplinary matrix; and
• Paragraph 100, which requires VIPD to implement all provisions of the Consent Decree.
IMT’s summary of non-compliant paragraphs is attached as Exhibit 2.3 II. Chief McNeilly’s Recommendations
Chief McNeilly made many recommendations across his two reports. As he noted in his second report, he repeated many of his recommendations where the same recommendation would advance VIPD toward compliance with multiple provisions of the Consent Decree. Dkt. #346-2 at 4. The Parties and IMT have gone through all of Chief McNeilly’s recommendations and distilled them down to 40 separate tasks, many of which VIPD had in place but needed to documented and others that have now been completed. Below the Parties discuss the tasks that VIPD has completed and provide citations to attached exhibits that document VIPD’s work. The Parties also identify tasks that will be completed in the weeks and months ahead, which are addressed in the attached Proposed Order.
Task 1: Complete 21 open serious use of force investigations, Dkt. #346-1 at 19 §1(B): As documented in Exhibit 1, VIPD has completed these investigations.
Task 2: Change the methodology for assessing compliance with Paragraph 100, Dkt. #346-1 at 19 §1(C); 21 §4(G); 23 §5(A): The Parties and IMT have changed the methodology for assessing compliance with Paragraph 100. As we discussed with the Court at
3 The exhibits to this Report are numbered according to the task numbers, below, so that Exhibit 1 corresponds to Task 1, Exhibit 2 corresponds to Task 2, and so on.
3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 4 of 16
the hearing on September 4, 2018, each paragraph will be assessed separately, rather than assessing the implementation of certain paragraphs under Paragraph 100. The new assessment methodology is apparent in Exhibit 2, which summarizes the paragraphs that remain out of compliance.
Task 3: The Commissioner should issue a directive regarding VIPD’s commitment to reaching compliance, Dkt. #346-1 at 19 §1(F); 23 §5(D); Dkt. #346-2 at 3 §III(C): Commissioner Delroy Richards has issued a directive to all VIPD employees, attached as Exhibit 3, reaffirming the agency’s commitment to reaching full compliance with the Consent Decree.
Task 4: Create forms to make it easier for officers to write reports on uses of force, Dkt. #346-1 at 19 §1(I): VIPD has developed forms to assist officers as they write use of force reports. The forms and a directive instructing officers on completing them are attached as Exhibit 4.
Task 5: Increase staffing in Internal Affairs, Dkt. #346-1 at 19 §1(J); Dkt. #346-2 at 21 ¶44(I): As discussed during the hearing on September 4, 2018, the Territory expects the process of raising the salaries for officers assigned to Internal Affairs to complete by November 1. VIPD hopes that this will attract more qualified candidates. Chief McNeilly recommended that Internal Affairs staffing be increased to eight officers—four on St. Thomas and four on St. Croix. For the reasons discussed at the September 4 hearing, VIPD is unable to estimate when staffing will reach these levels, but, as noted in the attached proposed order, VIPD will continue to report to the Court on its efforts to add officers to Internal Affairs. See Proposed Order ¶2(a).
Task 6: Ensure command staff can use the IA Pro software, Dkt. #346-1 at 19
4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 5 of 16
§1(K): VIPD has conducted an audit to determine whether those in command staff are able to use the IA Pro software.4 The results of this audit, attached as Exhibit 6, demonstrate that command staff regularly use the IA Pro system.
Task 7: Conduct training in several areas, Dkt. #356-1 at 20-21 ¶¶2(A), 3, 4(A); Dkt. #346-2 at 4 ¶35(a), 6 ¶37(b), 8 ¶37(e), 8-9 ¶59(b), 10-11 ¶31, 17-18 ¶64(k), 18-19 ¶64(g), 20-21 ¶70: Chief McNeilly noted that VIPD had begun working with the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) to deliver training and recommended that VIPD deliver training in several areas, either through IACP or on its own. VIPD has developed a plan, attached as Exhibit 7, to deliver the recommended training. VIPD will report to the Court as it delivers this training. See Proposed Order ¶2(b).
Task 8: Continue hurricane recovery efforts at VIPD’s training facility, Dkt. #346-1 at 20 ¶2(B): As documented in the photographs attached as Exhibit 8, VIPD has addressed the issues that Chief McNeilly reported on at the training facility. VIPD has obtained quotes from various vendors, also attached with Exhibit 8, for additional repairs to VIPD’s training facility.
Task 9: Conduct a needs assessment for training related to civilian complaints, Dkt. #346-1 at 21 §4(B): VIPD has assessed the data in its risk management system to determine what training it should conduct related to civilian complaints. The results of that needs assessment are attached as Exhibit 9. VIPD will report to the Court as it conducts this training. See Proposed Order ¶2(b).
Task 10: Ensure that VIPD’s Training Advisory Committee (TAC) reviews
4 In his report, Chief McNeilly states that all supervisors should certify that they are able to use the IA Pro system, but only those in command staff at VIPD have access to the system. The Parties and IMT have adapted Chief McNeilly’s recommendation accordingly. Supervisors have access to a software system called BlueTeam, and supervisory training on that system is addressed below in Task 12.
5

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 6 of 16
deficiencies, corrective action, and discipline related to use of force and civilian complaint investigations, Dkt. #346-1 at 21 §§4(C), 4(H): VIPD has issued a revised standard operating procedure, attached as Exhibit 10, requiring that the TAC receive information about the relevant deficiencies, corrective action, and discipline, so that the TAC can consider these issues as they develop training for the agency. VIPD will report to the Court on its implementation of this directive. See Proposed Order ¶3(a).
Task 11: Conduct regular command staff meetings at which Consent Decree compliance is discussed, Dkt. #346-1 at 21 §4(D); 346-2 at 3 §B: VIPD’s command staff, including the Deputy Commissioner responsible for Consent Decree compliance, meets regularly and typically discusses the agency’s compliance efforts. Exhibit 11 documents that these meetings occur.
Task 12: Provide in-service training on IA Pro and BlueTeam, Dkt. #346-1 at 21 §4(E): As documented in Exhibit 12, VIPD has scheduled in-service training on these topics. VIPD will report to the Court as it delivers this training. See Proposed Order ¶2(b).
Task 13: Create a list of VIPD policies and their current status in the review process, Dkt. #346-1 at 21-22 §§4(F), 4(M): The list attached as Exhibit 13 includes all Consent Decree-related policies and their current status.
Task 14: Ensure that the directors of the training and audit units receive notice of all deficiencies found in use of force and civilian complaint investigations, Dkt. #346-1 at 21-22 §§4(H), (P)(iv): The memorandum attached as Exhibit 14 requires that information on all of the relevant deficiencies be routed to the directors of the training and audit units. VIPD will report to the Court on its implementation of this directive. See Proposed Order ¶3(b).
Task 15: Ensure that VIPD’s policy review committee includes representatives
6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 7 of 16
from Internal Affairs, the audit unit, the training unit, and each of VIPD’s zones, Dkt. #346-1 at 21, §4(I): The list attached as Exhibit 15 shows the individuals who serve on the policy review committee and their assignments. All VIPD components recommended by Chief McNeilly are represented in the policy review committee.
Task 16: VIPD’s audit unit should evaluate use of force investigations, report to command staff on issues, and document how issues were addressed, Dkt. #346-1 at 21-22 §§4(J), 4(K), 4(P)(i); Dkt. #346-2 at 10-11 ¶31: As discussed during the September 4, 2018 hearing, VIPD’s audit unit evaluates use of force investigations and reports to command staff on issues that they identify. IMT has recommended an addition to the audit unit’s manual, attached as Exhibit 16, regarding audits of how VIPD addresses the issues that the audit unit identifies in force investigations. VIPD is considering this recommendation and will report to the Court on the kind of audit it decides to conduct and its implementation of that audit. See Proposed Order ¶3(c).
Task 17: Make information about disciplinary actions available to the public, Dkt. #346-1 at 22 §4(L); Dkt. #346-2 at 4-5 ¶35(a), 6-7 ¶37(b), 10-11 ¶31, 20-21 ¶70: VIPD has issued a directive, attached as Exhibit 17, stating that it will provide information about officer discipline to the public. VIPD has already posted this information, which is available at http://www.vipd.gov.vi/Consent_Decree/Consent_DecreePublicationData.aspx.
Task 18: Review policies when they are subject to review, Dkt. #346-1 at 22 §4(M): Under VIPD’s policy on its policy development process, attached as Exhibit 18, the agency sets an expiration date for each policy and reviews the policy by that date. Exhibit 13 shows the current status of all Consent Decree-related policies.
Task 19: Make policies available to all personnel in PowerDMS, Dkt. #346-1 at 22
7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 8 of 16
§4(M): Posting policies on PowerDMS is required by VIPD’s policy on policy development, which is attached as Exhibit 18. Exhibit 19 is a screenshot of what officers see in the PowerDMS system, which shows that officers have access to all policies in the system.
Task 20: Establish a protocol on tracking deficiencies in force and civilian complaint investigations, providing remedial training, imposing progressive discipline, assessing deficiencies in performance evaluations, and reporting on deficiencies at command staff meetings, Dkt. #346-1 at 22 §§4(N), 4(P)(v)-(vii); Dkt. #346-2 at 4-5 ¶35(a), 6-7 ¶37(b), 10-11 ¶31, 21-22 ¶44(i), 8-9 ¶59(b): VIPD has taken a number of steps to implement this recommendation. As documented in the memorandum attached as Exhibit 20, VIPD has added a notation to IA Pro for deficient investigations. This will permit the agency to use the IA Pro system to generate lists of all deficient investigations and track corrective actions—including remedial training and discipline—taken as a result of these deficiencies. VIPD has issued a directive to supervisors to conduct performance evaluations consistent with its policy on this subject; both the directive and the policy are attached with Exhibit 20. VIPD will report to the Court on its implementation of the memorandum and the directive. See Proposed Order ¶¶3(d)-(e).
Task 21: Maintain the lieutenants currently assigned to assist on force investigations, Dkt. #346-1 at 22 §4(O)(i); Dkt. #346-2 at 6-7 ¶37(b), 10-11 ¶31, 21-22 ¶44(i): The transfer orders for these lieutenants, attached as Exhibit 21, have no expiration date, and VIPD has no intention to move these individuals from their current positions. The directive attached with Exhibit 21 describes the roles of these lieutenants.
Task 22: Report regularly on the amount of time that force and complaint investigations have been open, Dkt. #346-1 at 22 §4(O)(ii); Dkt. #346-2 at 21-22 ¶44(i): The
8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 9 of 16
report attached as Exhibit 22, which is updated and distributed to command staff on a weekly basis, includes information about how long cases have been open.
Task 23: Force auditors should report directly to the head of the audit unit, Dkt. #346-1 at 22 §(P)(ii): The auditors who analyze force investigations are assigned to the audit unit and report directly to the head of that unit.
Task 24: The director of the audit unit should have full access to all Internal Affairs cases, Dkt. #346-1 at 22 §4(P)(iii): The screenshots attached as Exhibit 24 show the access levels that the director of the audit unit has in IA Pro. As noted in Exhibit 24, the director has Level Three access, which provides the director access to all Internal Affairs cases.
Task 25: Document the agreement not to complete investigations of some less serious uses of force that occurred before 2012, Dkt. #346-1 at 23 §5(A): As the Court is aware, VIPD previously developed a backlog of force incidents that had not been investigated. When VIPD began addressing the backlog, the Parties and IMT determined that all serious uses of force should be investigated no matter when they occurred. The Parties and IMT also agreed, however, that less serious uses of force that occurred before 2012 would not be investigated, given the significant resources that would have been required to do so and the limited benefit that such investigations would have for the agency and the compliance process.
Task 26: Respond in writing to IMT assessments, Dkt. #346-1 at 23 §5(C): VIPD currently responds in writing when it receives assessments from IMT. Attached as Exhibit 26 is a recent response from VIPD to an IMT assessment.
Task 27: Reconsider the practice of having St. Thomas’s and St. Croix’s Force Investigation Teams respond only to incidents on the other island, Dkt. #346-1 at 23 §5(E): Chief McNeilly agreed with VIPD that this practice is not efficient and should end. VIPD is
9

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 10 of 16
ending the practice as documented in the draft revised policy attached as Exhibit 27. VIPD will alert the Court when this policy is finalized. See Proposed Order ¶3(f)
Task 28: Create a compliance unit, Dkt. #346-2 at 3 §A: VIPD is committed to having a full-time compliance unit whose responsibility is reaching and sustaining compliance with the consent decree. VIPD currently has a compliance unit that falls under the command of Deputy Commissioner Jason K. Marsh. Consistent with Chief McNeilly’s recommendations, VIPD is considering how to better incorporate the work of the audit unit into the work of the compliance unit. IMT has provided a proposal, attached as Exhibit 28, for the roles and functions to be included in a compliance unit. The United States supports IMT’s proposal. VIPD will report to the Court on any changes it may make to the compliance unit. See Proposed Order ¶2(c).
Task 29: The director of the audit unit should report directly to the court, Dkt. #346-2 at 3 §E: VIPD has implemented this recommendation. Sgt. Gail Liburd is director of the audit unit, and she testified during the September 4, 2018 hearing.
Task 30: Report all out-of-policy uses of force to the Assistant Commissioner and the Court, Dkt. #346-2 at 8 ¶37(e): VIPD will report out-of-policy uses of force to the Court and will provide this information to the Assistant Commissioner in advance of providing it to the Court. See Proposed Order ¶4(a).
Task 31: Create a quarterly report of all corrective actions taken pursuant to the risk management system, present the report at command staff meetings, and provide the report to the compliance unit, Dkt. #346-2 at 8-9 ¶59(b): The directive attached as Exhibit 31 states that the risk management analyst will provide risk management data to a newly formed Executive Committee; that the Committee will review the data in advance of command
10

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 11 of 16
staff meetings for the purpose of formulating recommendations to command staff; and that the Assistant Chiefs who sit on the Committee will present the recommendations to command staff. The Deputy Commissioner in charge of compliance is also a member of the Executive Committee and so will receive all data received by and recommendations generated by the Committee. VIPD will report to the Court on its implementation of this directive. See Proposed Order ¶3(g).
Task 32: Supervisors should consider corrective actions taken pursuant to the risk management system in their performance evaluations, Dkt. #346-2 at 8-9 ¶59(b): VIPD’s policy on its risk management system, attached as Exhibit 32, notes that the system is itself “a means to identify and assess employee performance.” VIPD therefore submits that supervisors already assess performance through the risk management system. As noted above, VIPD has also issued a directive to supervisors to conduct performance evaluations consistent with its performance evaluation policy, both of which are attached as Exhibit 20.
Task 33: Command staff should conduct regular meetings about their use of the risk management system and generate documentation of these meetings, Dkt. #346-2 at 15-16 ¶64(f): VIPD’s policy on its risk management system, attached as Exhibit 32, requires that command staff conduct these meetings. The directive attached as Exhibit 31 describes in greater detail how the newly formed Executive Committee will inform command staff regarding risk management issues and make recommendations for improving the risk management system. VIPD will report to the Court on its implementation of the risk management policy and Executive Committee directive. See Proposed Order ¶3(g).
Task 34: Include action plans created as part of the risk management process in the risk management system; the audit unit should assess whether action plans are
11

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 12 of 16
followed through on; and the audit unit should report deficiencies to the Commissioner and the Court, Dkt. #346-2 at 15-16 ¶64(f), 17-18 ¶64(k), 18-19 ¶64(g): VIPD’s policy on its risk management system, attached as Exhibit 33, requires supervisors and command staff to use action plans to address problematic trends discovered through the system. The proposal from IMT attached as Exhibit 16 would require the audit unit to assess whether action plans are implemented and report any deficiencies to the Commissioner. VIPD is considering this recommendation and will report to the Court on the kind of audit it decides to conduct and its implementation of that audit. See Proposed Order ¶3(h). The Proposed Order requires VIPD to report deficiencies in the implementation of action plans to the Court. See Proposed Order ¶¶ 3(h), 4(b).
Task 35: The Commissioner should reinforce that supervisors are to consult the risk management system when employees transfer into their units, Dkt. #346-2 at 20 ¶64(h)5: The Commissioner accomplished this reinforcement through the directive attached as Exhibit 35. Attached with the directive is VIPD’s policy on transfers, which requires supervisors to review new subordinates’ risk management history.
Task 36: Supervisors should document their consultations of the risk management system for new subordinates, and the audit unit should audit this documentation and report any deficiencies to the Commissioner and the Court, Dkt. #346-2 at 20 ¶64(h): The directive attached as Exhibit 35 requires that supervisors receive risk management information when any new subordinate is transferred to their command. IMT has made a recommendation to VIPD about how the audit unit can assess whether supervisors have reviewed risk management information for new subordinates. VIPD is considering this
5 This provision of the Consent Decree is incorrectly listed as 64(k) in Chief McNeilly’s report, Dkt. #346-2 at 20.
12

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 13 of 16
recommendation and will report to the Court on the kind of audit it decides to conduct and its implementation of that audit. See Proposed Order ¶3(i). The Proposed Order requires VIPD to report deficiencies regarding this supervisory review to the Court. See Proposed Order ¶¶ 3(i), 4(c).
Task 37: The audit unit should track all disciplinary actions, Dkt. #346-2 at 20-21 ¶70: The directive attached as Exhibit 37 requires the audit unit to track disciplinary actions. VIPD will report to the Court on its implementation of this directive. See Proposed Order ¶3(j).
Task 38: The Commissioner should explain in writing any departures from VIPD’s disciplinary matrix, Dkt. #346-2 at 4-5 ¶35(a), 6-7 ¶37(b), 20-21 ¶70: The policy attached as Exhibit 38 requires that discipline be consistent with the disciplinary matrix and that departures from the matrix be justified in writing. VIPD will report to the Court on its implementation of this policy. See Proposed Order ¶3(k).
Task 39: Lt. Richard Matthews should continue to provide training to personnel in Internal Affairs, Dkt. #346-2 at 21-22 ¶44(i): Lt. Matthews’s transfer order, attached as Exhibit 39, has no expiration date, and VIPD has no plans to move him from his current position.
Task 40: Investigators assigned to Internal Affairs should receive AELE’s investigator training, crime scene training, interrogation training, and ethics training, Dkt. #346-2 at 21-22 ¶44(i): VIPD has provided this training to Internal Affairs investigators, as documented in the training history for Internal Affairs investigators attached as Exhibit 40.
Conclusion Through this Joint Report and the attached jointly Proposed Order, the Parties and IMT
13

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 14 of 16

have ensured that VIPD will implement Chief Robert McNeilly’s recommendations. We expect that implementing these recommendations will bring VIPD closer to full compliance with the Consent Decree.
Respectfully submitted,

September 18, 2018

FOR THE UNITED STATES:
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief, Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division
s/ Jeffrey R. Murray PAUL KILLEBREW Special Counsel JEFFREY R. MURRAY AARON S. FLEISHER Trial Attorneys Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 353-9269 (telephone) (202) 514-0212 (facsimile)

FOR THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT:
s/Terri Griffiths TERRI GRIFFITHS Special Assistant Attorney General For Territory of the Virgin Islands and the Virgin Islands Police Department POB 8647 St. Thomas, VI 00801 (340) 998-8830 TERRI@GRIFFITHS-LAW.COM

14

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 15 of 16 Concur: s/Charles Gruber CHARLES GRUBER Independent Monitor CAG Consulting 6N302 Fersonwoods Drive St Charles IL 60175 Tel: (630) 762-1095
15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 16 of 16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically on September 18, 2018, using the CM/ECF system, which will send electronic notification to the following:
Carol Thomas-Jacobs Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice G.E.R.S Building, 2nd Floor 34-38 Kronprinsdens Gade St. Thomas, VI 00802 cjacobs@doj.vi.gov
Terri Griffiths Special Assistant Attorney General For Territory of the Virgin Islands and the Virgin Islands Police Department POB 8647 St. Thomas, VI 00801 (340) 998-8830 terri@griffiths-law.com
Joycelyn Hewlett, Esq. Assistant U.S. Attorney Ron de Lugo Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse 5500 Veterans Drive, Suite 260 St. Thomas, VI 00802 Joycelyn.Hewlett@usdoj.gov
s/ Jeffrey Murray _______ JEFFREY MURRAY Trial Attorney Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division United States Department of Justice
16

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM GDoocvuemrnenmt #e:n3t5o4-f1 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 23 The Virgin Islands of the United States
-- O -VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND APPLICANT SCREENING BUREAU

September 8, 2018

50F2 Hannahs Rest Suite #2
Frederiksted St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 00840
(340)778-3066
Police Operations and Administrative Services #45 Mars Hill, Frederiksted St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 00840
(340)778-2211

To:

Curtis A. Griffin, JD

Assistant Commissioner

Via

Jason K. Marsh

Deputy Commissioner, Professional Standards

Criminal Justice Complex Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 00802 (340)774-2211
Leander Jurgen Command Cruz Bay
St. John, U.S.V.I. 00830 (340)693-8880

From:

Chenelle Skepple_______________________ Acting Director, Internal Affairs & Applicant Screening Bureau

Subject:

Excessive Use of Force Cases-Revised

Complaints alleging Excessive Use of Force are among the complaints investigated by Internal Affairs. The Independent Monitors highlighted twenty-one active cases involving allegations of excessive use of force and other allegations that allege civil rights violations. Fourteen of those cases have been completed and closed. The remaining seven cases are being targeted for completion and closure.

Case Number CCX2010-0013 CCT2011-0217

Completed Completed

CCT2011-0273

Completed

CCT2011-0272

Completed

CCX2010-0049

Completed

CCT2010-0049 CCT2012-0031

Completed Completed

Status

Due Date N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Facsimile (340) 715-5517 St. Thomas  (340) 778-2373 St. Croix  (340) 776-6236 St. John

Re:CEaxcseess:iv3e:0U8O-FcvC-a0se0s158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-1 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 2 of 23
Page 2 of 2

CCT2012-0102

Completed

N/A

CCX2010-0014

Completed

N/A

CCT2014-0151

Completed

N/A

CCX2011-0058

Completed

N/A

CCT2015-0055

Completed

N/A

CCX2015-0097

Completed

N/A

CCX2018-0108

Completed

N/A

CCX2016-0049

Completed

N/A

CCX2016-0077

Completed

N/A

CCX2016-0085

Completed

N/A

CCX2017-0008

Completed

N/A

CCX2017-0057

Completed

N/A

CCX2011-0155

Completed

N/A

CCT2017-0101

Completed

N/A

Facsimile (340) 715-5517 St. Thomas  (340) 778-2373 St. Croix  (340) 776-6236 St. John

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-1 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 3 of 23 CCX2010-0013

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-1 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 4 of 23 CCT2011-0217

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-1 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 5 of 23 CCT2011-0273

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-1 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 6 of 23 CCT2011-0272

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-1 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 7 of 23 CCX2010-0049

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-1 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 8 of 23 CCT2010-0049

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-1 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 9 of 23

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-1 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 10 of 23 CCT2012-0031

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-1 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 11 of 23 CCX2010-0014

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-1 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 12 of 23 CCT2014-0151

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-1 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 13 of 23 CCX2011-0058

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-1 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 14 of 23 CCT2015-0055

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-1 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 15 of 23 CCX2015-0097

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-1 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 16 of 23 CCX2015-0108

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-1 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 17 of 23 CCX2016-0049

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-1 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 18 of 23 CCX2016-0077

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-1 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 19 of 23 CCX2016-0085

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-1 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 20 of 23 CCX2017-0008

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-1 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 21 of 23 CCX2017-0057

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-1 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 22 of 23 CCX2011-0155

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-1 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 23 of 23 CCT2017-0101

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-2 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 3

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs in Partial Complaince or Not in Substantial Compliance
Status as of Date of Printing

Print Date: Print Time:

09/16/2018 21:13

031

NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

Sub-Para

f

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Linked Para

SC Date

Sub-Para Compliance Requirements

Ensures that sufficient less lethal alternatives are available to all patrol officers. The issuance of the policy and its continuation indicate substantial compliance for policy development and training. For implementation, evaluation is based upon inspections that demonstrate that patrol and other applicable officers carry less lethal alternatives at all times. (Policies 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7)

Partial or NISC

035

NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

End of Paragraph

1 031

Sub-Para

a

Status Partial Compliance

Linked Para

SC Date

Sub-Para Compliance Requirements

In =>90% of the interviews conducted during use of force reviews, leading questions were avoided.

Partial or NISC

037

NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

End of Paragraph

1 035

Sub-Para

b

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Linked Para

SC Date

Sub-Para Compliance Requirements

In =>90% of reportable use of force incidents, supervisors are held accountable for the quality of their reviews, and documented non-disciplinary and/or disciplinary action has been taken when a supervisor or manager: fails to conduct a timely and thorough review; neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action; or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action. In those cases where discipline was imposed, did the officials imposing the discipline follow the departmental disciplinary matrix?

Sub-Para

d

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Linked Para

SC Date

Sub-Para Compliance Requirements

In =>95% of the use of force incidents where the Commander's/Director's review and evaluation concluded that improper tactics were used, there is evidence that the involved sworn personnel received and successfully completed remedial training, and, if appropriate, were disciplined.

044

NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

Partial or NISC

2

End of Paragraph

037

Sub-Para

i

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Linked Para

SC Date

Sub-Para Compliance Requirements

=>90% of complaints are documented and resolved in writing and completed investigations into complaints comport with the provisions of the Consent Decree. Agreement between the Parties set timeliness evaluation for all investigations under this sub-paragraph.

Date Run 09/16/2018 niscpara_chkA e:\cd_paraap\para_pitem.set

Compliance monitoring location of NISC Sub-Paragraphs updated 09/08/18 as a result of movement of Paragraph 100
sub-paragraphs back to their original parent paragraphs.

Page 1 of 3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-2 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 2 of 3

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs in Partial Complaince or Not in Substantial Compliance
Status as of Date of Printing

Print Date: Print Time:

09/16/2018 21:13

059

NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

Partial or NISC

1

End of Paragraph

044

Sub-Para

b

Status Partial Compliance

Linked Para

SC Date

Sub-Para Compliance Requirements

The VIPD will, in =>95% of the cases, use this data to promote civil rights and best police practices; to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of VIPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts.

Partial or NISC

064

NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

End of Paragraph

1 059

Sub-Para

f

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Linked Para

SC Date

12/18/2013

Sub-Para Compliance Requirements

Interventions, as exemplified in paragraph 64 of the Consent Decree, comport with the RMS protocol =>90% of the time.Evaluation will include the following as transfered from Para 100-5: The VIPD is utilizing the EIP. Underlying documentation should include documentation of EIP meetings, the Early Intervention Unit Action Plan and Early Intervention Unit Assessment, attendance records of VIPD personnel and all follow-up documentation for completed intervention.

Sub-Para

g

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Linked Para

SC Date

Sub-Para Compliance Requirements

=>90% of interventions are based on all relevant and appropriate information, including the nature of the officer's assignment, crime trends and crime problems, and not solely on the number or percentages of incidents in any category of information recorded in the risk management system.

Sub-Para

h

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Linked Para

SC Date

Sub-Para Compliance Requirements

In =>90% of instances when officers are transferred to a new section or unit, Deputy Chiefs, managers and supervisors for the relevant section or unit have promptly reviewed the RMS records of such officers.

Sub-Para

k

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Linked Para

SC Date

Sub-Para Compliance Requirements

The Police Commissioner's Office, with IAB assistance, has convened, at least quarterly, a meeting of senior managers to review all RMS data to evaluate officer performance territory-wide and make appropriate comparisons of officers, supervisors, units, and mangers to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents.

Partial or NISC

4

070

NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE

End of Paragraph

064

Sub-Para

a

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Linked Para

SC Date

12/18/2013

Sub-Para Compliance Requirements

The VIPD has developed a disciplinary matrix to take into account an officer's violations of different rules, rather than just repeated violations of the same rule.

Sub-Para

e

Status Not in Substantial Compliance

Linked Para

SC Date

Date Run 09/16/2018 niscpara_chkA e:\cd_paraap\para_pitem.set

Compliance monitoring location of NISC Sub-Paragraphs updated 09/08/18 as a result of movement of Paragraph 100
sub-paragraphs back to their original parent paragraphs.

Page 2 of 3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-2 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 3 of 3

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs in Partial Complaince or Not in Substantial Compliance
Status as of Date of Printing

Print Date: Print Time:

09/16/2018 21:13

Sub-Para Compliance Requirements Disciplinary penalty decisions are consistent with the penalties set forth in the Disciplinary Matrix.
Partial or NISC End of Paragraph

2 070

End of Report
Date Run 09/16/2018 niscpara_chkA e:\cd_paraap\para_pitem.set

Total Nbr Sub-Paragraphs NISC/Partial 12 Total Nbr Paragraphs NISC 7

Compliance monitoring location of NISC Sub-Paragraphs updated 09/08/18 as a result of movement of Paragraph 100
sub-paragraphs back to their original parent paragraphs.

Page 3 of 3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-3 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-3 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 2 of 2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-4 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 28
VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT
RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE REPORT INVOLVED OFFICER FORM

DR Number

Arrest Number

RRR Number

SUPERVISOR NOTIFIED:

SUPERVISOR ON SCENE:

DATE:

TIME:

SUPERVISOR NOTIFIED BY:

PDN

DATE

TIME

PART 1 – (List additional Subjects in Narrative Section)

INCIDENT DATE

DAY

TIME LOCATION

ZONE

# 1SUBJECT’S NAME ADDRESS

SEX RACE

DOB

WEIGHT LBS.

HEIGHT
’ ”

US CITIZEN

PERMANENT RESIDENT OTHER CONTACT NUMBER

CHARGES (IF NO CHARGES STATE THE REASON AND GIVE DETAILS IN NARRATIVE)

ARREST NUMBER

AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT, THE SUBJECT WAS:
Under the influence of alcohol or drugs Suspected to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs

Mentally impaired/ emotionally disturbed Other:

PART 2 – REASON FOR FORCE, RESISTANCE OF SUBJECT AND RESPONSE BY OFFICER (Check all that applies)

REASON USE OF FORCE WAS NECESSARY:
To effect an arrest To defend another officer / person

To defend self Protective custody / subject safety

Prevent escape Other:

OFFICER’S PERCEPTION OF INDIVIDUAL’S ACTIONS: (Use narrative Section to describe perceived threat(s) posed by individual)

PASSIVE RESISTANCE (Dead weight or non‐compliance to officer’s lawful verbal direction, but offering no actively resistive movement)
ACTIVE RESISTANCE (Actions such as pushing, pulling, evasive arm movement, flailing, flight, muscle tension, etc. to avoid control. Does not include attempts to harm the officer)

ASSAULTIVE / HIGH-RISK (Agitated, combative state, physically assaultive actions and /or behavior that poses threat of injury to another (e.g., punching, kicking, clenching of fists, etc.)
LIFE THREATENING / SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY (Actions that may result in death or serious physical injury)

OFFICER’S RESPONSE OPTION(S): (Describe details in Narrative Section)

PRESENCE:

FULL UNIFORM

PARTIAL UNIFORM

PLAINCLOTHES

OFF-DUTY

NOTE: Officers not in full uniform describe means of visual police identification (e.g., raid vest or jacket, displayed badge/ID, etc.) in Narrative Section.

VERBAL COMMANDS (Describe details in Narrative Section)

COMPLIANCE TECHNIQUES (Describe details in Narrative Section) (Force used to gain control - restraint, come-along, takedowns – use of hands, arms, feet, legs)

CHEMICAL SPRAY / CHEMICAL AGENT / PEPPERBALL (Describe details in Narrative Section):

Number of Bursts / Pepper Ball Rounds:

Duration of Bursts:

Impact Location:

Distance from Subject:

Time between application / decontamination:

IMPACT WEAPON / TEMP. INCAPACITATION (Describe details in Narrative Section)

ELECTRONIC CONTROL WEAPON (Describe details in Narrative Section)

Drive Stun

Number of Cycles:

Probe Deployment

Impact Location:

CANINE BITE (Describe details in Narrative Section) POINT A FIREARM (Describe details In Narrative Section) LETHAL FORCE – Firearm or other (Describe details in Narrative Section)

Taser Unit #:
Serial #: Cartridge Serial #:

OTHER:

RESTRAINT METHOD USED:

HAND OR FLEX CUFFS LEG RESTRAINTS

NONE

OTHER:

CD-IORRR.V1-2014

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-4 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 2 of 28

PART 3 – INJURIES, TREATMENT AND ON-SCENE PERSONNEL (Provide further details in Narrative Section)

WAS SUBJECT INJURED?

YES

NO

DESCRIBE INJURIES:

SUBJECT MEDICAL TREATMENT PROVIDED BY:

WAS REPORTING OFFICER INJURED?

YES

NO

DESCRIBE INJURIES:

OFFICER MEDICAL TREATMENT PROVIDED BY:

# SUBJECTS THAT RESISTED:

# OFFICERS PRESENT:

PHOTOS TAKEN BY:

FORENSIC OFFICER/TECH ON SCENE:

LIST ALL OFFICERS INVOLVED IN THE USE OF FORCE (LIST ADDITIONAL OFFICERS IN NARRATIVE SECTION)

INVOLVED OFFICER NAME

PDN

INVOLVED OFFICER NAME

PDN

LIST ALL WITNESSES TO THE USE OF FORCE. LIST OFFICER AND PEACE OFFICER WITNESSES BEFORE CITIZEN WITNESSES. IF THERE ARE NO KNOWN WITNESSES,
SPECIFY “NO KNOWN WITNESSES” UNDER “WITNESS NAME.” (LIST ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN NARRATIVE SECTION)

WITNESS NAME INCLUDE RANK & PDN, IF APPROPRIATE

ADDRESS OR AGENCY AFFILIATION

CONTACT NUMBER

PART 4 – OFFICER NARRATIVE LIST ADDITIONAL SUBJECTS:
# 2SUBJECT’S NAME
ADDRESS

SEX RACE

DOB

WEIGHT LBS.

HEIGHT
’ ”

US CITIZEN

PERMANENT RESIDENT OTHER CONTACT NUMBER

CHARGES (IF NO CHARGES STATE THE REASON AND GIVE DETAILS IN NARRATIVE)

ARREST NUMBER

AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT, THE SUBJECT WAS:
Under the influence of alcohol or drugs Suspected to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs

Mentally impaired/ emotionally disturbed Other:

# 3SUBJECT’S NAME ADDRESS

SEX RACE

DOB

WEIGHT LBS.

HEIGHT
’ ”

US CITIZEN

PERMANENT RESIDENT OTHER CONTACT NUMBER

CHARGES (IF NO CHARGES STATE THE REASON AND GIVE DETAILS IN NARRATIVE)

ARREST NUMBER

AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT, THE SUBJECT WAS:
Under the influence of alcohol or drugs Suspected to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs

Mentally impaired/ emotionally disturbed Other:

GO TO PAGE 5 FOR NARRATIVE INPUT

Reporting Officer

PDN

Date of Report Supervisor

Commander

CD-IORRR.V1-2014

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM DToypceumofeFnotrc#e: U35se4d-4 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 3 of 28
Officer’s Response to Resistance Use the diagrams below and mark with an “X” and the type of force used.
Indicate where on the body the force was used. (e.g., X---OC spray) Double-click on body and enter an “X” to indicate location. If more than one subject, use CNTRL+ENTER to duplicate this page.

Reporting Officer & PDN
CD-IORRR.V1-2014

Date of Report

Supervisor

Page 3 of 5

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM IDNoJUcuRmY eTnOtO#F:F3I5C4E-R4 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 4 of 28
Indicate where on the body the injury occurred. (e.g., X---Laceration) Double-click on body and enter an “X” to indicate location. If more than one officer was injured, use CNTRL+ENTER to duplicate this page.

Reporting Officer & PDN
CD-IORRR.V1-2014

Date of Report

Supervisor

Page 4 of 5

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-4

Date of Incident

DR No./RRR No.
/

Filed: 09/18/18 Page 5 of 28
RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE
NARRATIVE REPORT

Reporting Officer & PDN

#1 Subject’s Name

Part 6 - Narrative – Give a detailed report of the interaction between the involved officer(s) and the subject(s). Follow the instructions for each section. There is no need for a continuation sheet the form will expand to accommodate your report.
LIST ANY ADDITIONAL SUBJECTS, WITNESSES OR OFFICERS:

STATE THE REASON FOR YOUR PRESENCE AND/OR CONTACT WITH THE SUBJECT:
This will include whether you were dispatched by 911 or whether you came upon suspicious activity that required further investigation, etc.

STATE ANY ATTEMPTS (WHERE FEASIBLE) TO DE-ESCALATE THE SITUATION:
This will include calling for additional units, trying to talk to the subject, tactical withdrawal pending additional personnel or specialized personnel (Trained Negotiator) etc. If you were not able to attempt de-escalation describe the situation you encountered.

DESCRIBE THE ACTIONS OF THE SUBJECT AND HOW YOU RESPONDED TO THOSE ACTIONS:
State the type of aggression/non-compliant behavior displayed by the subject and exactly how you were able to achieve compliance. DO NOT use generic terms or vague language such as “I took the subject to the ground”.

DESCRIBE ANY INJURIES TO SUBJECT, CITIZEN OR OFFICERS:
Detail the injuries or complaint of injury to the subject, citizen and/or officers and what actions were taken to alleviate the injured persons condition (if feasible). For the purposes of this section, the location of OC Spray application is considered an “injury”. If there were no injuries from the force options you utilized state “NO INJURY FROM FORCE OPTIONS”. However, if the subject is exhibiting injury not related to the force include the information of injury type and cause in this section..

THIS RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE REPORT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING PERSONNEL:

SUPERVISOR NAME & PDN

SUPERVISOR’S SIGNATURE

COMMAND LEVEL REVIEW NAME & PDN

COMMAND LEVEL SIGNATURE

ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL REVIEW NAME &PDN

ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL REVIEW SIGNATURE

Reporting Officer & PDN
CD-IORRR.V1-2014

Date of Report

Supervisor

Page 5 of 5

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-4 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 6 of 28
VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT
RESPONDING SUPERVISOR’S REPORT

DR Number

Arrest Number

RRR Number

THIS DOCUMENT IS TO BE UTILIZED BY THE RESPONDING SUPERVISOR WHO IS NOT ASSIGNED AS THE INVESTIGATOR OF THE FORCE EVENT. THE RESPONDING SUPERVISOR SHALL COMPLETE THE REPORT AND SUBMIT TO THE ASSIGNED SUPERVISOR WITHIN 24 HOURS.

PART 1 – (List additional Subjects in the Investigation Narrative)

Incident Date

Day

Time

Location

Zone

#1 Subject’s Name

Sex Race

DOB

Address

Contact Number

#2 Subject’s Name

Sex Race

DOB

Address

Contact Number

#3 Subject’s Name

Sex Race

DOB

Address

Contact Number

#4 Subject’s Name

Sex Race

DOB

Address

Contact Number

PART 2 - List all officers involved who applied force and indicate the Subject and the Force Type(s) used. (List additional officers in the Investigation Narrative)

Involved Officer Name #1

PDN

Force Type

Subject # Force Used on

Zone/Bureau/Unit Assigned

Duty Status

On

Off

#2

#3

#4

PART 3 - LIST ALL WITNESSES TO THE USE OF FORCE. (LIST ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN NARRATIVE SECTION) LIST OFFICER /PEACE OFFICER WITNESSES BEFORE
CITIZEN WITNESSES. IF THERE ARE NO KNOWN WITNESSES, SPECIFY “NO KNOWN WITNESSES” UNDER “WITNESS NAME.”

Witness Name Include Rank & PDN, if appropriate
#1

Address or Agency Affiliation

Contact Number

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

RESPONDING SUPERVISOR
VIPD-RSR-82317

PDN

DATE OF REPORT

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-4 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 7 of 28

RESPONDING SUPERVISOR

Date of Incident

RRR#

REPORT

# 1 Officer Name

PDN

#1 Subject’s Name

PART 4 - NARRATIVE LIST ANY ADDITIONAL SUBJECTS, WITNESSES OR INVOLVED OFFICERS:

SUMMARY OF ON-SCENE CONDITIONS & ACTIONS:
Give a description of the scene and your actions while on-scene, including contact with the subject(s) this will include asking whether the subject was injured or feeling pain and whether the subject(s) was offered medical treatment.

RESPONDING SUPERVISOR
VIPD-RSR-82317

PDN

DATE OF REPORT

Page 2 of 2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-4 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 8 of 28
VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT
RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE REPORT OFFICER WITNESS FORM

DR Number

Arrest Number

RRR Number

SUPERVISOR NOTIFIED:

SUPERVISOR ON SCENE:

DATE

TIME SUPERVISOR NOTIFIED BY:

PDN

DATE

TIME

PART 1 – (List additional Subjects in Narrative Section)

INCIDENT DATE

DAY

TIME LOCATION

ZONE

# 1SUBJECT’S NAME ADDRESS

SEX RACE

DOB

WEIGHT LBS.

HEIGHT
’ ”

US CITIZEN

PERMANENT RESIDENT OTHER CONTACT NUMBER

AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT, THE SUBJECT WAS:
Under the influence of alcohol or drugs Suspected to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs

Mentally impaired/ emotionally disturbed Other:

LIST ALL INVOLVED OFFICERS & WITNESSES TO THE USE OF FORCE. (List additional names in Narrative Section) List Officer and Peace Officer personnel
before Citizen Witnesses. If there are no other known witnesses, specify “NO KNOWN WITNESS” in “Name Section.”

Involved Officers and/or additional Witness Name Include Rank & PDN, if appropriate

Address or Agency Affiliation

Contact Number

Involved Ofc.

Involved Ofc.

Involved Ofc.

Involved Ofc.

Involved Ofc.

Involved Ofc.

Involved Ofc.

PART 2 – OFFICER NARRATIVE SECTION LIST ADDITIONAL SUBJECTS:
# 2SUBJECT’S NAME
ADDRESS

Involved Ofc.

SEX RACE

DOB

WEIGHT LBS.

HEIGHT
’ ”

US CITIZEN

PERMANENT RESIDENT OTHER CONTACT NUMBER

AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT, THE SUBJECT WAS:
Under the influence of alcohol or drugs Suspected to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs

Mentally impaired/ emotionally disturbed Other:

# 3SUBJECT’S NAME ADDRESS

SEX RACE

DOB

WEIGHT LBS.

HEIGHT
’ ”

US CITIZEN

PERMANENT RESIDENT OTHER CONTACT NUMBER

AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT, THE SUBJECT WAS:
Under the influence of alcohol or drugs Suspected to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs

Reporting Officer

PDN

Date of Report Supervisor

Mentally impaired/ emotionally disturbed Other:
Commander

CD-WRRR.V1-2014

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-4

Date of Incident

DR No./RRR No.
/

Filed: 09/18/18 Page 9 of 28
RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE WITNESS NARRATIVE REPORT

Reporting Officer

PDN

#1 Subject’s Name

Part 3 - Narrative - Give a detailed report of the interaction between the involved officer(s) and the subject(s). Follow the instructions for each section. There is no need for a continuation sheet the form will expand to accommodate your report.
LIST ANY ADDITIONAL SUBJECTS, WITNESSES OR OFFICERS:

STATE THE REASON FOR YOUR PRESENCE AND/OR CONTACT WITH THE SUBJECT:
This will include whether you were dispatched by 911 or whether you came upon suspicious activity that required further investigation, etc.

STATE ANY ATTEMPTS (WHERE FEASIBLE) TO DE-ESCALATE THE SITUATION:
This will include calling for additional units, trying to talk to the subject, tactical withdrawal pending additional personnel or specialized personnel (Trained Negotiator) etc. If you were not able to attempt de-escalation describe the situation you encountered.

DESCRIBE THE ACTIONS OF THE SUBJECT AND HOW THE INVOLVED OFFICER(S) RESPONDED TO THOSE ACTIONS:
State the type of aggression/non-compliant behavior displayed by the subject and exactly how the involved officer(s) were able to achieve compliance. DO NOT use generic terms or vague language such as “took the subject to the ground”.

DESCRIBE ANY INJURIES TO SUBJECT, CITIZEN OR OFFICERS:
Detail the injuries to the subject, citizen and/or officers and what actions were taken to alleviate the injured persons condition (if feasible). For the purposes of this section, the location of OC Spray application is considered an “injury”

THIS RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE WITNESS REPORT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING PERSONNEL:

SUPERVISOR NAME & PDN

SUPERVISOR’S SIGNATURE

COMMAND LEVEL REVIEW NAME & PDN

COMMAND LEVEL SIGNATURE

ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL REVIEW NAME &PDN

ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL REVIEW SIGNATURE

Reporting Officer
CD-WRRR.V1-2014

PDN

Date of Report

Supervisor

Page 2 of 2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-4 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 10 of 28
VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT
RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE INVESTIGASTION REORT

DR Number

Arrest Number

RRR Number

FORCE LEVELS Indicate the highest force level used

Check One

Level 1 Force Level 2 Force

Level 3 Force Level 4 Force

ALL LEVEL 2, 3 AND 4 INVESTIGATIONS MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW WITHIN 5 DAYS OF THE INITIAL INCIDENT UNLESS AN EXTENSION IS REQUESTED

INVESTIGATING SUPERVISOR ON SCENE:

DATE

TIME COMMANDER NOTIFIED BY:

DATE

TIME

PART 1 – (List additional Subjects in the Investigation Narrative)

Incident Date

Day

Time

Location

#1 Subject’s Name

Sex Race

DOB

#2 Subject’s Name

Sex Race

DOB

#3 Subject’s Name

Sex Race

DOB

#4 Subject’s Name

Sex Race

DOB

Address Address Address Address

Zone Contact Number Contact Number Contact Number Contact Number

PART 2 - List all officers involved who applied force and indicate the Subject and the Force Type(s) used. (List additional officers in the Investigation Narrative)

Involved Officer Name #1

PDN

Force Type

Subject # Force Used
on

Zone/Bureau/Unit Assigned

Duty Status

On

Off

#2 #3 #4 #5 #6

PART 3 - LIST ALL WITNESSES TO THE USE OF FORCE. (LIST ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN NARRATIVE SECTION) LIST OFFICER /PEACE OFFICER WITNESSES BEFORE
CITIZEN WITNESSES. IF THERE ARE NO KNOWN WITNESSES, SPECIFY “NO KNOWN WITNESSES” UNDER “WITNESS NAME.”

Witness Name Include Rank & PDN, if appropriate
#1

Address or Agency Affiliation

Contact Number

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

ARE THERE INJURIES? YES

NO (DESCRIBE INJURIES IN NARRATIVE)

IF YES, WHO WERE THE INJURED PARTIES:

OFFICER

CITIZEN

SUBJECT

INVESTIGATING SUPERVISOR

PDN

DATE OF REPORT SUPERVISOR NOTIFIED

COMMANDER NOTIFIED

CD-SIRRR.VI-2014

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-4 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 11 of 28

PART 4 – LIST ALL EVIDENCE – THIS INCLUDES: STATEMENTS, VIDEO AND PHOTOGRAPHS (DIGITAL AND FILM), TASER DOWNLOADS; BALLISTIC OR CRIME SCENE
ANALYSES, INCLUDING GUNSHOT RESIDUE OR BULLET TRAJECTORY TESTS, CRIME SCENE DIAGRAMS, MEDICAL RELEASE FORMS, HOSPITAL TREATMENT RECORDS, ETC.
FOR ADDITIONAL SPACE, USE THE “TAB” KEY TO EXPAND THE TABLE.

UOF 1

1A Report #

INVESTIGATING SUPERVISOR
CD-SIRRR.VI-2014

PDN

DATE OF REPORT

Page 2 of 8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-4 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 12 of 28

RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE

Date of Incident

RRR#

INVESTIGATION REPORT

# 1 Officer Name

PDN

#1 Subject’s Name

PART 5 - NARRATIVE - TO INCLUDE AN ANALYSIS OF THE INVESTIGATION. A. LIST ANY ADDITIONAL SUBJECTS, WITNESSES OR INVOLVED OFFICERS:

B. LIST ALL OTHER ON SCENE PERSONNEL AND ASSIGNED DUTIES:

C. ON-SCENE ACTIONS:
In this section document your actions at the scene; 1. Your observation of the subject(s) and officer(s), briefly report on any injuries you noted, document whether you asked if subject was feeling any pain. Clearly state the reason why if you did not speak to the subject(s). 2. Was a Public Safety statement obtained from the involved officer(s) and given to the Emergency Call Center, 3. Were additional resources requested to come to the scene, 4. Were witnesses/involved officers separated, 5. Were subject(s) secured and transported off scene. Document the transporting personnel, VIPD /EMS and the destinations.
IF YOU DID NOT TRAVEL TO THE SCENE THEN YOU MUST CLEARLY DETAIL THE REASON. FAILURES IN THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS MUST BE ADDRESSED WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT.
D. DESCRIBE THE SCENE AND THE EVENTS PRECEDING THE USE OF FORCE:
Give a description of the scene where the force occurred and discuss any environmental factors the officer(s) encountered when attempting to gain compliance from the subject(s). Clearly document the officer(s) actions before the force was used:
1. What was the reason for the officer(s) presence at the location, 2. Why did the officer(s) make contact with the subject, 3. What attempts were made by the officer(s) at de-escalating the incident, 4. Was the de-escalation attempt reasonable given the totality of the circumstances? 5. If de-escalation was not feasible state the reasons why it could not be attempted.
E. SUMMARY OF STATEMENTS:
Give a brief synopsis of the statements taken for this investigation. Levels 1, 2 and 3 require an audio or video statement taken of all Involved officers, witnesses and subjects. If there is an issue with obtaining any statement from either citizen/outside agency witness or subject document all attempts to interview. Involved and witness VIPD sworn personnel must give statements and complete the RRR.
INVOLVED OFFICERS:
Begin each statement summary with the Officer’s Name in Bold Uppercase Letters followed by a colon. Example: OFFICER JOHN DOE:
WITNESS OFFICERS: IF THERE ARE NO WITNESSES STATE THAT FACT IN THE SPACE PROVIDED
Begin each statement summary with the Officer’s Name in Bold Uppercase Letters followed by a colon. Example: OFFICER JOHN DOE:
CITIZEN OR OUTSIDE AGENCY WITNESS: IF THERE ARE NO WITNESSES STATE THAT FACT IN THE SPACE PROVIDED
Begin each statement summary with the Witness’ Name in Bold Uppercase Letters followed by a colon. Example: RICHARD ROE:

INVESTIGATING SUPERVISOR
CD-SIRRR.VI-2014

PDN DATE OF REPORT

Page 3 of 8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-4 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 13 of 28

RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE

Date of Incident

RRR#

INVESTIGATION REPORT

# 1 Officer Name

PDN

#1 Subject’s Name

PART 5 – NARRATIVE CONTINUED
SUBJECT:
Begin each statement summary with the Subject’s Name in Bold Uppercase Letters followed by a colon. Example: LARRY LOE:

F. INJURIES AND TREATMENT: IF THERE ARE NO INJURIES STATE THAT FACT IN THE SPACE PROVIDED
Describe any injuries to the subject and whether the injuries occurred as a direct result of the use of force. Example: SUBJECT SUSTAINED A LACERATION TO HIS LEFT KNEE AS A RESULT OF THE LEG SWEEP USED BY OFC. JOHN DOE AS A TAKE DOWN IN ORDER TO GAIN CONTROL AND PLACE THE SUBJECT IN HANDCUFFS.
1. Did you ensure that the subject received medical attention if necessary? 2. Was medical care provided and what type of care was it? Was there on-scene care prior to transport to a medical facility? 3. Did the subject refuse medical treatment?
Describe any injuries to the Officers and subsequent treatment.
Describe any injuries to the citizen/outside agency witness and subsequent treatment.

G. DOCUMENTATION OF INJURIES AND TREATMENT: IF THERE ARE NO INJURIES STATE THAT FACT IN THE SPACE PROVIDED
1. Did you ensure that photographs or videos were taken of all injuries? If not, clearly document the reason none were taken. 2. Were the photographs/video obtained at the earliest practicable opportunity, both before and after any treatment, including cleansing of
wounds? If not, state the reason.
3. Was a medical record of the treatment obtained? Did the subject refuse this information to be shared?

H. EVIDENCE REVIEW FOR MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES: IF THERE ARE NO MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES STATE THAT FACT IN THE SPACE
PROVIDED Review the evidence for issues that may need clarification.
1. Consider all relevant evidence (circumstantial, direct and physical evidence) and make credibility determinations, if feasible. 2. Make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. Examples: Are there differences in the statements that need to be addressed? (material inconsistencies) Are there relationship issues between the parties that may be an issue, etc.? Do the photographs/diagrams or statements depict discrepancies that need to be explained or evaluated differently?

I. ANALYSIS OF FORCE:
1. Did the officer(s) have a legitimate law enforcement purpose for the detention/arrest of the subject? Was the detention/arrest lawful? 2. Evaluate each type of force that was used by each involved officer. If an officer had to resort to several different force options discuss
why this occurred. (Subject sweating and the first hold slipped, etc.) 3. Evaluate whether the type and amount of force used was objectively reasonable and used proportional to the resistance encountered. 4. Was the force appropriately de-escalated once compliance had been achieved? 5. Did the officer(s) act in accordance with Department Force Policies? 6. If any involved officer was Off-duty did the officer act in accordance with the “Off-Duty Official Action Policy”?

J. ASSESSMENT OF RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES:
Discuss any issues which came to your attention as a result of the investigation which may require a more comprehensive response by the Department, this includes issues with training, equipment, tactics or policy that should be reviewed by the Force Review Board. If there are no Risk Management issues, state this in the space provided.

INVESTIGATING SUPERVISOR
CD-SIRRR.VI-2014

PDN DATE OF REPORT

Page 4 of 8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-4 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 14 of 28

RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE

Date of Incident

RRR#

INVESTIGATION REPORT

# 1 Officer Name

PDN

#1 Subject’s Name

PART 5 – NARRATIVE CONTINUED
K. CORRECTIVE MEASURES:
Detail any corrective measures you recommend or have instituted as a result of your investigation. If you found corrective measures are not required, state this in the space provided.

L. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Use this section to add any additional information you feel may be pertinent to this investigation.

INVESTIGATING SUPERVISOR
CD-SIRRR.VI-2014

PDN DATE OF REPORT

Page 5 of 8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-4 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 15 of 28

RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE

Date of Incident

RRR#

INVESTIGATION REPORT

# 1 Officer Name

PDN

#1 Subject’s Name

PART 6 – Final ASSESSMENT AND FINDINGS
ASSESSMENT ISSUES: CONDUCT A THOROUGH REVIEW OF ALL DOCUMENTS, INTERVIEWS, AND EVIDENCE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE INVESTIGATION REPORT PACKET TO ENSURE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, AND QUALITY AND ASSESS THE FOLLOWING:
ANY “NO” OR “N/A” RESPONSE REQUIRES AN EXPLANATION IN THE NARRATIVE SECTION.

1.

YES NO

WAS THE ORIGINAL DETENTION OR SUBSEQUENT ARREST LAWFUL?

2.

YES NO

WAS THE TYPE AND AMOUNT OF FORCE OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE AND USED PROPORTIONAL TO THE RESISTANCE
ENCOUNTERED?

3.

YES NO

WAS THE TYPE AND AMOUNT OF FORCE RELATED TO A LEGITIMATE LAW-ENFORCEMENT OBJECTIVE THE OFFICER(S) WAS/WERE ATTEMPTING TO ACHIEVE?

4.

YES NO

WAS THE FORCE REASONABLY DE-ESCALATED?

5.

YES NO

WAS REASONABLE VERBAL PERSUASION USED TO ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THE SITUATION WITHOUT FORCE? N/A

_______________________________________________________________________
THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION IS BASED ON THE FACTS REVEALED BY THE USE OF FORCE INVESTIGATION.

JUSTIFIED, WITHIN DEPARTMENT POLICY JUSTIFIED, POLICY VIOLATION

This disposition reflects a finding in which a reportable use of force is determined to be justified, and during the course of the incident the involved officer(s) did not violate a VIPD Use of Force Policy.
This disposition reflects a finding in which a use of force is determined to be justified, but during the course of the incident the involved officer(s) violated a VIPD Use of Force Policy.

RECOMMEND REMEDIAL TRAINING: REQUIRES AN EXPLANATION IN THE NARRATIVE SECTION. RECOMMEND COUNSELLING: REQUIRES AN EXPLANATION IN THE NARRATIVE SECTION

JUSTIFIED, TRAINING REQUIRED

This disposition reflects a finding in which a reportable use of force is determined to be justified; during the course of the incident; no VIPD Use of Force Policy violations occurred; but the investigation revealed tactical error(s) that could be addressed through non-disciplinary and tactical improvement training.

RECOMMEND POLICY/TRAINING AND/OR EQUIPMENT DEFICIENCY REVIEW: REQUIRES AN EXPLANATION IN THE NARRATIVE SECTION RECOMMEND SUPPLEMENTAL TRAINING: REQUIRES AN EXPLANATION IN THE NARRATIVE SECTION

NOT JUSTIFIED, NOT WITHIN DEPARTMENT POLICY

This disposition reflects a finding in which a use of force is determined to be not justified, and during the course of the incident the involved officer(s) violated VIPD Use of Force Policy.
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

POSSIBLE POLICY VIOLATION: REFERRED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION
RECOMMEND THIS INCIDENT FOR REVIEW BY THE FORCE REVIEW BOARD

This recommendation reflects a finding in which the involved officer(s) violated a VIPD Policy separate from the Use of Force.
This recommendation must be clearly explained in the narrative section when the force does not meet the level which would cause an automatic review by the Force Review Board.

THIS RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE INVESTIGATION REPORT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING PERSONNEL:

COMMAND LEVEL REVIEW NAME:

COMMAND LEVEL SIGNATURE:

ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL REVIEW NAME:

ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL REVIEW SIGNATURE:

INVESTIGATING SUPERVISOR
CD-SIRRR.VI-2014

PDN DATE OF REPORT

Page 6 of 8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-4 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 16 of 28

Date of Incident

RRR#

RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE INVESTIGATION REPORT CHECKLIST

# 1 Officer Name

PDN

#1 Subject’s Name

Part 1 - INVESTIGATIVE STEPS REQUIRED FOR AN ON-SCENE SUPERVISOR/COMMANDER/INVESTIGATOR

1.

Yes No Responded to the use of force incident scene.

9.

Yes

No

Citizen witness statements taken.

Not Required No Witness

2.

Yes No Determined the appropriate force reporting level.

10.

Yes No Carotid restraint applied.

Does this incident involve a Level 1 Use of Force?

3.

Yes No

If yes, was subject transported to a Yes No medical facility for medical
evaluation.

If YES was IAB notified?

Yes No

11.

Yes No Medical service requested.

Not Needed

4.

Yes No Identified involved and witness personnel.

12.

Yes No Evidence collected.

None

5.

Yes

No

Separated and interviewed involved and witness personnel.

13.

Yes No Technician on scene.

Not Available Not Needed

6.

Yes

No

Interviewed the subject(s) upon whom the force was used.

14.

Yes No Photos taken?

Digital Film

7.

Yes

No

Ensured a reasonable canvas was conducted for witnesses?

15.

Yes

No

Emergency Call Center contacted to ensure the incident is recorded?

8.

Yes

No

Available Citizen witnesses were identified and interviewed.

No Known Witnesses

Part 2 - REPORT DOCUMENTATION

Yes No Required Offense and Supplemental Reports reviewed for completeness, accuracy, and quality.

OFFENSE/SUPPLEMENTAL OR USE OF FORCE REPORT SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING DETAILS

1.

Yes No Summary of the incident.

5.

Yes No Summary of evidence collected.

2.

Yes No Summary of statements.

6.

Yes No Detail injuries and/or medical treatment.

N/A

3.

Yes No Summary of interviews.

7.

Yes No Original reason for police presence.

4.

Yes No Description of the use of force. 8.
If OC is used, document the number and duration

Yes

No

Circumstances or precipitating acts that lead to the use of force.

of bursts, and approximate distance from the subject.

9.

Yes

No

Arrest properly documented on arrest report and in Offense Report.

USE OF FORCE REPORT DOCUMENTATION SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING DETAILS

1. 2.

Yes No Analysis of evidence. 3.
Yes No Review to ensure no “boilerplate” or “pat” language.

Yes

No

Documented discrepancies and if resolved/unresolved.

N/A

Part 3 - REQUIRED FOR THE UOF REPORT PACKET – The preparer and reviewers shall ensure the UOF Report packet is complete.

1.

Yes No Original UOF Report

2.

Yes No Copy of required Offense/Supplemental reports

3.

Yes No Statements

4.

Yes No Copy of Arrest Report

6.

Yes No Emergency Call Center Records

Other documents pertinent to the

10.

Yes No investigation.

Describe in Comment Section.

11.

Yes No Photos

Digital – Include file(s) or photo CD in packet
Film – Requested to develop to CD

12.

Yes No Technician Report Included.

7.

Yes No Taser download information.

N/A

9.

Yes No Medical Report

N/A

Part 4 – TRACKING – Report preparer shall forward only the RRR Form to the following:

Chief/Deputy Chief: FAX 778-1370 (STX) 715-5538 (STT)

IAB: FAX 778-0470 (STX) 715-5538 (STT)

Training: FAX 719-6714 (STX) 715-5538 (STT)

CHECKLIST PART 5 COMMENT SECTION: Press Enter Key

INVESTIGATING SUPERVISOR
CD-SIRRR.VI-2014

PDN DATE OF REPORT

Page 7 of 8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM

Involved Officer

PDN

Document #: 354-4

Filed: 09/18/18 Page 17 of 28
INVESTIGATION REPORT CHECKLIST
CONTINUATION

CHEKCLIST PART 5 COMMENT SECTION - CONTINUED

INVESTIGATING SUPERVISOR
CD-SIRRR.VI-2014

PDN DATE OF REPORT

Page 8 of 8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-4 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 18 of 28
VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT
SUPERVISOR SUMMARY INVESTIGATION REPORT

DR Number

Arrest Number

RRR Number

PART 1 – (List additional Subjects in the Investigation Narrative)

Incident Date

Day

Time

Location

#1 Subject’s Name

Sex Race

DOB

#2 Subject’s Name

Sex Race

DOB

#3 Subject’s Name

Sex Race

DOB

#4 Subject’s Name

Sex Race

DOB

Address Address Address Address

Zone Contact Number Contact Number Contact Number Contact Number

PART 2 - List all officers involved who applied force and indicate the Subject and the Force Type(s) used. (List additional officers in the Investigation Narrative)

Involved Officer Name #1

PDN

Force Type

Subject # Force Used on

Zone/Bureau/Unit Assigned

Duty Status

On

Off

#2

#3

#4

PART 3 - LIST ALL WITNESSES TO THE USE OF FORCE. (LIST ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN NARRATIVE SECTION) LIST OFFICER /PEACE OFFICER WITNESSES BEFORE
CITIZEN WITNESSES. IF THERE ARE NO KNOWN WITNESSES, SPECIFY “NO KNOWN WITNESSES” UNDER “WITNESS NAME.”

Witness Name Include Rank & PDN, if appropriate
#1

Address or Agency Affiliation

Contact Number

#2

#3

#4

PART 4 – LIST ALL DOCUMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT:

1 1A Report #

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

INVESTIGATING SUPERVISOR
VIPD-RRR-6117

PDN

DATE OF REPORT

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-4 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 19 of 28

SUPERVISOR SUMMARY

Date of Incident

RRR#

INVESTIGATION REPORT

# 1 Officer Name

PDN

#1 Subject’s Name

PART 5 - NARRATIVE - TO INCLUDE AN ANALYSIS OF THE INVESTIGATION. LIST ANY ADDITIONAL SUBJECTS, WITNESSES OR INVOLVED OFFICERS:

SUMMARY OF INCIDENT:
Give a brief synopsis of the incident, including why the officers made contact with the subject and what events preceded the force.
EVIDENCE REVIEW FOR MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES: IF THERE ARE NO MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES STATE THAT FACT IN THE SPACE
PROVIDED Review the evidence for issues that may need clarification.
1. Consider all relevant evidence (circumstantial, direct and physical evidence) and make credibility determinations, if feasible. 2. Make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. Examples: Are there differences in the statements that need to be addressed? (material inconsistencies) Are there relationship issues between the parties that may be an issue, etc.? Do the photographs/diagrams or statements depict discrepancies that need to be explained or evaluated differently?
ANALYSIS OF FORCE:
1. Did the officer(s) have a legitimate law enforcement purpose for the detention/arrest of the subject? Was the detention/arrest lawful? 2. Evaluate each type of force that was used by each involved officer. If an officer had to resort to several different force options discuss
why this occurred. (Subject sweating and the first hold slipped, etc.) 3. Evaluate whether the type and amount of force used was objectively reasonable and used proportional to the resistance encountered. 4. Was the force appropriately de-escalated once compliance had been achieved? 5. Did the officer(s) act in accordance with Department Force Policies? 6. If any involved officer was Off-duty did the officer act in accordance with the “Off-Duty Official Action Policy”?
CORRECTIVE MEASURES:
Detail any corrective measures you recommend or have instituted as a result of your investigation. If you found corrective measures are not required, state this in the space provided.

INVESTIGATING SUPERVISOR
VIPD-RRR-6117

PDN

DATE OF REPORT

Page 2 of 4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-4 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 20 of 28

SUPERVISOR SUMMARY

Date of Incident

RRR#

INVESTIGATION REPORT

# 1 Officer Name

PDN

#1 Subject’s Name

PART 6 – Final ASSESSMENT AND FINDINGS
INVOLVED OFFICER NAME

FINDING CODE

SUB‐CODE
(IF APPLICABLE)

FINDING
JUSTIFIED, WITHIN DEPARTMENT POLICY JUSTIFIED, POLICY VIOLATION RECOMMEND REMEDIAL TRAINING. RECOMMEND COUNSELLING RECOMMEND DISCIPLINARY ACTION JUSTIFIED, TRAINING REQUIRED RECOMMEND POLICY/TRAINING / EQUIPMENT
DEFICIENCY REVIEW
RECOMMEND SUPPLEMENTAL TRAINING NOT JUSTIFIED, NOT WITHIN DEPARTMENT POLICY

CODE JWP JPV
JTR
NJ

SUB‐‐ CODE
RRT RC RDA
PTER RST

THIS RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE INVESTIGATION REPORT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING PERSONNEL:

COMMAND LEVEL REVIEW NAME:

COMMAND LEVEL SIGNATURE:

INVESTIGATING SUPERVISOR
VIPD-RRR-6117

PDN

DATE OF REPORT

Page 3 of 4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-4 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 21 of 28

Date of Incident

RRR#

SUPERVISOR SUMMARY INVESTIGATION REPORT
CHECKLIST

# 1 Officer Name

PDN

#1 Subject’s Name

Part 1 - INVESTIGATIVE STEPS REQUIRED FOR AN ON-SCENE SUPERVISOR/COMMANDER/INVESTIGATOR FOR LEVEL 2-3 INCIDENTS

1.

Yes No Responded to the use of force incident scene.

9.

Yes

No

Citizen witness statements taken.

Not Required No Witness

2.

Yes No Determined the appropriate reporting level.

10.

Yes No Carotid restraint applied.

If yes, was subject transported to a

All uses of force are listed on UOF Face Sheet as

Yes No medical facility for medical

3.

Yes No documented in the Offense and/or Supplemental

evaluation.

Reports.

11.

Yes No Medical service requested.

Not Needed

4.

Yes No Identified involved and witness personnel.

12.

Yes No Evidence collected.

None

5.

Yes

No

Separated and interviewed involved and witness personnel.

13.

Yes No Technician on scene.

Not Available Not Needed

6.

Yes

No

Interviewed the subject(s) upon whom the force was used.

14.

Yes No Photos taken?

Digital Film

7.

Yes

No

Ensured a reasonable canvas was conducted for witnesses. (Level 2 only)

15.

Yes

No

Communications Division contacted to ensure the incident is reported on the IAD Daily Incident Log.

8.

Yes

No

Available Citizen witnesses were identified and interviewed.

No Known Witnesses

Part 2 - REPORT DOCUMENTATION

Yes No Required Offense and Supplemental Reports reviewed for completeness, accuracy, and quality.

OFFENSE/SUPPLEMENTAL OR USE OF FORCE REPORT SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING DETAILS

1.

Yes No Summary of the incident.

5.

Yes No Summary of evidence collected.

2.

Yes No Summary of statements.

6.

Yes No Detail injuries and/or medical treatment.

N/A

3.

Yes No Summary of interviews.

7.

Yes No Original reason for police presence.

4.

Yes No Description of the use of force. 8.
If OC is used, document the number and duration

Yes

No

Circumstances or precipitating acts that lead to the use of force.

of bursts, and approximate distance from the subject.

9.

Yes

No

Arrest properly documented on arrest report and in Offense Report.

USE OF FORCE REPORT DOCUMENTATION SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING DETAILS

1. 2.

Yes No Analysis of evidence. 3.
Yes No Review to ensure no “boilerplate” or “pat” language.

Yes

No

Documented discrepancies and if resolved/unresolved.

N/A

Part 3 - REQUIRED FOR THE UOF REPORT PACKET – The preparer and reviewers shall ensure the UOF Report packet is complete.

1.

Yes No Original UOF Report

2.

Yes No Copy of required Offense/Supplemental reports

3.

Yes No Statements

4.

Yes No Copy of Arrest Report

Other documents pertinent to the

10.

Yes No investigation.

Describe in Comment Section.

11.

Yes No Photos

Digital – Include file(s) or photo CD in packet
Film – Requested to develop to CD

12.

Yes No Technician Report Included.

7.

Yes No Taser download information.

N/A

6.

Yes No CAD purge

9.

Yes No Medical Report

N/A

Part 4 – TRACKING – Report preparer shall forward only the UOF FACE SHEET to the following Level 2 & 3 force incidents.

IAD

BFO Administrative Unit

Div. Cmdr. (of subject personnel)

Deputy Chief/Director (of subject personnel)

INVESTIGATING SUPERVISOR
VIPD-RRR-6117

PDN

DATE OF REPORT

Page 4 of 4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-4 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 22 of 28
VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT
RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE INVESTIGATION
REVIEWERS CHECK LIST

ANY “NO” ANSWER
WILL REQUIRE THE INVESTIGATION TO BE RETURNED FOR CORRECTION WITH A SUSPENSE DATE OF 48 HOURS FROM THE TIME OF REVIEW.

INVESTIGATION REJECTED DATE:

CORRECTED INVESTIGATION DUE DATE:

INVESTIGATION RETURNED TO SUPERVISOR:

REJECTED BY REVIEWER:

FOR ISSUES REQUIRING CORRECTION SEE THE “NO” ANSWERS AND ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS IN THIS DOCUMENT

DR Number

Arrest Number

RRR Number

Check One

FORCE LEVELS Indicate the force level
Level 1 Force
Level 2 Force

DID THE INVESTIGATION USE THE CORRECT FORCE LEVEL? YES

NO

COMPLETED INVESTIGATION RECEIVED:

DATE

TIME

COMPLETED INVESTIGATION REVIEWED:

Level 3 Force Level 4 Force

DATE

TIME

Incident Date

Day

Time

Location

Zone

WAS THE COMPLETE INVESTIGATION PACKAGE UP‐LOADED INTO BLUE TEAM?

Yes No

PART 1: ARE ALL SUBJECTS ON WHOM FORCE WAS USED IDENTIFIED?

Yes No

PART 2: ARE ALL INVOLVED OFFICERS IDENTIFIED?

Yes No

A. ARE ALL INVOLVED OFFICERS’ RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE REPORTS INCLUDED IN THE INVESTIGATION PACKAGE?

Yes No

B. DID THE OFFICERS’ RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE REPORT INDICATE ALL FORCE OPTIONS UTILIZED BY THE OFFICER?

Yes No

NOTE: FOR THE FOLLOWING 2 QUESTIONS A “YES” ANSWER WILL REQUIRE THE INVESTIGATION TO BE RETURNED FOR CORRECTION WITH A SUSPENSE DATE OF 48 HOURS FROM THE TIME OF REVIEW.

C. DID THE OFFICERS’ RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE REPORT CONTAIN GENERIC LANGUAGE THAT FAILS TO EXPLAIN THE FORCE OPTION UTILIZED? Yes No

D. ARE THE OFFICERS’ RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE REPORTS CUT AND PASTE NARRATIVES OR DO THE NARRATIVES CONTAIN IDENTICAL LANGUAGE

THAT WOULD INDICATE A SINGLE AUTHOR?

Yes No

COMMENTS:

PART 3: ARE ALL WITNESS OFFICERS IDENTIFIED? A. IS ALL OFFICERS’ WITNESS RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE REPORTS INCLUDED IN THE INVESTIGATION PACKAGE? B. DID THE OFFICERS’ WITNESS RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE REPORT CONTAIN GENERIC LANGUAGE?

Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Yes No N/A

CD-RCL-V1-2015

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-4 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 23 of 28
RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE REVIEWERS CHECKLIST

REVIEWER

PDN

DATE OF REVIEW

C. ARE THE OFFICERS’ WITNESS RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE REPORTS CUT AND PASTE NARRATIVES OR DO THE NARRATIVES CONTAIN IDENTICAL LANGUAGE

THAT WOULD INDICATE A SINGLE AUTHOR?

Yes No N/A

PART 3.1: ARE ALL CIVILIANS OR LEO WITNESSES IDENTIFIED?

Yes No N/A

COMMENTS:

PART 4: IS ALL EVIDENCE/DOCUMENTS LISTED AND INCLUDED IN THE INVESTIGATION?

Yes No

IS THE OFFENCE REPORT INCLUDED?

Yes

No

ARE ALL MEDICAL REPORTS INCLUDED? Yes

No

N/A

IS THE ARREST REPORT INCLUDED?

Yes No

IS THE TASER DOWNLOAD INCLUDED? Yes

No

N/A

AUDIO/ VIDEO STATEMENTS INCLUDED? Yes

No

N/A

ARE ALL BALLISTIC TESTS INCLUDED?

Yes

No

N/A

PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT INJURY OR LOCATION ON SUBJECT OF FORCE

OPTION INCLUDED?

Yes No

IS BULLET TRAJECTORY INFORMATION INCLUDED? Yes No N/A

IS CRIME SCENE ANALYSIS INCLUDED? Yes

No

N/A

IS THERE A DIAGRAM THAT ACCOUNTS FOR OFFICERS LOCATION? Yes No N/A

IS GUNSHOT RESIDUE TEST INCLUDED? Yes

No

N/A

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION THAT MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE FORCE

LEVEL INCLUDED?

Yes No N/A

NARRATIVE B: WERE ALL ON‐SCENE PERSONNEL AND THEIR ASSIGNED DUTIES IDENTIFIED?

Yes No N/A

NARRATIVE C: DID THE SUPERVISOR RESPOND TO THE SCENE?

Yes No

IF “NO” DID THE SUPERVISOR EXPLAIN WHY HE/SHE DID NOT RESPOND?

Yes No

A. IF THE SUPERVISOR WAS NOT NOTIFIED BY HIS/HER SUBORDINATES THAT A USE OF FORCE OCCURRED, WAS ACTION TAKEN AND DOCUMENTED?

Yes No N/A

B. DID THE SUPERVISOR DOCUMENT HIS/HER OBSERVATIONS OF THE OFFICERS AND SUBJECTS CONDITION/INJURIES AT THE SCENE?

Yes No N/A

C. DID THE SUPERVISOR DOCUMENT WHETHER HE/SHE ASKED THE SUBJECT IF THE SUBJECT WAS FEELING PAIN AND STATE A REASON IF HE/SHE DID

NOT SPEAK TO THE SUBJECT?

Yes No

D. DID THE SUPERVISOR DOCUMENT WHETHER A PUBLIC SAFETY STATEMENT OBTAINED FROM THE INVOLVED OFFICER(S) AND GIVEN TO THE

EMERGENCY CALL CENTER?

Yes No N/A

E. DID THE SUPERVISOR DOCUMENT IF ADDITIONAL RESOURCES WERE REQUESTED TO COME TO THE SCENE?

Yes No N/A

F. DID THE SUPERVISOR DOCUMENT WHETHER THE WITNESSES/INVOLVED OFFICERS WERE SEPARATED?

Yes No N/A

G. DID THE SUPERVISOR DOCUMENT WHETHER THE SUBJECT(S) WERE SECURED AND TRANSPORTED OFF SCENE AND THE NAMES OF THE

TRANSPORTING PERSONNEL, VIPD /EMS AND THE DESTINATIONS?

Yes No N/A

COMMENTS:

NARRATIVE D: DID THE INVESTIGATION INCLUDE A DESCRIPTION OF THE SCENE AND ANY ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS THE OFFICERS ENCOUNTERED?

Yes No

A. DID THE SUPERVISOR DOCUMENT THE REASON FOR THE OFFICER(S) PRESENCE AT THE LOCATION?

Yes No

B. DID THE SUPERVISOR DOCUMENT THE REASON FOR THE OFFICER(S) TO MAKE CONTACT WITH THE SUBJECT?

Yes

No

C. DID THE SUPERVISOR DOCUMENT WHAT ATTEMPTS WERE MADE BY THE OFFICER(S) AT DE‐ESCALATING THE INCIDENT?

Yes No

D. DID THE SUPERVISOR DOCUMENT WHETHER THE DE‐ESCALATION ATTEMPT WAS REASONABLE GIVEN THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR IF

REVIEWER
CD-RCL-V1-2015

PDN DATE OF REVIEW

Page 2 of 5

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-4 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 24 of 28
RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE REVIEWERS CHECKLIST

DE‐ESCALATION WAS NOT FEASIBLE, IS THE REASONS WHY STATED? COMMENTS:

Yes No

NARRATIVE E: DOES THE INVESTIGATION INCLUDE A SUMMARY OF ALL STATEMENTS?

Yes No

COMMENTS:

NARRATIVE F: DOES THE INVESTIGATION DESCRIBE ANY INJURIES TO THE SUBJECT IF THERE ARE NO INJURIES DOES IT STATE THAT FACT?

Yes No Yes No

A. DID THE SUPERVISOR DOCUMENT WHETHER THE INJURIES WERE A RESULT OF THE FORCE OPTION USED AND WHICH FORCE OPTION CAUSED EACH

SPECIFIC INJURY?

Yes No N/A

B. DID THE SUPERVISOR DOCUMENT IF HE/SHE ENSURED THE SUBJECT RECEIVED MEDICAL ATTENTION IF NECESSARY?

Yes No N/A

C. DID THE SUPERVISOR DOCUMENT IF MEDICAL CARE WAS PROVIDED AND WHAT TYPE OF CARE WAS GIVEN THE SUBJECT?

Yes No N/A

D. DID THE SUPERVISOR DOCUMENT IF THERE WAS ON‐SCENE MEDICAL ATTENTION PRIOR TO TRANSPORT?

Yes No N/A

E. DID THE SUPERVISOR DOCUMENT IF THE SUBJECT REFUSED MEDICAL ATTENTION?

Yes No N/A

F. DID THE SUPERVISOR DOCUMENT WHETHER ANY OFFICER HAD INJURIES, IF MEDICAL CARE WAS PROVIDED AND WHAT TYPE OF CARE WAS GIVEN?

Yes No N/A

G. DID THE SUPERVISOR DOCUMENT WHETHER ANY WITNESS HAD INJURIES, IF MEDICAL CARE WAS PROVIDED AND WHAT TYPE OF CARE WAS GIVEN?

Yes No N/A

COMMENTS:

NARRATIVE G: DID THE SUPERVISOR ENSURE INJURIES WERE PHOTOGRAPHED OR VIDEOTAPED? IF NOT IS THE REASON CLEARLY DOCUMENTED? Yes No

A. DID THE SUPERVISOR DOCUMENT WHETHER THE PHOTOS/VIDEO WAS TAKEN AT THE EARLIEST PRACTICAL OPPORTUNITY, BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER ANY

TREATMENT, INCLUDING CLEANSING OF WOUNDS? IF NOT, IS THE REASON CLEARLY DOCUMENTED?

Yes No N/A

B. DID THE SUPERVISOR OBTAIN A MEDICAL RECORD OF THE TREATMENT? IF NOT, IS THE REASON CLEARLY DOCUMENTED?

Yes No N/A

C. DID THE SUPERVISOR DOCUMENT WHETHER THE SUBJECT REFUSED TO SHARE HIS MEDICAL INFORMATION?

Yes No N/A

COMMENTS:

NARRATIVE H: DOES THE INVESTIGATION REVIEW EVIDENCE FOR MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES AND IF THERE ARE NO MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES DOES IT

STATE THAT FACT?

Yes No

A. DID THE SUPERVISOR CONSIDER ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE (CIRCUMSTANTIAL, DIRECT AND PHYSICAL EVIDENCE) AND MAKE CREDIBILITY

DETERMINATIONS, IF FEASIBLE?

Yes No N/A

B. DID THE SUPERVISOR MAKE ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS TO RESOLVE MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN WITNESS STATEMENTS?

Yes No N/A

COMMENTS:

NARRATIVE I: DID THE SUPERVISOR MAKE A THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF ALL FORCE UTILIZED BY THE INVOLVED OFFICERS?

Yes No

A. DID THE SUPERVISOR STATE IF THE OFFICER(S) HAD A LEGITIMATE LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSE FOR THE DETENTION/ARREST OF THE SUBJECT?

Yes No

LOOK FOR THIS LANGUAGE: The type of force used on [the subject] was related to the legitimate law enforcement objective: [a statement of the objective].

B. DID THE SUPERVISOR EVALUATE EACH TYPE OF FORCE THAT WAS USED BY EACH INVOLVED OFFICER

Yes No

C. AND IF AN OFFICER HAD TO RESORT TO SEVERAL DIFFERENT FORCE OPTIONS DID THE SUPERVISOR STATE WHY THIS OCCURRED?

REVIEWER

PDN DATE OF REVIEW

Page 3 of 5

CD-RCL-V1-2015

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-4 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 25 of 28
RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE REVIEWERS CHECKLIST

Yes No N/A

D. DID THE EVALUATION INCLUDE WHETHER THE TYPE AND AMOUNT OF FORCE USED WAS OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE AND USED PROPORTIONAL TO

THE RESISTANCE ENCOUNTERED

Yes No

E. AND WHETHER THE FORCE APPROPRIATELY DE‐ESCALATED ONCE COMPLIANCE HAD BEEN ACHIEVED?

Yes No

LOOK FOR THIS LANGUAGE FOR A SINGLE FORCE OPTION: The force option used by [Officer], a/the [force option], was objectively reasonable and proportional to the amount of resistance encountered taking the following into consideration:
1. [Failure to comply with verbal commands] 2. [Subject escalation] 3. [Environmental issues] 4. [Comparison of subject physical bearing to officers] 5. [Was the force choice prudent] 6. [Was the securing of the subject done appropriately] 7. [Once secure was the force de‐escalated]

LOOK FOR THIS LANGUAGE FOR MULTIPLE FORCE OPTIONS AND/OR MULTIPLE OFFICERS: The force options used by: [Officer 1], a/the [force option 1] and then [force option 2], and; the force option used by [Officer 2], a/the [force option] and; the force option used by [Officer 3], a/the [force option] were objectively reasonable and proportional to the amount of resistance encountered taking the following into consideration:
1. [Failure to comply with verbal commands] 2. [Subject escalation] 3. [Environmental issues] 4. [Comparison of subject physical bearing to officers] 5. [Officer 1, force option 1 reason for going to force option 2]: [Officer 1] used a [wrist lock] but due to the struggling of the subject had to
resort to a stronger [straight arm bar hold] in order to gain compliance. 6. [Officer 2 force option was necessary to accomplish what] 7. [Officer 3 force option was necessary to accomplish what] 8. [Was the force choice prudent] 9. [Was the securing of the subject done appropriately] 10. [Once the subject was secure was the force de‐escalated]

F. DID THE SUPERVISOR STATE IF THE OFFICER(S) ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DEPARTMENT FORCE POLICIES AND IF THE DETENTION/ARREST WAS

LAWFUL?

Yes No

LOOK FOR THIS LANGUAGE: Based on the totality of the circumstances, [Officer] actions were within VIPD policy. The Officer was lawfully present and the arrest of [subject] was legal based on the probable cause presented. Or;
Based on the totality of the circumstances, [Officer 1], [Officer 2] and [Officer 3] actions were within VIPD policy. The Officers were lawfully present and the arrest of [subject] was legal based on the probable cause presented.

G. DID THE SUPERVISOR DETERMINE IF ANY OFFICER(S) WAS OFF‐DUTY, WHETHER HE/SHE ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DEPARTMENT OFF‐DUTY

OFFICIAL ACTION POLICY?

Yes No N/A

COMMENTS:

J. REVIEWER ASSESSMENT OF RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES:
Did you find any issues which came to your attention as a result of the investigation which may require a more comprehensive response by the Department; this includes issues with training, equipment, tactics or policy that should be reviewed by the Force Review Board. If there are no Risk Management issues, state this in the space provided.

K. REVIEWER CORRECTIVE MEASURES:
Detail any corrective measures you recommend or have instituted as a result of your investigation. If you found corrective measures are not
required, state this in the space provided.

L. REVIEWER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Use this section to add any additional information you feel may be pertinent to this investigation.

REVIEWER
CD-RCL-V1-2015

PDN DATE OF REVIEW

Page 4 of 5

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-4 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 26 of 28
RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE REVIEWERS CHECKLIST

I have made a thorough review of this Response to Resistance Investigation Report and I concur with the findings of the Investigating Supervisor:

INVOLVED OFFICER NAME

FINDING CODE

SUB‐CODE
(IF APPLICABLE)

FINDING
JUSTIFIED, WITHIN DEPARTMENT POLICY JUSTIFIED, POLICY VIOLATION RECOMMEND REMEDIAL TRAINING. RECOMMEND COUNSELLING RECOMMEND DISCIPLINARY ACTION JUSTIFIED, TRAINING REQUIRED RECOMMEND POLICY/TRAINING / EQUIPMENT DEFICIENCY REVIEW RECOMMEND SUPPLEMENTAL TRAINING NOT JUSTIFIED, NOT WITHIN DEPARTMENT POLICY

CODE JWP JPV
JTR
NJ

SUB‐‐ CODE
RRT RC RDA
PTER RST

I have made a thorough review of this Response to Resistance Investigation Report and I disagree with the findings of the Investigating Supervisor for the following reasons:

REVIEWER
CD-RCL-V1-2015

PDN DATE OF REVIEW

Page 5 of 5

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-4 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 27 of 28

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-4 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 28 of 28

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-5 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 1
THIS EXHIBIT IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-6 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-6 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 2 of 15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-6 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 3 of 15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-6 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 4 of 15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-6 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 5 of 15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-6 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 6 of 15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-6 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 7 of 15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-6 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 8 of 15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-6 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 9 of 15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-6 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 10 of 15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-6 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 11 of 15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-6 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 12 of 15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-6 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 13 of 15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-6 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 14 of 15

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-6 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 15 of 15

UOF
Instructors STT 1 STT 2 STT 3
# STT UOF Instructors # STT Officers trained
STX 1 STX 2 STX 3 # STX UOF Instructors # STX Officers trained
lodging in STT lodging in ST CROIX
change mgmt team
IA
STT IA 1 STT IA 2 STT IA 3
STX IA 1 STX IA 2 STX IA 3
# STX Officers trained
CIT Pilot STJ
CIT 1 CIT 2
STAFF
STT Staff 1 STT Staff 2 STX Staff 3 STX Staff 4 Total # Staff

Sunday 09/16/18
Day 1

Monday 09/17/18
Day 2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-7 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 5

Tuesday 09/18/18
Day 3

Wednesday 09/19/18
Day 4

Thursday 09/20/18
Day 5

Friday 09/21/18
Day 6

Saturday 09/22/18
Day 7

Sunday 09/23/18
Day 8

Monday 09/24/18
Day 9

Tuesday 09/25/18 Day 10

Wednesday 09/26/18 Day 11

Thursday 09/27/18 Day 12

Friday 09/28/18 Day 13

no ops

no ops
TRAVEL SPRING IN SPRING IN SPRING IN 3

no ops

no ops

BRIEF/SET UP springfield springfield springfield 3

CLASS 1 springfield springfield springfield 3

no ops
CLASS 1 springfield springfield springfield 3

TRAVEL

BRIEF

CLASS 1

CLASS 1

CLASS 1

CLASS 2

brims

brims

brims

brims

brims

brims

rucker

rucker

rucker

rucker

rucker

rucker

springfield springfield springfield springfield

VI

2

3

3

3

3 1‐Spring out

‐12

CLASS 1

AAR/BRIEF

CLASS 2

CLASS 2

CLASS 2

CLASS 3

springfield

springfield

springfield

springfield

springfield

sprigfield

springfield

springfield

springfield

springfield

springfield

springfield

springfield

VI

VI

VI

VI

VI

2

2

2

2

12

24

CLASS 2 brims rucker VI 2
CLASS 3 springfield springfield JOE 2

4

4

4

4

4

6

7

7

4

4

3

3

8

4

7

7

7

7

7

7

5

3

3

3

3

8

8

11

11

11

11

13

14

12

7

7

6

6

Kerlikowske Kerlikowske Kerlikowske GK Out

nolan miami beach
schaible 3

Nolan +2 demetri fairfax charleston
6

demtri charleston
owens 3

nolan miami beach
schaible 3

nolan miami beach
schaible 3

nolan miami beach
schaible 3

demtri charleston
owens 3

demtri charleston
owens 3

demtri charleston
owens 3

nolan miami beach
schaible 3

nolan miami beach
schaible 3

demtri charleston
owens 3

demtri charleston
owens 3

nolan miami beach
schaible 3

nolan miami beach
schaible 3

demtri out charleston
owens 2

charleston owens 2

nolan miami b schaible
3 IA team out
charleston owens 2
IA team out

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

Saturday 09/29/18
Day 14

Sunday 09/30/18
Day 15

Monday 10/01/18 Day 16

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-7 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 2 of 5

Tuesday 10/02/18 Day 17

Wednesday 10/03/18 Day 18

Thursday 10/04/18 Day 19

Friday 10/05/18 Day 20

Saturday 10/06/18 Day 21

Sunday 10/07/18 Day 22

Monday 10/08/18 Day 23

Tuesday 10/09/18 Day 24

Wednesday 10/10/18 Day 25

Thursday 10/11/18 Day 26

Friday 10/12/18 Day 27

CLASS 2

AAR/TEAM OUT CLASS 3

brims

brims

brims

rucker

rucker

rucker

VI

1‐CHAS arrive Charleston

2

24

CLASS 3

springfield SPRING OUT

springfield

IA IN

JOE

2

36

CLASS 3 brims rucker
Charleston

CLASS 3 BRIMS OUT rucker Charleston

CLASS 4 charleston charleston Kerlikowske
JOE OUT change mgmt

CLASS 4 charleston charleston Kerlikowske
change mgmt

CLASS 4 charleston charleston

AAR/TRAVEl
charleston (MB IN)

48

MB IN charleston

CLASS 5 charleston miami beach VI/JOE
JOE BACK GKOUT
CLASS 5 miami beach charleston
VI

CLASS 5 charleston miami beach VI
CLASS 5 miami beach charleston
VI

CLASS 5

CLASS 6

charleston SARASOTA

miami beach miami beach

VI

VI

SARASOTA IN CHAS OUT

60

CLASS 5

CLASS 6

miami beach miami beach

charleston SARASOTA

VI

VI

SARASOTA IN CHAS OUT

60

CLASS 6 SARASOTA miami beach VI
class 6 miami beach SARASOTA
VI

3

4

4

4

3

3

3

5

5

5

5

6

5

5

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

5

5

4

5

4

4

6

6

6

6

5

5

5

7

10

10

9

11

9

9

Kerlikowske Kerlikowske kerlikowske kerlikowske

F

brief

nolan edmunds

nolan edmunds

nolan edmunds

nolan edmunds

nolan edmunds

nolan edmunds

nolan edmunds

IA travel in

matos

matos

matos

IA 2 IN

second IA

IA IN

second IA

second IA

second IA

second IA

second IA second IA out second IA

IA 2 out

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

VIPD travel

matos staff

joe

joe

joe

joe

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

joe

joe

joe

joe

joe

Saturday 10/13/18
Day 28

Sunday 10/14/18
Day 29

Monday 10/15/18 Day 30

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-7 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 3 of 5

Tuesday 10/16/18 Day 31

Wednesday 10/17/18 Day 32

Thursday 10/18/18 Day 33

Friday 10/19/18 Day 34

Saturday 10/20/18 Day 35

Sunday 10/21/18 Day 36

Monday 10/22/18 Day 37

Tuesday 10/23/18 Day 38

Wednesday 10/24/18 Day 39

Thursday 10/25/18 Day 40

Friday 10/26/18 Day 41

class 6 SARASOTA miami beach VI

OFF SARASOTA miami beach

CLASS 7 miami beach sarasota

CLASS 7 miami beach sarasota

CLASS 7 miami beach Sarasota CHAS IN

CLASS 8 chas 2nd sarasota MB OUT

72 class 6 miami beach SARASOTA
VI

OFF MBEACH SARASOTA

CLASS 7 miami beach
sarasota JOE

CLASS 7 miami beach
sarasota

84 CLASS 7
miami beach Sarasota CHAS IN

CLASS 8 chas 2nd sarasota MB OUT

CLASS 8

CLASS 8

charleston 2 charleston 2

sarasota sarasota

OFF

CLASS 9

Chas 2

chas 2

SARASOTA out carruthers

CLASS 8 chas 2nd sarasota

FFX IN

96

CLASS 8

OFF

chas 2nd

chas 2

sarasota SARASOTA out

FFX IN

CLASS 9 chas 2 Fairfax

CLASS 9 chas 2
carruthers
CLASS 9 Chas 2 Fairfax

CLASS 9 Chas 2
carruthers

CLASS 10 charleston carruthers MOCO in

96 CLASS 9 Chas 2
Fairfax

CLASS 10 Chas 2 Fairfax VI

CLASS 10 charleston carruthers Moco
CLASS 10 charleston
Fairfax VI

72

84

96

108

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

7

7

7

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

7

7

IA DONE

matos staff

matos staff

matos staff

matos (matos out PM) IA DONE

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

joe

joe

joe

joe

joe

joe

joe

joe

joe

joe

joe

joe

joe

Saturday 10/27/18
Day 42

Sunday 10/28/18
Day 43

Monday 10/29/18 Day 44

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-7 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 4 of 5

Tuesday 10/30/18 Day 45

Wednesday 10/31/18 Day 46

Thursday 11/01/18 Day 47

Friday 11/02/18 Day 48

Saturday 11/03/18 Day 49

Sunday 11/04/18 Day 50

Monday 11/05/18 Day 51

Tuesday 11/06/18 Day 52

Wednesday 11/07/18 Day 53

Thursday 11/08/18 Day 54

Friday 11/09/18 Day 55

CLASS 10 charleston carruthers Moco
120 CLASS 10 charleston
fairfax VI

CHAS OUT Carruthers
Moco
DEPART CHAS OUT
Fairfax moco

CLASS 11 carruthers Moco VI
CLASS 11 MOCO Fairfax
VI

CLASS 11 carruthers Moco
CLASS 11 fairfax moco VI

CLASS 11

CLASS 12

carruthers

VI

moco

moco

VI

VI

FFX OUT

132

CLASS 11

CLASS 12

fairfax

FFX OUT

moco

VI

VI

VI

CLASS 12 VI
moco VI
CLASS 12
VI Joe

CLASS 12

VI

moco

VI

MOCO OUT

CIT IN

144

CLASS 12

OFF

VI

Joe

CLASS 12 VI VI
CIT‐STJ
CLASS 13
VI VI

CLASS 12 VI VI
CIT‐STJ
CLASS 13
VI VI

CLASS 12 VI VI
CLASS 13 VI VI

288 trained CITSTX

120

132

144

156

4

3

3

3

3

1

1

1

4

4

5

5

5

3

3

3

3

3

1

1

1

0

0

0

7

6

6

6

6

2

2

2

4

4

5

5

5

CITSTX
5 5

CIT IN

CIT IN
morgan noel

CIT‐SJ
morgan+1 noel

CIT‐SJ
morgan+1 noel

CIT TtT
morgan+1 noel

CITTtT
morgan+1 noel

CIT
morgan+1 noel

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

staff

joe

joe

joe

joe

joe

joe

joe

joe

joe

staff

staff

staff

switch island

Saturday 11/10/18
Day 56

Sunday 11/11/18
Day 57

Monday 11/12/18 Day 58

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-7 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 5 of 5

Tuesday 11/13/18 Day 59

Wednesday 11/14/18 Day 60

Thursday 11/15/18 Day 61

Friday 11/16/18 Day 62

Saturday 11/17/18 Day 63

Sunday 11/18/18 Day 64

Monday 11/19/18 Day 65

Tuesday 11/20/18 Day 66

Wednesday 11/21/18 Day 67

Thursday 11/22/18 Day 68

Friday 11/23/18 Day 69

1 staff out CIT OUT

wrap up

wrap up

wrap up

1

2

2

1

1

1

0

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

joe

joe

joe

joe

joe

staff

staff

staff

staff out

joe

wrap

71

72

72

73

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-8 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 11
Government of
The United States Virgin Islands
-0-
VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JASON K. MARSH
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS

To: From:

Assistant Commissioner, Curtis A. Griffin, JD Deputy Commissioner, Jason K. Marsh

ALEXANDER A. FARRELLY JUSTICE CENTER
CHARLOTTE AMALIE ST. THOMAS, V.I. 00802
(340) 774-2211
LEANDER JURGEN COMMAND CRUZ BAY
ST. JOHN, V.I. 00830 (340) 693-8880
POLICE OPERATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES # 45 MARS HILL, FREDERIKSTED
ST. CROIX, V.I. 00841 (340) 778-2211

Date: Re:

September 10, 2018 Training Academy Repairs

PATRICK SWEENEY HD’QTRS.
RR-02, KINGHILL ST. CROIX V.I. 00850

The Maintenance section of the Virgin Islands Police Department have been in the process of obtaining quotes for the repairing the areas of the training academy noted in Mr. McNeilly report prior to the report being filed in the courts.
Mr. Eustace Joseph obtained quotes from MSI, Heavy Materials, Ortalis Concrete and Sea Chest for the materials for the repairs. The quotes were shared with Mr. Eduardo Jany of The Bloomberg group. Mr. Jany stated that the Public Safety Support Foundation may be able to aid in the cost of the repairs.
Mr. Joseph is in the process of obtaining quotes for the labor because our procurement process requires 3 quotes for bidding.
Attached are the copies of the quotes obtained for the materials and the email correspondence with Mr. Eduardo Jany.

FACSIMILE: (340) 715-5538 ST.THOMAS (340) 778-2373 ST. CROIX (340) 776-6236 ST.JOHN

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-8 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 2 of 11

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-8 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 3 of 11

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-8 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 4 of 11

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-8 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 5 of 11

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-8 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 6 of 11

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-8 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 7 of 11

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-8 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 8 of 11

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-8 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 9 of 11

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-8 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 10 of 11

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-8 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 11 of 11

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-9 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 5

Government of The Virgin Islands of the United States

Captain Maria Colon-Jones Acting Training Director

VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT TRAINING BUREAU
September 16, 2018

TO:

Curtis Griffin

Assistant Police Commissioner

Jason Marsh Deputy Commissioner

TRAINING BUREAU #45 Mars Hill Frederiksted
St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 00840
(340) 719-6737 Office (340) 719-6714 Fax
Bldg. #116 Sub Base St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
00802 (340) 774-3214: Office
(340) 714-4947: Fax

FROM:

Captain Maria Colon-Jones___________________ Acting Training Director

SUBJECT: Assessment on Citizen Complaints

On Saturday, September 15, 2018 a meeting was held with the Training Staff in St. Thomas to review the data provided by the Analyst, Ms. Gilbert (see attached). This report reflected information from January 1, 2018 to September 14, 2018 as it relates to Citizen Complaints Territory wide. Present and assisting in the assessment of the data were the following personnel: Captain Maria Colon Jones, Sgt. David Sullivan, Sgt. Bruce Taylor, and Sgt. Ludrick Thomas. The purpose of this meeting was to evaluate the data provide and conduct an assessment for training needs. The second quarter audit was also utilized to identify deficiencies that were noted during the auditing period. Listed below are the findings and training assessment that the group came up with collectively:
• In the STT/STJ District there were 51 cases reported during the reporting time period. Of the 51 cases that were reported 29 or 56 % were completed.
• In the STX District there were 60 cases reported during the reporting time period. Of the 60 cases reported 49 or 81% of cases were completed.
Training Recommendations: In reviewing the case closure in each district an assessment should be done by Operations to ensure that the outstanding cases are within the time limits outlined in policy 7.3. If cases are found to be untimely ensure there is an approved waiver, if not administrative action is recommended. By doing this assessment the cases that are outstanding can be addressed rapidly and avoid the number of outstanding cases to increase that can potentially lead to an unmanageable back log.

Facsimile (340) 715-5517 St. Thomas y (340) 778-2373 St. Croix y (340) 776-6236 St. John

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-9 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 2 of 5

Training Needs Assessment: Based on the information in the Audit Report the groups decided to develop a Roll Call Training to address timelines not only in Citizen Complaints, but also in Use of Force Cases. A 10-question test will also be included and administered via Power DMS. Roll Call Training will start midOctober on this module. The target audience for this training will be the Supervisory Personnel.
• In reviewing the allegations reported in the STT/STJ District it was noted that highest complaint category at 14 cases or 12% was Failure to be tactful, controls temper, and exercise the utmost, etc. The second highest category with 12 cases reported or 11% was Failure to take appropriate action on the occasion of a crime.
• In reviewing the allegations reported in the STX District it was noted that highest complaint category at 21 cases or 15% was Using, rude, coarse, violent, profane, and vulgar, sarcastic language. The second highest category with 19 cases reported or 14% was Actions amounting to harassment and/or intimation of a citizen.
Training Recommendations: In reviewing the data with the type of allegations reported it is recommended by the training staff that operations need to take a closer look at those cases, this review can include looking at the actual complaint and the officers involved. The types of complaint that have been reported the most can be a potential for serious behavioral issues that Training is not able to address. In addition, the best option to address these issues is by utilizing the EIP Policy. This action will allow Supervisors to work closer and monitor their officers who are displaying behavioral issues. EIP action plans can be developed on Officers even if they haven’t reached thresholds as outlined by policy.
Training Needs Assessment: The issued discussed based on the allegations type reported, and the Audit Report, Training have decided to develop a Roll Call Training to address EIP Policy and developing Action Plans. A 10-question test will also be included and administered via Power DMS. Roll Call Training will start mid-November on this module. The target audience for this training will be the Supervisory Personnel. Dr. Marshall service can also be used for Officers evaluation.
The information provided in this assessment report was generated by discussion with the Training Supervisory Staff on St. Thomas the data reviewed in the report provided by M. Gilbert on citizen complaints and the 2nd quarterly audit report.

CC:

File

Training Coordinators

Chief Office

Facsimile (340) 715-5517 St. Thomas y (340) 778-2373 St. Croix y (340) 776-6236 St. John

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-9 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 3 of 5 Facsimile (340) 715-5517 St. Thomas y (340) 778-2373 St. Croix y (340) 776-6236 St. John

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-9 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 4 of 5

Citizen complaint incidents received between Jan 1, 2018 - Sep 14, 2018 By Allegation----STTSTJ

Citizen complaint incidents received between Jan 1, 2018 - Sep 14, 2018 By Month rec'd

Jan 2018:

6

Feb 2018:

11

Mar 2018:

6

Apr 2018:

7

May 2018:

7

Jun 2018:

4

Jul 2018:

2

Aug 2018:

6

Sep 2018:

2

Citizen complaint incidents received between Jan 1, 2018 - Sep 14, 2018 By Status

Active:

4

Completed:

29

Forwarded:

16

Suspended:

2

Citizen complaint incidents received between Jan 1, 2018 - Sep 14, 2018 By Disposition

[No data entered]:

22

Administrative Closure:

1

Exonerated:

3

Not Sustained:

15

Sustained:

8

Unfounded:

2

Citizen complaint incidents received between Jan 1, 2018 - Sep 14, 2018 By Allegation

A:1 Failure to take appropriate action on the occasion of a crime, di 3

A:12 - Failure to be tactful, controls temper...discretion in the per 14

A:18 Failure to know the rules,regulations...or orders of the dept. & 4

A:22 Failure to Prepare a Departmental Report when required:

6

A:54 Failure to take appropriate action on occasion of a crime...or c 12

Any Act or Omission:

1

B:1 Employee shall not undertake on any financial obligations..... pa 1

B:29 Unsatisfactory Performanc: Failure to thoroughly search for pers 6

B:3 Failure to assist any person...making complaints or reports, etc. 5

B:31 Using rude, coarse, insulting.....language or conduct to public

5

B:37-Intentionally make an arrest, search or seizure which they know

1

C.32: Conduct involving an act of violence where elements of Misdemea 1

C:1 Failure to prepare RRR in accordance wth Dept Policy:

1

C:17 Failure to treat official investigation...Reports of the depart

5

C:22 Knowingly and willfully making false entry.....Either written or 1

C:29 - Regular or continous associations or dealings with persons who 2

C:3 Performimg any act or ommission prejudicial to good order...:

11

C:32 Unprofessional conduct involving an act of violence where elemen 3

C:38 - Failure to handle persons in custody in accordance with law an 3

C:5 Actions Amounting to Harassment and/or Intimidation of citizen, d 5

Complaint against police services:

1

Criminal Conduct:

1

D:14 - Knowingly interfere with Departmental investigations or any ot 2

D:28- Unprofessional Conduct where elements of a felony are met...:

5

Discourtesy to Citizen:

1

Failure to conduct thorough investigation:

2

Failure to file issued citation with AG:

1

Neglect of Duty:

2

Unauthorized Towing:

1

Use of Force:

3

11.76% 21.57% 11.76% 13.73% 13.73% 7.84% 3.92% 11.76% 3.92%
7.84% 56.86% 31.37% 3.92%
43.14% 1.96% 5.88% 29.41% 15.69% 3.92%
2.75% 12.84% 3.67% 5.50% 11.01% 0.92% 0.92% 5.50% 4.59% 4.59% 0.92% 0.92% 0.92% 4.59% 0.92% 1.83% 10.09% 2.75% 2.75% 4.59% 0.92% 0.92% 1.83% 4.59% 0.92% 1.83% 0.92% 1.83% 0.92% 2.75%

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-9 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 5 of 5

STX

Citizen complaint incidents received between Jan 1, 2018 - Sep 14, 2018 By Month rec'd

Jan 2018:

8

Feb 2018:

7

Mar 2018:

5

Apr 2018:

10

May 2018:

7

Jun 2018:

5

Jul 2018:

10

Aug 2018:

6

Sep 2018:

2

Citizen complaint incidents received between Jan 1, 2018 - Sep 14, 2018 By Status

Active:

4

Completed:

49

Forwarded:

6

Suspended:

1

Citizen complaint incidents received between Jan 1, 2018 - Sep 14, 2018 By Disposition

[No data entered]:

11

Administratively Closed:

1

Exonerated:

3

Not Sustained:

36

Sustained:

6

Unfounded:

3

Citizen complaint incidents received between Jan 1, 2018 - Sep 14, 2018 By Allegation

A.12: Failure to be tactful, controls temper, & exercise the utmost 15

A.22: Failure to prepare a departmental report when required:

3

A.4: Eating on duty while conducting official business.:

1

A.53: Failure to submit a written request for off-duty employment for 1

A.54:Failure to take appropriate action on the occasion of a crime, d 15

B. 18: Incident not involving an act of violence where elements of a 1

B.1:Employees shall not undertake any financial obligations which the 1

B.10 Failure of employees who are given an otherwise proer order which 2

B.12.: Failure to direct and/or control or otherwise effectively supe 1

B.15:Failure to report through the proper channels any violation of l2

B.29: Unsatisfactory Performance: Failure to thoroughly search for pe 3

B.3: Failure to assist any person rqst information or advice, or maki 1

B.31: Using rude,coarse,violent, profane,vulgr,sarcastic, or insultin 21

B.34 Attempt to dissuade any citizen from lodging a complaint against 1

B.37: Intentionally make an arrest, search or seizure which they know 3

B.40: Refusal to obey any lawful order or directive :

3

C.1: Failure to prepare Response to Resistance Reports in accordance 7

C.17:Failure to treat the official investigations, reports, &/or comm 1

C.22: Knowingly and willfully making a false entry and/or report, ei 1

C.22: Knowingly and willfully omitting and/or deleting information fr 1

C.3:Performing any act or omission not specifically covered in the ru 18

C.32:Unprofessional conduct involving an act of violence where elemen 3

C.38: Failure to handle persons in custody in accordance with law an 1

C.40: Improper handling, misuse and/or display of firearms contrary t 1

C.46:Excessive use of force that results in injuries:

2

C.5: Actions amounting to harassment and/or intimidation of a citize 19

D.28: Unprofressional Conduct...elements of a felony met...:

3

Part II Section.....Community Relations:

1

13.33% 11.67% 8.33% 16.67% 11.67% 8.33% 16.67% 10.00% 3.33%
6.67% 81.67% 10.00% 1.67%
18.33% 1.67% 5.00% 60.00% 10.00% 5.00%
11.36% 2.27% 0.76% 0.76% 11.36% 0.76% 0.76% 1.52% 0.76%
1.52% 2.27% 0.76% 15.91% 0.76% 2.27% 2.27% 5.30% 0.76% 0.76% 0.76% 13.64% 2.27% 0.76% 0.76% 1.52% 14.39% 2.27% 0.76%

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-10 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 6
Government of the United States Virgin Islands
Virgin Islands Police Department
Standard Operating Procedure
TRAINING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The Virgin Islands Police Department (VIPD) shall utilize a Training Advisory Committee (TAC) to provide ongoing formal evaluations of all In-Service, Specialized Training Programs and Police Officer Standard Training (POST) conducted by the VIPD Training Bureau. The mission of the TAC is to provide a means of gathering input from all areas of the police department and to continuously improve training standards, practices and outcomes through the examination of training content, delivery, tactics, policy and equipment. I. TRAINING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
A. The Training Advisory Committee is composed of the following representatives: 1. Chief of Police
2. Deputy Chief of Police 3. Training Director or Designee 4. Training Coordinator or Specialist 5. One Zone Commander from each district 6. Use of Force Instructor (designated by the Training Director)
7. One Representative from the LESU (appointed by the President of the Union for a one year term.) 8. One Representative from the PBA (appointed by the President of the Union for a one year term) 9. A representative from the Policy Committee

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-10 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 2 of 6
B. Support Staff ;
1. An analyst from the IAB who will assist the TAC members in understanding data reports and charts provided by IAB.
2. A representative from IAB who can address IAB information and conclusions drawn from FRB or command reviews.
C. The Director of Training or a designee shall serve as chairperson for the committee and will coordinate and appoint a Deputy Police Chief from each District, on an alternating basis, as the Co-chairperson.
II. PROCEDURES
A. The Training Advisory Committee shall identify annual training needs of the Department by completing a needs assessment. At the minimum, the needs assessment shall consider the following:
1. Use of Force Issues
2. Trends and issues in Citizens Complaints
3. Review of department issued force tools, their application and training, as well as other Department utilized items.
4. Concerns reflected in court decisions
5. Any changes to Territorial or Federal laws
6. Zone Level needs
7. Department-wide training issues as submitted by any department personnel through a system to be established by the TAC. This system will include anonymous suggestions.
8. The needs assessment will include use of department job descriptions and class specifications to ensure that all Knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSA) and Job Tasks noted therein are accounted for in both the assessment and subsequent training programs. At a minimum, this needs assessment will be conducted for the Entry Level and In-Service Training Programs, expanding into other specialized programs as needed.
B. The Training Advisory Committee shall meet quarterly or more frequently as determined by the TAC Chairperson.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-10 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 3 of 6
C. Meetings of the Training Advisory Committee shall include, but not be limited to, the following agenda items:
1. Use of Force training evaluations and current issues.
2. A review of the previous quarter's training programs, including all items included in II. A., above.
3. While Level One critiques (instructor evaluations) by training participants will be considered, emphasis will be placed on the results of Level Two (Testing) and Level Three evaluations (follow up on training with job performance, via survey). These Level Two and Three evaluations will be conducted in accordance with generally accepted professional standards. These evaluations will be used to both identify training needs and/or shortcomings as well as indicate areas that should have training developed.
4. Identification, development and update of training modules based on recommendations that identify current job-related training needs.
5. Semi-annual review of force related lesson plans and related curricula materials to ensure compliance with policy, procedure, and current best policing practices. The results of these reviews will be documented in a report for each lesson plan.
6. Review deficiency reports, corrective measures, and discipline as it relates to Use of Force and Citizen Complaints (provided by Internal Affairs) in assessing training needs.
D. The TAC Chairperson will
1. Conduct the meeting;
2. Submit the findings of each meeting to the Police Commissioner and or his Designee, and
3. Prepare a report of the evaluation of each lesson plan reviewed to include a. Issues found, b. Corrective action taken, c. Changes, if any to policy, procedures, or practices.
4. Maintain a log of all reviewed materials indicating:
a. Date transmitted to the TAC members for review. b. Date of TAC meeting c. Brief description of corrections recommended. d. Date reports transmitted to Training Bureau and Policy Committee e. Date report forwarded to the Commissioner f. Date changes were made to affected training materials or policies. g. Date updated training materials and/or policies were approved by other agencies

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-10 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 4 of 6
h. Date updated training materials and/or policies were uploaded to Power DMS. E. Appendix A, attached outlines the process utilized for reviewing Data, Policies, and Training Curricula. Ill. ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENTS AND APPOINTMENT TERMS 1. Upon notification of meeting dates, members should indicate their ability to attend the meeting through e-mail to the chairperson or co• chair, as noted in the meeting notification email. 2. If a member is unable to attend, the member shall designate a person to attend as a proxy member of the Committee. 3. If a member is unable to attend and fails to send a proxy member for two consecutive meetings, the member may be asked to step down from his position 4. Should a member show a pattern of inconsistent attendance outside that which has been previously discussed, a member may be asked to step down from their position. 5. Members will hold staggered terms of three years and may be recommended to serve consecutive terms.
Delroy Richards, Sr. Police Commissioner DATE:

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-10 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 5 of 6

APPENDIX A TO TAC SOP (Dated

)

1. Use of Force Policies and related Lesson Plan will be reviewed during the 2nd and 4th Quarter. Note: Policies/Lesson Plans will be identified for review before the meetings and forwarded to committee members by the Training Staff.
2. A policy review form, developed in conjunction with the Policy Committee, will be utilized to outline the discussions and recommended changes if any to policies resultant of the TAC meeting and review. A copy will be sent to the Policy Committee and included in the TAC Report to the Police Commissioner.
3. A lesson plan review form will be developed by the Training Bureau and utilized to outline the review process and associated discussion and subsequent recommended changes if any, this will be included in the TAC Report to the Police Commissioner.
4. Policies that are non-use of force related will be reviewed and spread equally throughout the year on a schedule established by and updated as necessary by the Policy Committee in conjunction with the Training Bureau, ensuring that mandated Use of Force polices and training materials are reviewed on a semi-annual basis. Copies of the completed policy review form for such reviews will be forwarded to the policy committee and sent with the TAC Report to the Police Commissioner.
5. Copies of both the Policy and Training Materials review forms, as well as the TAC Report to the Commissioner, will also be transmitted to the USDOJ, CRT and the IMT upon sign-off of the TAC Meeting Report by the Commissioner.
6. The review of Use of Force lesson plans and related policies will proceed as follows:
a. The related Use of Force policy will be reviewed for any pending modifications required since the last review, such as law changes or Commissioner Directives that are due for inclusion in the policy.
b. Any reports from FRB hearings or command review of investigation will be presented and discussed, focusing on recommended changes to policy, training, or tactics.
c. The data reports and analysis from IAB will be presented by the IAB analyst. Which include a written conclusion drawn from the data and the analyst attending the TAC meeting should be prepared to brief the members on these conclusions. d. Training evaluations will be reviewed.
e. Recommendations and identified shortcomings from VIPD Audits and IMT Quarterly Reports.
f. Trends and errors identified within EIP generated data displays such as effectiveness ratios for force, injuries sustained by any party, improper use, etc.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-10 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 6 of 6
g. The lesson plans and related curricula (Power Points, Evaluation checklists, handouts, tests, etc.) will be reviewed using above items. i. The committee will identify any changes needed to either policy or training and log same in appropriate reporting forms. j. The Training Bureau or Policy Committee will then have 60 days to finalize all required modifications and submit them to appropriate review authorities.

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-11 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 2

From: To:
Subject: Start: End: Location: Importance:

Gregory Davila Curtis Griffin; Jason Marsh; Atty. Terri Griffiths; IMT-Monitor Mail; IMT-PW DKW Services; IMT-PW Monitor Mail; Fleisher, Aaron (CRT); Murray, Jeff (CRT); Killebrew, Paul (CRT) FW: Consent Decree Weekly Meetings Tuesday, March 6, 2018 12:00:00 PM Tuesday, March 6, 2018 1:00:00 PM Commissioner"s Conference Rooms High

Please see outlook calendar item regarding weekly consent decree command meetings. Task#: 11; Page 21 - item 4(D) & Page 3, item B

-----Original Appointment----From: Gregory Davila Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 10:04 AM To: Gregory Davila; Agnes Wallace; Andrea Bryan-McIntosh; Anna Gilbert; Antonio Emanuel; Atty. Terri Griffiths; Chenelle Skepple; Curtis Griffin; Cyndee Ible-Frontal; David Cannonier; Delroy Richards Sr.; Edmund Walters; Ferdinand Reyes; Jason Marsh; Kevin Hewitt; Kishauna Tweede; Linda Raymond; Lorraine Lynch; Maria Colon-Jones; Mark Corneiro; Mary Duggan; Mirrett Benta; Rachel Stanley; Rita Thomas; Ruchella Samuel; Sanchia Hall; Shermaine Nielsen; Sherri Lewis; Steven Phillip; Vivianne Newton; Walton Jack Jr.; Winsbut McFarlande Subject: Consent Decree Weekly Meetings When: Occurs every Tuesday effective 3/6/2018 until 12/31/2018 from 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM (UTC-04:00) Georgetown, La Paz, Manaus, San Juan. Where: Commissioner's Conference Rooms Importance: High

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-11 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 2 of 2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-12 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 1

Government of The Virgin Islands of the United States

Captain Maria Colon-Jones Acting Training Director

VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT TRAINING BUREAU

September 14, 2018

TO:

Curtis Griffin

Assistant Police Commissioner

Consent Decree Compliance Officer

Virgin Islands Police Department

TRAINING BUREAU #45 Mars Hill Frederiksted
St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 00840 (340) 719-6737 Office (340) 719-6714 Fax
Bldg. #116 Sub Base St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 00802
(340) 774-3214: Office (340) 714-4947: Fax

FROM:

Captain Maria Colon-Jones_______________________ Acting Training Director

SUBJECT: In-service Training IAPRO and Blue Team Training

As per our conference call yesterday on the task #12 identified by the Draft joint report and proposed order to the court, this document serves as confirmation that IAPRO and Blue Team Training will be included in the yearly In-Service Training. These training modules will be taught in either classroom sessions or via Power DMS. Additionally, information has already been requested from Internal Affairs on the materials they have available for the subjects and have requested that notification is provided to the Training Bureau of any updates or changes. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

CC:

Deputy Commissioner Jason Marsh

Training Coordinators

File

Facsimile (340) 715-5517 St. Thomas y (340) 778-2373 St. Croix y (340) 776-6236 St. John

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-13 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 19
VIPD Policies and Directives In Effect Status List
Report Covers Written Directives = POL and Are CD Related? =YES

Run Date 09/14/2018

Policy Nbr Type Title
01.3 POL Written Directives System
IMT Comments and Action History 110917-No record of any review since last IMT review date. Revision History (If Any)

Pub Date 07/20/2015
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

07/19/2016

787

Y

YES Para PDMS Pub Date 07/30/2015

PDMS Rev Nbr

Associated Forms (If Any)

Policy Nbr Type Title
02.10 POL Brady Disclosures

Pub Date 02/06/2016
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

02/05/2017

586

Y

02/06/2016

YES Para

PDMS Pub Date 02/06/2016

PDMS Rev Nbr

IMT Comments and Action History
Duplicated policy number with Tourism Police; Duggan notified 051317. 110917-No record of any review since last IMT review date.
Revision History (If Any)

Associated Forms (If Any)

policylist_rev_a e:\cd_mgt\policy_logs.set

Policies indciated under PARA with a (1) were found on a VIPD supplied list in April 2015 and were explaind as pending development.

Page 1 of 19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-13 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 2 of 19
VIPD Policies and Directives In Effect Status List
Report Covers Written Directives = POL and Are CD Related? =YES

Run Date 09/14/2018

Policy Nbr Type Title
02.7 POL Audit and Inspection Policy
IMT Comments and Action History 110717-no record of review Revision History (If Any)
Revision Date Revision Nbr Comments

Pub Date 09/01/2013
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

09/01/2014

1474

Y

05/11/2015

YES Para PDMS Pub Date 09/01/2013

PDMS Rev Nbr

Associated Forms (If Any)

Policy Nbr Type Title

02.8

POL

Establishment of the Office of Professional Standards

Pub Date 05/20/2015
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

05/19/2016

848

Y

YES Para PDMS Pub Date 05/20/2015

PDMS Rev Nbr

IMT Comments and Action History
050117-This policy was duplciated under 2-9 dated 5/20/15. The 2.9 was used again as noted under separate record here for restructuring the Insular Investigations Office; 051917-Duggan advised

110917-No record of any review since last IMT review date. Revision History (If Any)

Associated Forms (If Any)

policylist_rev_a e:\cd_mgt\policy_logs.set

Policies indciated under PARA with a (1) were found on a VIPD supplied list in April 2015 and were explaind as pending development.

Page 2 of 19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-13 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 3 of 19
VIPD Policies and Directives In Effect Status List
Report Covers Written Directives = POL and Are CD Related? =YES

Run Date 09/14/2018

Policy Nbr Type Title
03.1 POL Use of Force Policy
IMT Comments and Action History 042817-Copy on PowerDMS has a date of 2011 1110917-No record of any review since last IMT review date. Revision History (If Any)
Revision Date Revision Nbr Comments

Pub Date 05/05/2015
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

05/04/2016

863

Y

04/01/2016

YES Para PDMS Pub Date 03/30/2011

PDMS Rev Nbr

Associated Forms (If Any)

Form nbr

Form name

UOF-1

Response to Resistance Repo

Form date 10/01/2014

05/05/2015

2

Updated with FRB and FIT references

Policy Nbr Type Title
03.10 POL Deflation Devices

Pub Date 11/05/2015
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

11/04/2016

679

Y

YES Para PDMS Pub Date 11/05/2015

PDMS Rev Nbr 1

IMT Comments and Action History
This is a duplicate number with Spike Strips but since it was revised and Spike Strips was not, it is possible that this is the current policy that replaced Spike Strips; Duggan notified 051317

110917-No record of any review since last IMT review date.

091418-Removed CD ref for Spike Strips in favor of this policy because of revision date.

Revision History (If Any)

Associated Forms (If Any)

policylist_rev_a e:\cd_mgt\policy_logs.set

Policies indciated under PARA with a (1) were found on a VIPD supplied list in April 2015 and were explaind as pending development.

Page 3 of 19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-13 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 4 of 19
VIPD Policies and Directives In Effect Status List
Report Covers Written Directives = POL and Are CD Related? =YES

Run Date 09/14/2018

Policy Nbr Type Title
03.11 POL Canine (K-9) Operations
IMT Comments and Action History 110917-No record of any review since last IMT review date. Revision History (If Any)
Revision Date Revision Nbr Comments

Pub Date 09/17/2013
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

09/17/2014

1458

Y

YES Para PDMS Pub Date 09/17/2013

PDMS Rev Nbr 1

Associated Forms (If Any)

09/07/2013

1

09/17/2013

1

Policy Nbr Type Title

03.12

POL

Special Operations- Special Response Team & Hostage Negotiations Team

IMT Comments and Action History 110917-no record of review since review data entry date
Revision History (If Any)

Pub Date 12/12/2011
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

12/11/2012

2103

Y

08/17/2015

YES Para

PDMS Pub Date 12/12/2011

PDMS Rev Nbr

Associated Forms (If Any)

policylist_rev_a e:\cd_mgt\policy_logs.set

Policies indciated under PARA with a (1) were found on a VIPD supplied list in April 2015 and were explaind as pending development.

Page 4 of 19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-13 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 5 of 19
VIPD Policies and Directives In Effect Status List
Report Covers Written Directives = POL and Are CD Related? =YES

Run Date 09/14/2018

Policy Nbr Type Title
03.13 POL Sniper Operations

Pub Date 12/12/2011
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

12/11/2012

2103

Y

03/21/2016

YES Para PDMS Pub Date 12/12/2011

PDMS Rev Nbr

IMT Comments and Action History Draft revised in file dated 081715; redlined with comments, in Word format dated 032116

110917-No record of any review since last IMT review date. Revision History (If Any)

Associated Forms (If Any)

Policy Nbr Type Title
03.14 POL Vehicle Accident Policy

Pub Date 09/21/2014
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

09/21/2015

1089

Y

YES Para PDMS Pub Date 09/21/2014

PDMS Rev Nbr

IMT Comments and Action History 110917-No record of any review since last IMT review date.

Note-there is another 3.14 policy titled "Electronic Messaging (email) Policy" in file wiht a date of 052117; this appears to be another duplicated policy number as a previous policy 3.14 titled Vehcile Accident Policy was published under this 3.14 number and is dated 092114 with no subsequent reviews.091318-Duplicated policy no longe ron PDMS.

Revision History (If Any)

Associated Forms (If Any)

policylist_rev_a e:\cd_mgt\policy_logs.set

Policies indciated under PARA with a (1) were found on a VIPD supplied list in April 2015 and were explaind as pending development.

Page 5 of 19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-13 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 6 of 19
VIPD Policies and Directives In Effect Status List
Report Covers Written Directives = POL and Are CD Related? =YES

Run Date 09/14/2018

Policy Nbr Type Title
03.15 POL Force Investigation Team

Pub Date 09/01/2015
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

08/31/2016

744

Y

03/29/2016

YES Para PDMS Pub Date 09/01/2015

PDMS Rev Nbr

IMT Comments and Action History
Linked with 3.2 and 3.3 032916-IMT forwarded recomended changes to FIT based on completion of FIT SOP; no record of any action by the VIPD

110917-No record of any review since last IMT review date. Revision History (If Any)

Associated Forms (If Any)

Policy Nbr Type Title
03.16 POL Active Shooter
IMT Comments and Action History 110416- IMT fwd review comments in mark up 042817-Not found on PowerDMS 110917-No record of any review since last IMT review date. 091318-No record on PDMS. Revision History (If Any)

Pub Date 02/06/2017
CD Related? In PDMS n

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

02/06/2018

220

Y

11/04/2016

YES Para

PDMS Pub Date

PDMS Rev Nbr

Associated Forms (If Any)

policylist_rev_a e:\cd_mgt\policy_logs.set

Policies indciated under PARA with a (1) were found on a VIPD supplied list in April 2015 and were explaind as pending development.

Page 6 of 19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-13 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 7 of 19
VIPD Policies and Directives In Effect Status List
Report Covers Written Directives = POL and Are CD Related? =YES

Run Date 09/14/2018

Policy Nbr Type Title
03.18 POL Surviellance Operations (DRAFT)

Pub Date 11/14/2016
CD Related? In PDMS n

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

11/14/2017

304

Y

11/14/2016

YES Para

PDMS Pub Date

PDMS Rev Nbr

IMT Comments and Action History

110717-This is another potentialy a draft policy already set up in VIPD format , redlined but not signed. 110917-No record of any review since last IMT review date. IMT records show this was reviewed and sent back with minor changes (IACP Model Policy) but never implemented.

Revision History (If Any)

Associated Forms (If Any)

Form nbr

Form name

Form date

Policy Nbr Type Title
03.19 POL Drug Testing Policy
IMT Comments and Action History 110917-No record of any review since last IMT review date. Revision History (If Any)

Pub Date 11/30/2016
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

11/30/2017

288

Y

YES Para PDMS Pub Date 11/30/2016

PDMS Rev Nbr

Associated Forms (If Any)

Form nbr

Form name

Form date

policylist_rev_a e:\cd_mgt\policy_logs.set

Policies indciated under PARA with a (1) were found on a VIPD supplied list in April 2015 and were explaind as pending development.

Page 7 of 19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-13 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 8 of 19
VIPD Policies and Directives In Effect Status List
Report Covers Written Directives = POL and Are CD Related? =YES

Run Date 09/14/2018

Policy Nbr Type Title

03.2

POL

Reporting, Investigating, Review of Use of Force Policy

Pub Date 08/01/2015
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

07/31/2016

775

Y

08/25/2018

YES Para PDMS Pub Date 08/01/2015

PDMS Rev Nbr 2

IMT Comments and Action History

110917-No record of any review since last IMT review date. 062618- IMT returned comments on Draft revision to Policy 3.2 initiated by the VIPD on 061218. DOJ had previously returned their comments on 962418. 082518-Returned to VIPD with comments. 091318-Further discussed with DComm. IMT has issue with definition of force as noted in most current from VIPD.

Revision History (If Any)

Associated Forms (If Any)

Revision Date Revision Nbr Comments

08/01/2015

1

08/01/2015

2

Policy Nbr Type Title
03.21 POL Confidential Informats

IMT Comments and Action History Revision History (If Any)

Pub Date 11/30/2016
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

11/30/2017

288

Y

YES Para PDMS Pub Date 11/30/2016

PDMS Rev Nbr

Associated Forms (If Any)

policylist_rev_a e:\cd_mgt\policy_logs.set

Policies indciated under PARA with a (1) were found on a VIPD supplied list in April 2015 and were explaind as pending development.

Page 8 of 19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-13 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 9 of 19
VIPD Policies and Directives In Effect Status List
Report Covers Written Directives = POL and Are CD Related? =YES

Run Date 09/14/2018

Policy Nbr Type Title
03.24 POL Recording Police Activity
IMT Comments and Action History

Pub Date 12/04/2016
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

12/04/2017

284

Y

YES Para PDMS Pub Date 12/04/2016

PDMS Rev Nbr

Revision History (If Any)

Associated Forms (If Any)

Policy Nbr Type Title
03.3 POL Force Review Board
IMT Comments and Action History Linked with 3.15 and 3.2 110917-No record of any review since last IMT review date. Revision History (If Any)

Pub Date 09/01/2015
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

08/31/2016

744

Y

03/29/2016

YES Para

PDMS Pub Date 09/01/2015

PDMS Rev Nbr

Associated Forms (If Any)

policylist_rev_a e:\cd_mgt\policy_logs.set

Policies indciated under PARA with a (1) were found on a VIPD supplied list in April 2015 and were explaind as pending development.

Page 9 of 19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-13 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 10 of 19
VIPD Policies and Directives In Effect Status List
Report Covers Written Directives = POL and Are CD Related? =YES

Run Date 09/14/2018

Policy Nbr Type Title
03.4 POL Firearms
IMT Comments and Action History

Pub Date 05/03/2011
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

05/02/2012

2326

Y

10/22/2015

YES Para PDMS Pub Date 05/03/2011

PDMS Rev Nbr

Revision History (If Any) Policy Nbr Type Title
03.5 POL Impact Weapons
IMT Comments and Action History Revision History (If Any)

Associated Forms (If Any)

Pub Date 03/30/2011
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

03/29/2012

2360

Y

10/22/2015

YES Para

PDMS Pub Date 03/30/2011

PDMS Rev Nbr

Associated Forms (If Any)

policylist_rev_a e:\cd_mgt\policy_logs.set

Policies indciated under PARA with a (1) were found on a VIPD supplied list in April 2015 and were explaind as pending development.

Page 10 of 19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-13 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 11 of 19
VIPD Policies and Directives In Effect Status List
Report Covers Written Directives = POL and Are CD Related? =YES

Run Date 09/14/2018

Policy Nbr Type Title
03.6 POL Electronic Control Weapons

Pub Date 03/30/2011
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

03/29/2012

2360

Y

10/20/2015

YES Para PDMS Pub Date 03/30/2011

PDMS Rev Nbr

IMT Comments and Action History 041517-IMT issues with Taser cases were addressed by VIPD with Roll call training and a recomended change by IAB (Newton) to TAC

110917-No record of any review since last IMT review date.

Revision History (If Any)

Associated Forms (If Any)

Policy Nbr Type Title
03.7 POL O.C. Spray
IMT Comments and Action History 110917-No record of any review since last IMT review date. Revision History (If Any)
Revision Date Revision Nbr Comments

Pub Date 11/20/2015
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

11/19/2016

664

Y

12/03/2015

YES Para

PDMS Pub Date 11/20/2015

PDMS Rev Nbr 2

Associated Forms (If Any)

11/06/2015

1

policylist_rev_a e:\cd_mgt\policy_logs.set

Unknown why revised
Policies indciated under PARA with a (1) were found on a VIPD supplied list in April 2015 and were explaind as pending development.

Page 11 of 19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-13 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 12 of 19
VIPD Policies and Directives In Effect Status List
Report Covers Written Directives = POL and Are CD Related? =YES

Run Date 09/14/2018

Policy Nbr Type Title
03.8 POL Off-duty Official Action
IMT Comments and Action History 110917-No record of any review since last IMT review date. Revision History (If Any)
Revision Date Revision Nbr Comments

Pub Date 11/06/2015
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

11/05/2016

678

Y

10/22/2015

YES Para PDMS Pub Date 11/06/2015

PDMS Rev Nbr 1

Associated Forms (If Any)

11/06/2015

1

11/06/2015

1

Found on PowerDMS

Policy Nbr Type Title
03.9 POL Vehicle Pursuit

Pub Date 03/30/2011
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

03/29/2012

2360

Y

11/06/2014

YES Para

PDMS Pub Date 03/30/2011

PDMS Rev Nbr

IMT Comments and Action History IMT previously provided suggested re-wording and comments in the draft document

110917-No record of any review since last IMT review date. Revision History (If Any)

Associated Forms (If Any)

policylist_rev_a e:\cd_mgt\policy_logs.set

Policies indciated under PARA with a (1) were found on a VIPD supplied list in April 2015 and were explaind as pending development.

Page 12 of 19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-13 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 13 of 19
VIPD Policies and Directives In Effect Status List
Report Covers Written Directives = POL and Are CD Related? =YES

Run Date 09/14/2018

Policy Nbr Type Title

04.1

POL

Domestic Violence Involving a Police Officer

IMT Comments and Action History 110917-No record of any review since last IMT review date.
Revision History (If Any)

Pub Date 11/03/2016
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

11/03/2017

315

Y

YES Para PDMS Pub Date 12/03/2016

PDMS Rev Nbr

Associated Forms (If Any)

Policy Nbr Type Title

04.6

POL

Psychological Fitness for Duty Evaluation Policy

IMT Comments and Action History 110917-No record of any review since last IMT review date.
Revision History (If Any)

Pub Date 03/13/2012
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

03/13/2013

2011

Y

YES Para

PDMS Pub Date 03/13/2012

PDMS Rev Nbr

Associated Forms (If Any)

policylist_rev_a e:\cd_mgt\policy_logs.set

Policies indciated under PARA with a (1) were found on a VIPD supplied list in April 2015 and were explaind as pending development.

Page 13 of 19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-13 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 14 of 19
VIPD Policies and Directives In Effect Status List
Report Covers Written Directives = POL and Are CD Related? =YES

Run Date 09/14/2018

Policy Nbr Type Title
06.1 POL Data Input Plan

Pub Date 09/22/2011
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

09/21/2012

2184

Y

03/03/2017

YES Para PDMS Pub Date 09/22/2011

PDMS Rev Nbr

IMT Comments and Action History 2016-IMT , along with VIPD and DOJ worked this policy thru early Dec 2016, with final copy forwarded to VIPD in early early Dec.

2017-More tranactions in Feb, with IMT final version fwd to VIPD 030317

110717-Draft remains in hands of VIPD executive staff.

Revision History (If Any)

Associated Forms (If Any)

Policy Nbr Type Title
06.2 POL Early Intervention Program

Pub Date 11/06/2015
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

11/05/2016

678

Y

03/04/2017

YES Para 60

PDMS Pub Date 11/06/2015

PDMS Rev Nbr 2

IMT Comments and Action History

2016-Review interaction between the parties June 2016 fwd, with final IMT/DOJ draft review sent to the VIPD 121616 110717-Draft remains in VIPD executive level with last IMT action 030417.

Revision History (If Any)

Associated Forms (If Any)

Revision Date Revision Nbr Comments

10/28/2013

1

11/06/2015

2

policylist_rev_a e:\cd_mgt\policy_logs.set

Policies indciated under PARA with a (1) were found on a VIPD supplied list in April 2015 and were explaind as pending development.

Page 14 of 19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-13 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 15 of 19
VIPD Policies and Directives In Effect Status List
Report Covers Written Directives = POL and Are CD Related? =YES

Run Date 09/14/2018

Policy Nbr Type Title
06.3 POL Blue Team Protocol

Pub Date 06/27/2013
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

06/27/2014

1540

Y

03/03/2017

YES Para

PDMS Pub Date 06/27/2013

PDMS Rev Nbr

IMT Comments and Action History
2016- work on policy between June and Dec with final sent to VIPD 122116 2017-additional work by IMT in Feb and Mar with final sent to VIPD 030317 110917-No record of any review since last IMT review date.
Revision History (If Any)

Associated Forms (If Any)

Policy Nbr Type Title
06.4 POL Behavioral Health Services
IMT Comments and Action History 110917-No record of any review since last IMT review date. Revision History (If Any)

Pub Date 09/21/2014
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

09/21/2015

1089

Y

YES Para PDMS Pub Date 09/21/2014

PDMS Rev Nbr

Associated Forms (If Any)

policylist_rev_a e:\cd_mgt\policy_logs.set

Policies indciated under PARA with a (1) were found on a VIPD supplied list in April 2015 and were explaind as pending development.

Page 15 of 19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-13 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 16 of 19
VIPD Policies and Directives In Effect Status List
Report Covers Written Directives = POL and Are CD Related? =YES

Run Date 09/14/2018

Policy Nbr Type Title
07.1 POL Disciplinary Policy

Pub Date 11/01/2013
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

11/01/2014

1413

Y

03/17/2017

YES Para PDMS Pub Date 07/25/2015

PDMS Rev Nbr 1

IMT Comments and Action History
06/01/16- Received copy of original policy dated 11/01/13 from VIPD per IMT request. IMT system was updated. 2016-Lot of review activity during June to Dec 2016, with a final edit copy fwd to VIPD late Dec 2016 2017-More work, with IMT final edit version fwd 031717; inquiry as to status with Policy Chair 081517 and again 110717; result policy remains with VIPD executive staff under review.

Revision History (If Any)
Revision Date Revision Nbr Comments

Associated Forms (If Any)

07/25/2015

1

Policy Nbr Type Title
07.2 POL Acceptance of Citizen Complaints

Pub Date 08/02/2011
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

08/01/2012

2235

Y

YES Para PDMS Pub Date 08/02/2011

PDMS Rev Nbr

IMT Comments and Action History 110917-No record of any review since last IMT review date.
Revision History (If Any)

Associated Forms (If Any)

policylist_rev_a e:\cd_mgt\policy_logs.set

Policies indciated under PARA with a (1) were found on a VIPD supplied list in April 2015 and were explaind as pending development.

Page 16 of 19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-13 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 17 of 19
VIPD Policies and Directives In Effect Status List
Report Covers Written Directives = POL and Are CD Related? =YES

Run Date 09/14/2018

Policy Nbr Type Title

07.3

POL

Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaints

Pub Date 08/02/2015
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

08/01/2016

774

Y

03/30/2017

YES Para PDMS Pub Date 07/20/2015

PDMS Rev Nbr 1

IMT Comments and Action History Revision was still under review by DOJ on 080415

2016-Review activity began in June 2016 and continued through Dec 2016, with numerous versions back and forth; last version in 2016 was transmitted 101916

2017-Reviews continued with heavy action in Feb followed by March; last IMT version fwd 033017 although tele-conferences continued through June 2017; last inquiry was from AC Griffin on 103017 and followed by CAG to coordinate with AC Griffin on final 110517- status on hold in suspense system.

Revision History (If Any)

Associated Forms (If Any)

Revision Date Revision Nbr Comments

07/20/2015

1

This is a signed copy of the revised policy however as of 08/04/15 the draft is still under review by DOJ , so it is questionable if this is an approved copy.

Policy Nbr Type Title

10.1

POL

Annual Training, In-Service Training, Remedial training

IMT Comments and Action History

Pub Date
CD Related? In PDMS

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

2458376

Y

YES Para (1) PDMS Pub Date

PDMS Rev Nbr

Revision History (If Any)
policylist_rev_a e:\cd_mgt\policy_logs.set

Associated Forms (If Any)
Policies indciated under PARA with a (1) were found on a VIPD supplied list in April 2015 and were explaind as pending development.

Page 17 of 19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-13 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 18 of 19
VIPD Policies and Directives In Effect Status List
Report Covers Written Directives = POL and Are CD Related? =YES

Run Date 09/14/2018

Policy Nbr Type Title

10.2

POL

Field Training and Evaluation Program

IMT Comments and Action History 110917-No record of any review since last IMT review date.
Revision History (If Any)

Pub Date 09/21/2011
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

09/20/2012

2185

Y

YES Para PDMS Pub Date 09/21/2011

PDMS Rev Nbr

Associated Forms (If Any)

Policy Nbr Type Title

10.4

POL

Roll Call Protocol and Training Policy

Pub Date 05/12/2015
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

05/11/2016

856

Y

05/30/2015

YES Para

PDMS Pub Date 05/12/2015

PDMS Rev Nbr 1

IMT Comments and Action History 2015-IMT commented on th need for separation of the Roll Call Policy from the Roll Call Training policy.

2015-VIPD WD TOC shows this as Career Development; but actual document has this as Roll Call Protocol and Training Policy; current version in PDMS shows revision but no revision date; has current pub date as that we carry as Revision 1 date. 110917-No record of any review since last IMT review date.

Revision History (If Any)

Associated Forms (If Any)

Revision Date Revision Nbr Comments

05/12/2015

1

policylist_rev_a e:\cd_mgt\policy_logs.set

Issues were raised about current status and VIPD undertook a review and IMT commented. VIPD did not
Policies indciated under PARA with a (1) were found on a VIPD supplied list in April 2015 and were explaind as pending development.

Page 18 of 19

05/12/2015

1

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-13 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 19 of 19
VIPD Policies and Directives In Effect Status List
Report Covers Written Directives = POL and Are CD Related? =YES
accept all IMT recommendations

Run Date 09/14/2018

Policy Nbr Type Title
12.1 POL Arrest Policy
IMT Comments and Action History Not on VIPD TOC 110917-No record of any review since last IMT review date. Revision History (If Any)
Revision Date Revision Nbr Comments

Pub Date 07/20/2015
CD Related? In PDMS y

Revision Due Days Past Due Over Due IMT Last Review

07/19/2016

787

Y

YES Para PDMS Pub Date 07/20/2015

PDMS Rev Nbr 2

Associated Forms (If Any)

1

07/20/2015

2

policylist_rev_a e:\cd_mgt\policy_logs.set

Date is unknown

Number of Written Directives Reporting:

38

Policies indciated under PARA with a (1) were found on a VIPD supplied list in April 2015 and were explaind as pending development.

Page 19 of 19

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM GDoocvuemrnenmt #e:n3t5o4-f14 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 1 The Virgin Islands of the United States
-- O -VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND APPLICANT SCREENING BUREAU

September 11, 2018

Memorandum

To:

All IAB Staff

50F2 Hannahs Rest Suite #2
Frederiksted St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 00840
(340)778-3066
Police Operations and Administrative Services #45 Mars Hill, Frederiksted St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 00840
(340)778-2211
Criminal Justice Complex Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 00802 (340)774-2211
Leander Jurgen Command Cruz Bay
St. John, U.S.V.I. 00830 (340)693-8880

From:

Chenelle Skepple_______________________ Acting Director, IA&ASB

Subject:

Return of Investigations/Deficiency Letters

Pursuant to Policy 7.3-Investigating Misconduct and Citizen Complaint, the Internal Affairs staff conduct reviews of completed investigations forwarded to the unit for closure. Whenever the investigation fails to meet the required standards, the case is returned to the commander with instructions to correct the identified deficiency. Moving forward, in each instance when an investigation is returned to the commander, the instructions to correct the deficiency will be documented on a Return of Investigation Form or Deficiency Letter and attached to the case in IAPRO. The Internal Affairs Staff generating the letter that identifies the deficiency will be responsible for forwarding a copy of the Return of Investigation Form or Deficiency Letter to the Audit Unit as well as the Training Bureau.
Forwarding the documents will assist with efforts to ensure the Training Bureau and Audit Unit are aware of the deficiency identified during the review of the cases.

Facsimile (340) 715-5517 St. Thomas  (340) 778-2373 St. Croix  (340) 776-6236 St. John

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-15 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 1
Government of
The United States Virgin Islands
-0-
VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JASON K. MARSH
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS

To: From:

Assistant Commissioner, Curtis A. Griffin, JD Deputy Commissioner, Jason K. Marsh

ALEXANDER A. FARRELLY JUSTICE CENTER
CHARLOTTE AMALIE ST. THOMAS, V.I. 00802
(340) 774-2211
LEANDER JURGEN COMMAND CRUZ BAY
ST. JOHN, V.I. 00830 (340) 693-8880
POLICE OPERATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES # 45 MARS HILL, FREDERIKSTED
ST. CROIX, V.I. 00841 (340) 778-2211

Date: Re:

September 10, 2018 Policy Committee Members

PATRICK SWEENEY HD’QTRS.
RR-02, KINGHILL ST. CROIX V.I. 00850

The following individuals are members of the Policy Committee:

Sgt. Gregory Coward and AD Chenelle SkeppleSgt. Ludrick Thomas and Ofc. Jason ViverosSgt. Gail Liburd

Internal Affairs Training Audit Unit

Along with the following members appointed by Assistant Chief Steven Phillip who is the Chairperson of the Committee:

STT

Lt. Bridget Conow Sgt. Sofia Rachid Det. Richard Velasquez Ofc. Ann Marie Charles

STX

AC Edmund Walters Mark Corneiro

FACSIMILE: (340) 715-5538 ST.THOMAS (340) 778-2373 ST. CROIX (340) 776-6236 ST.JOHN

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-16 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 1

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-17 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-17 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 2 of 2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-18 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-18 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 2 of 7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-18 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 3 of 7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-18 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 4 of 7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-18 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 5 of 7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-18 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 6 of 7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-18 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 7 of 7

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-19 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-19 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 2 of 2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-20 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-20 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 2 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-20 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 3 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-20 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 4 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-20 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 5 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-20 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 6 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-20 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 7 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-20 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 8 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-20 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 9 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-20 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 10 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-20 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 11 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-20 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 12 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-20 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 13 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-20 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 14 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-20 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 15 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-20 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 16 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-20 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 17 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-20 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 18 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-20 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 19 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-20 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 20 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-20 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 21 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-20 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 22 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-20 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 23 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-20 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 24 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-21 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-21 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 2 of 6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-21 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 3 of 6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-21 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 4 of 6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-21 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 5 of 6

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-21 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 6 of 6

District of St. Croix

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-22 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 3

Special Operations Bureau

IA Case No

Special Ops: Squad I CCX2018-0003

Special Ops Sqaud II CCX2018-0017

K-9 Unit

CCX2018-0032

CCX2018-0034

SOB 500-1700

CCX2018-0038

SOB 500-1700

CCX2018-0038

Special Ops: Squad I CCX2018-0041

SOB 600-1800 SOB 500-1700 SOB 600-1800 K-9 Unit Sup

CCX2018-0043 CCX2018-0043 CCX2018-0043 CCX2018-0043

K-9 Unit

CCX2018-0049 CCX2018-0051

Command

CCX2018-0061 CCX2018-0061

Command

CCX2018-0062

Special Ops: Squad I CAX2018-0011

Respondent Officer [
] Unk Officer
] ]
]
Unk Officer
Unk Officer

Incident type
Citizen complaint Citizen complaint Citizen complaint Citizen complaint Citizen complaint Citizen complaint Citizen complaint
Citizen complaint Citizen complaint Citizen complaint Citizen complaint
Citizen complaint Citizen complaint
Citizen complaint Citizen complaint
Citizen complaint Command Investigation

Received Dt
17-Jan18
18-Feb18
27-Apr18
30-Apr18
11-May18
11-May18
30-May18
8-Jun-18
8-Jun-18
8-Jun-18
8-Jun-18
11-Jul18
17-Jul18
28-Aug18
28-Aug18
28-Aug18
18-Apr18

Allegation(s) B.31: Using rude,coarse,violent, profane,vulgr,sarcastic, or insulting language &/or conduct to the public or officer / C.5: Actions amounting to harassment and/or intimidation of a citizen, department or government employee A.12: Failure to be tactful, controls temper, & exercise the utmost patience & discretion in the performance of duties C.32:Unprofessional conduct involving an act of violence where elements of a misdemeanor are met, regardless of whether C.5: Actions amounting to harassment and/or intimidation of a citizen, department or government employee A.54:Failure to take appropriate action on the occasion of a crime, disorder, or other condition deserving police attent A.54:Failure to take appropriate action on the occasion of a crime, disorder, or other condition deserving police attent C.46:Excessive use of force that results in injuries / C.1: Failure to prepare Response to Resistance Reports in accordance with the Reportable Use of Force Policy. C.5: Actions amounting to harassment and/or intimidation of a citizen, department or government employee / B.31: Using rude,coarse,violent, profane,vulgr,sarcastic, or insulting language &/or conduct to the public or officer B.31: Using rude,coarse,violent, profane,vulgr,sarcastic, or insulting language &/or conduct to the public or officer B.31: Using rude,coarse,violent, profane,vulgr,sarcastic, or insulting language &/or conduct to the public or officer B.31: Using rude,coarse,violent, profane,vulgr,sarcastic, or insulting language &/or conduct to the public or officer A.53: Failure to submit a written request for off-duty employment for approval prior to engaging in such employment / D.28: Unprofressional Conduct...elements of a felony met... / C.5: Actions amounting to harassment and/or intimidation of a citizen, department or government employee A.22: Failure to prepare a departmental report when required B.31: Using rude,coarse,violent, profane,vulgr,sarcastic, or insulting language &/or conduct to the public or officer / A.54:Failure to take appropriate action on the occasion of a crime, disorder, or other condition deserving police attent / B.29: Unsatisfactory Performance: Failure to thoroughly search for persons, property & locations,or collect, preserve.. / B.3: Failure to assist any person rqst information or advice, or making complaints, reports, by telephone or in person
None Linked A.54:Failure to take appropriate action on the occasion of a crime, disorder, or other condition deserving police attent / A.12: Failure to be tactful, controls temper, & exercise the utmost patience & discretion in the performance of duties C.4:Abuse, or negligently damaging or losing Department equipment; or intentionally damaging and/or destroying departmen

Investigator

Due Dt

Status

Disposition

Completed Days

Dt

Out

Investigative Issues - Please insert reasons for delay in investigation

16-Feb-18 Completed

Not Sustained

6-Mar-18

207

20-Mar-18 Completed

Not Sustained

19-Mar-18

175

16-Aug-18 Completed

Sustained

15-Aug-18

26

19-Jun-18 Completed

Not Sustained

16-Jul-18

84

10-Jun-18 Completed

Sustained

12-Jun-18

93

10-Jun-18 Completed

Sustained

12-Jun-18

93

29-Jun-18 Active

74

8-Jul-18 Completed

Not Sustained

24-Jul-18

65

8-Jul-18 Completed

Not Sustained

24-Jul-18

65

8-Jul-18 Completed

Not Sustained

24-Jul-18

65

8-Jul-18 Completed

Not Sustained

24-Jul-18

65

10-Aug-18 Completed

Sustained

6-Sep-18

32

Administratively

16-Aug-18 Completed

Closed

19-Jul-18

26

27-Sep-18 Forwarded

-16

27-Sep-18 Forwarded

-16

27-Sep-18 Forwarded

-16

18-May-18 Completed

Not Sustained

24-May-18

116

District of St. Croix

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-22 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 2 of 3

Command Command

CCX2018-0063
CAX2018-0032 CAX2018-0033

] Unk Officer

Command Investigation
Command Investigation Command Investigation

2-Sep-18
6-Sep-18 7-Sep-18

C.5: Actions amounting to harassment and/or intimidation of a citizen, department or government employee C.4:Abuse, or negligently damaging or losing Department equipment; or intentionally damaging and/or destroying departmen A.48: Failure to immediately notify a supervisor of a traffic accident involving a Department Vehicle

Un-assigned

Special Ops Sqaud II UOFX2018-0004 Special Ops Sqaud II UOFX2018-0008

] Level 2 UOF 6-Feb-18 None Linked

]

Level 3 UOF 6-Feb-18 None Linked

Special Ops Sqaud II UOFX2018-0006 Special Ops Sqaud II UOFX2018-0005

Special Ops Sqaud II UOFX2018-0015

Special Ops Sqaud II UOFX2018-0016

K-9 Unit

UOFX2018-0014

Special Ops: Squad I UOFX2018-0031

Level 3 UOF 6-Feb-18 None Linked

]

Level 3 UOF 6-Feb-18 None Linked

icer

26-Feb-

Level 3 UOF

18 None Linked

26-Feb-

]

Level 3 UOF

18 None Linked

26-Feb-

Level 3 UOF

18 None Linked

Level 3 UOF 5-Jun-18 None Linked

SOB 600-1800

UOFX2018-0035

] Level 3 UOF 7-Aug-18 None Linked

Special Ops Sqaud II UOFX2018-0036

Level 3 UOF 7-Aug-18 None Linked

Commander

UOFX2018-0001

Special Ops Sqaud II UOFX2018-0010

SOB 600-1800

UOFX2018-0025

K-9 Unit SOB 600-1800

UOFX2018-0026 UOFX2018-0027

Level 4 UOF
Level 4 UOF Level 4 UOF
Level 4 UOF ] Level 4 UOF

3-Jan-18 None Linked

11-Feb18
28-May18

None Linked None Linked

28-May18
28-May18

None Linked None Linked

2-Oct-18 Active

-21

6-Oct-18 Initial

-25

7-Oct-18 Forwarded

-26

Justified: w/i

8-Mar-18 Completed

Policy

22-Mar-18

187

Justified: w/i

7-Mar-18 Completed

Policy

22-Mar-18

188

Justified: w/i

7-Mar-18 Completed

Policy

22-Mar-18

188

Justified: w/i

7-Mar-18 Completed

Policy

22-Mar-18

188

Justified: w/i

28-Mar-18 Completed

Policy

13-Jun-18

167

Justified: w/i

28-Mar-18 Completed

Policy

13-Jun-18

167

Justified: w/i

26-Mar-18 Completed

Policy

13-Jun-18

169

4-Jul-18 Active

69

Justified: w/i

6-Sep-18 Completed

Policy

8-Sep-18

5

Justified: w/i

6-Sep-18 Completed

Policy

8-Sep-18

5

Justified: w/i

13-Jan-18 Completed

Policy

21-Feb-18

241

Justified: w/i

14-Mar-18 Completed

Policy

28-Feb-18

181

Justified: w/i

27-Jun-18 Completed

Policy

10-Jul-18

76

Justified: w/i

27-Jun-18 Completed

Policy

10-Jul-18

76

Justified: w/i

28-Jul-18 Completed

Policy

10-Jul-18

45

Operations St. Thomas Patrol/Zone A Sup Sqd 2

IA Case No CCT2017-0056

Respondent Officer ]

School Security/Squad 1 CID Forensic/ Squad 1

CCT2017-0066 CCT2017-0078

Traffic/ Squad 2 CCT2017-0082

]

CCT2017-0096 Unk Officer

Chief's Office

CCT2017-0104

Patrol/Zone A

Squad 1

CCT2017-0112

]

Patrol/Zone A

Squad 2

CAT2017-0031

Patrol/Zone C

Squad 3

CAT2017-0032

Patrol/Zone C

Sup Sqd 3

CAT2017-0038

Patrol/Zone C

Squad 1

IAT2017-0005

Bike Unit

IAT2017-0006

Incident type
Citizen complaint
Citizen complaint
Citizen complaint
Citizen complaint
Citizen complaint
Citizen complaint
Citizen complaint Command Investigation Command Investigation Command Investigation
IA Investigation
IA Investigation

Traffic/ Squad 1 Deputy Chief

IAT2017-0007 IAT2017-0010

IA Investigation IA Investigation

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-22 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 3 of 3

Received Dt

Allegation(s)

Investigator

Due Dt

Status

Days Investigative Issues - Please insert reasons for delay in Out investigation

8-Jun-17 13-Jul-17

C:5 Actions Amounting to Harassment and/or Intimidation of citizen, dept or gov employee B:31 Using rude, coarse, insulting.....language or conduct to public or officer / C:33Appear for duty.or be on duty while under the influence of intoxicants, or with an order of intoxicants on their.. / B: 40 Refusal to Obey any Lawful order or directive

8-Jul-17 Forwarded 430

6-Sep-18 Suspended

5

14-Aug-17 C:3 Performing any act or ommission prejudicial to good order...

Un-assigned

13-Sep-17 Active

363

24-Aug-17 A:12 - Failure to be tactful, controls temper...discretion in the performance of duties A:54 Failure to take appropriate action on occasion of a crime...or condition deserving
8-Nov-17 police attention /

23-Sep-17 Forwarded 353

9-Dec-17 Active

276

22-Nov-17 C:5 Actions Amounting to Harassment and/or Intimidation of citizen, dept or gov employee A:12 - Failure to be tactful, controls temper...discretion in the performance of duties /
8-Dec-17 A:22 Failure to Prepare a Departmental Report when required

29-Dec-17 Active

256

24-Aug-18 Suspended

18

9-Sep-17 B: 40 Refusal to Obey any Lawful order or directive

9-Oct-17 Active

337

24-Sep-17 Damage to Government Property

24-Oct-17 Active

322

19-Oct-17 C:5 Actions Amounting to Harassment and/or Intimidation of citizen, dept or gov employee C:32 Unprofessional conduct involving an act of violence where elements of a
31-May-17 misdemeanor are met

18-Nov-17 Forwarded 297

31-Aug-18 Suspended

11

12-Jun-17 22-Jun-17

Criminal Conduct / D:28- Unprofessional Conduct where elements of a felony are met... C:32 Unprofessional conduct involving an act of violence where elements of a misdemeanor are met / C:5 Actions Amounting to Harassment and/or Intimidation of citizen, dept or gov employee / C:22 Knowingly and willfully making false entry.....Either written or electronic / D:7 Fail to cooperate fully in any internal administrative investigation conducted by this department .... / D:9 Giving false or misleading stmnts or willful omissions...criminal or admin investigation

12-Sep-18 Suspended

-1

29-Aug-18 Suspended

13

31-Jul-17 B: 40 Refusal to Obey any Lawful order or directive

15-Sep-18 Suspended

-4

Operations St. John Patrol/Zone D Squad 1
Zone D Commander Deputy Chief
Special Operations
Special Ops

IA Case No

Respondent Officer

CCT2017-0093

CCT2017-0096 Unk Officer

CCT2017-0104

IAT2017-0010

IA Case No

Respondent Officer

CCT2017-0096 UOFT20170022

Unk Officer Officer []

Incident type Citizen complaint Citizen complaint Citizen complaint IA Investigation

Received Dt
19-Oct-17
8-Nov-17

Allegation(s) B:14- Failure to report any violations they have personal knowledge of committed by employee A:54 Failure to take appropriate action on occasion of a crime...or condition deserving police attention /

Investigator

22-Nov-17 C:5 Actions Amounting to Harassment and/or Intimidation of citizen, dept or gov employee

31-Jul-17 B: 40 Refusal to Obey any Lawful order or directive

Incident type Citizen complaint Level 1 UOF

Received Dt
8-Nov-17

Allegation(s) A:54 Failure to take appropriate action on occasion of a crime...or condition deserving police attention /

26-Mar-17 None Linked

Investigator

Due Dt

Status

Days Investigative Issues - Please insert reasons for delay in Out investigation

19-Nov-17 Active

296

9-Dec-17 Active

276

29-Dec-17 Active

256

15-Sep-18 Suspended

-4

Due Dt

Status

9-Dec-17 Active

23-Apr-17 Active

Days Investigative Issues - Please insert reasons for delay in Out investigation
276
506

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-23 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 1
THIS EXHIBIT IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-24 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 1

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-25 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 1
THIS EXHIBIT IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-26 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 3
Government of The Virgin Islands of the United States

Use of Force Workgroup

VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT August 9, 2018

TO:

Curtis A. Griffin, JD, Assistant Commissioner

Chief Compliance Officer

Police Operations and Administrative Services #45 Mars Hill, Frederiksted St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 00840
(340) 778-2211
Criminal Justice Complex Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 00802 (340) 774-2211
Leander Jurgen Command Cruz Bay
St. John, U.S.V.I. 00830 (340) 693-8880

FROM:

Deputy Commissioner Jason K. Marsh Chairperson, Use of Force Workgroup

SUBJECT: Use of Force Workgroup Re: Response to IMT’s 2nd Quarter Draft Report

This document was prepared to provide a response to the IMT’s second quarterly report draft.

 On Page 6 of the report, it states that Paragraph 33b is not in compliance. VIPD was given compliance with that subparagraph on August 8, 2018 which places the entire paragraph in substantial compliance.

 On page 17 of the report, Subparagraph 36b is listed as being in partial compliance. Based on the conference call that occurred on July of 2018 IMT and DOJ agreed that VIPD should be given compliance with the subparagraph last quarter. According to the IMT report, 87.93% compliance achieved. For the present quarter, the report indicates VIPD is at 87.5%. These numbers demonstrate that VIPD has been consistent for the past 2 quarters and should be given substantial compliance with the subparagraph which will place the entire paragraph into substantial compliance.

 Page 18 of the report states that subparagraph 37B is not in substantial compliance. A review of the language shows that it is not a requirement of VIPD as stated. It states: “of reportable use of force incidents, the Chief and/or Deputy Chief provided a written, signed and dated finding on whether the use of force was justified under VIPD’s DOJ approved use of force policies and all other requirements of 31(a)-(g) of the consent decree.” The language for paragraph 37 was changed in 2012 so this subparagraph needs to be removed or noted as N/A.

 On Page 24 of the report, there are several recommendations for the revisions of the FIT SOP and Policy. This was discussed with the IMT as VIPD realized that there was a policy and SOP failure in the way the investigations were conducted by having the FIT from the alternate island conduct the investigations. VIPD realized that this became very time consuming and advised IMT that the revisions will be made and forwarded to them. This was discussed during the meeting during the week of July 17-21, 2018 with IMT

CONFIDENTIAL-FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY NOT FOR DISSEMINATION OR UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-26 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 2 of 3
Use of Force Workgroup RE: IMT 2nd Quarter Report Page 2 of 3
and VIPD on St. Croix. The revisions were forwarded to IMT on July 26,2018. However, this wasn’t included in the report.
 On page 24 of the report, IMT also recommended that the Attorney General’s Office provide a written declination on serious use of force inquiries and/or prosecutorial opinions. VIPD met with the Attorney(s) at the AG’s Office on July 27, 2018 and it was agreed that the Attorney General’s Office will provide VIPD with an opinion within 30 days of the submitted investigative package. Whenever additional time is required, it will be noted by the investigator.
 On Page 86 of the report, Table 13 shows that policy 3.2 cannot be found on PowerDMS. If the IMT(s) need assistant in locating the policy, VIPD will be glad to assist, however the policy can be located on PowerDMS.
 On page 95, in the final comments section, IMT comments reference 1Q2017 and 2Q2017, however further on states that they will continue to work with the Training Director in 3Q2018 that seems to be an error. The Use of Force Planning Worksheet was sent out to the Supervisors and Commanders on July16, 2108 to aid in the documentation of the investigative process.
 In the assessment of UOFT2018-0028-0029 it states that the officers should have made an assessment regarding whether there was enough evidence to make an arrest. According to the VI Code, officers are unable to make arrest of misdemeanors that did not occur in their presence. Based on the summary of the report, the incident is a Simple Assault and did not occur in their presence. Therefore, they were unable to make an arrest.
 On page 110 of the report, the assessment of UOFX2018-0014,0015,0016,0017, mentions questions noted as being leading questions for justification of the force. VIPD disagrees that the following questions were not used for the justification of the force even though they are leading questions: “Interview #1/ 2:00 "did you see any force being used on the subject?"; Interview #2/ 2:10 "were you in the room when force was used on the subject?"; Interview #3/ 1:25 "did you see any use of force on anybody?"; #4/ 1:05 "ever witness any force on the subject?"
 Page 23 of the report indicated ten serous use of force investigations remain open. Six of those cases have been closed, three require additional revisions after IMT’s review and last report is also being revised.
 Page 24 of the report mentions a walk through that occurred months after the original incident and recommended that the walk through should occur within hours of a shooting incident. The IMT is aware that the walk through that occurred months after the incident, was not a shooting incident. IMT is also aware that VIPD does not conduct a walk through within hours of the incident and has never posed an objection to VIPD waiting for the moonlight conditions to be as close to the lighting conditions as the date of the
CONFIDENTIAL-FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY NOT FOR DISSEMINATION OR UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-26 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 3 of 3
Use of Force Workgroup RE: IMT 2nd Quarter Report Page 3 of 3
incident. This usually takes approximately three weeks to occur and VIPD received positive reviews in the past from IMT for implementing this process.  Page 25 of the report indicated IMT reported use of force incidents or civil rights violation in the first Quarter Report, but that the cases mentioned were citizen complaints involving allegations of Excessive Use of Force and other Civil Rights violations and not use of force incidents.  Page 25 also indicated table 3 includes incidents involving use of force, racial profiling, rude conduct and civil rights violations. The cases listed does not include incidents involving use of force, but rather does include citizen complaints of excessive use of force. IMT admitted to their error in including complaints involving rude conduct but have included rude conduct in cases displayed in table 3.  Table 3 listed on page 26, displays eight active cases that were not included in the table displayed in the first quarter report. Three of the eight cases do not involve citizen complaints with allegations of excessive use of force and other civil rights complaints.  On Page 116 on the Tables subparagraph 31f IMT list as out of compliance, discussion during the meeting on July 12-21 and thereafter IMT requested roll call inspections from both districts. VIPD provided the documentation requested, this subparagraph needs to be reassessed and put into compliance based on the discussion.  In reference to the whispering the following were the words whispered by Sgt. Grant to the officer:
Interviewer- Sgt. Elton Grant Officer- Carol Tatum At 2:36 minutes, someone whispered “pocket”. At 3:05 minutes, another whisper of “box cutter”. At 7:11 minutes, another whisper of “Dr. Barrot”.
CONFIDENTIAL-FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY NOT FOR DISSEMINATION OR UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-27 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 5

Government of the United States Virgin Islands
Virgin Islands Police Department

Policy and Procedure Manual

Series

Effective Date

Review Date

ROC

Sept. 1, 2015

Annually

Subject

FORCE INVESTIGATION TEAM

Chapter

3 - RULES OF CONDUCT

References:

Use of Force (3.1)

Reporting, Investigation and Review of Force (3.2)

Force Review Board (3.3)

Policy Number

3.15

I Revision#

Date

• New Policy
D Replaces

I.

PURPOSE:

It is the purpose of this policy to establish within the VIPD a Force Investigation Team (FIT). This policy provides the force investigation team with guidelines to conduct fair, impartial and highly professional reviews of use-of-force incidents involving VIPD officers. In order to protect citizens and employees, the Virgin Islands Police Department (VIPD) is committed to documenting and investigating use of force incidents. Accurate and timely reporting of reportable use of force is essential for constitutional policing, public safety, and VIPD monitoring and training development. The FIT will conduct a precise review of an officer's actions as they relate to the use of force. This review will include:
• A determination of whether the force was consistent with applicable laws of the United States and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
• A determination of whether the use of force was consistent with VIPD's policies and training.

II. POLICY:
The authority to use force carries with it the need for accountability in order to safeguard the rights of the public and preserve the integrity of the VIPD and the jurisdiction that provides this authority. The policy of the VIPD is to value and preserve human life when exercising lawful authority to use force.
As such, it is the policy of this department that all Level 1 uses of force, as defined in policy 3.2; in-custody deaths; and any Use of Force investigation that is elevated and approved by the Commissioner due to: (1) New information causes the response level

Force Investigation Team Policy

Page 1 of 4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-27 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 2 of 5

VIPD Policy Manual

Policy No. 3.15

to be raised or (2) Circumstances may require more comprehensive response shall be administratively investigated by the VIPD's Force Investigation Team.

Ill. DEFINITIONS:
A. Critical Firearm Discharge: A discharge of a firearm by a VIPD officer. Range and training discharges, and discharges at animals, are not included under this definition.
B. Lethal Force: Any physical force that can reasonably be expected to cause death or serious physical injury.
C. Force: Any physical strike or instrumental contact with a person, any intentional attempted physical strike or instrumental contact that does not take effect or any significant physical contact that restricts the movement of a person. The term includes the discharge of a firearm, pointing a firearm in the direction of a human being, use of chemical spray, neck restraint holds or hard hands; taking of a subject to the ground; and the deployment of a canine. The term does not include escorting or unresisted (cooperative) handcuffing. The term does include handcuffing individuals to objects other than (authorized) Security Rings installed at zones, sub-stations and tactical vehicles; and using multiple handcuffs on a subject except in cases where the subject is oversized and the use of a single pair of handcuffs would more likely result in injury to the subject.
D. Force Investigation Team (FIT): A team of VIPD personnel specially trained, according to FIT policy and procedures, in the investigation of serious uses of force incidents.
E. Less Lethal Force: Any force used by an officer that would not reasonably be expected to cause death or serious physical injury.
F. Level 1 use of force:
a. All serious uses of force, as defined in this policy; b. Any use of force investigation that is elevated to a Level 1 by a Commander,
Director, or Chief and approved by the Commissioner due to: i. New information that causes the response level to be raised; or ii. Circumstances that may require a more comprehensive response.
G. Officer: Any sworn law enforcement member of the VIPD.
H. Response to Resistance Report: The report officers are required to complete to document all uses of force, consistent with policy 3.2..

Force Investigation Team Policy

Page 2 of 4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-27 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 3 of 5

VIPD Policy Manual

Policy No. 3.15

I. Resisted Handcuffing: When a person actively resists being placed in handcuffs.
J. Serious Physical Injury: A bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death,
serious permanent disfigurement, or results in long-term loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or results in admission to a hospital.
K. Serious Use of Force: Any action by an officer that involves: 1. all uses of lethal force;
2. Any use of force resulting in death;
3. all critical firearm discharges, regardless of injury; 4. all uses of force resulting in serious physical injury, loss of consciousness, or
requiring admission to a hospital; and 5. all head, neck, and throat strikes with an object or choke hold/ neck restraints

L. Unresisted (cooperative) Handcuffing: occurs whenever the subject, during a valid arrest or lawful action, complies with the officer's verbal commands and/or unresistingly allows the officer to position their arms in order to apply handcuffs or the subject positions their arms as commanded for the application of handcuffs.

M. Use of Force Review Board (Force Review Board): A panel of VIPD personnel trained, per policy 3.3, in conducting an impartial review and analysis of use of force incidents.

N. Use of Force Review Board Territorial Administrator (Force Review Board Administrator): Sworn Officer of the rank of Lieutenant or greater, appointed by the Commissioner and responsible for the coordination of all Use of Force Review Board activities, including the acceptance of all completed force investigations to be reviewed and any other activities deemed appropriate by the Commissioner.
N. Civilian Employee or Sworn Officer of the rank of Lieutenant or greater, appointed by the Commissioner and responsible for the coordination of all Use of Force Review Board activities, including the acceptance of all completed force investigations to be reviewed and any other activities deemed appropriate by the Commissioner.
O.

IV. PROCEDURES:

A. Authority and Responsibility of the Force Investigation Team:

1. The team is an organizational component of the Virgin Islands Police Department and has direct authority of the Police Commissioner's Office. The Team's procedures and related requests for assistance have the full authority of that office.

2. The team will be responsible for the investigation of:

Force Investigation Team Policy

Page 3 of 4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-27 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 4 of 5

VIPD Policy Manual
a. All Level 1 uses of force:

Policy No. 3.15

Force Investigation Team Policy

Page 4 of 4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-27 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 5 of 5

VIPD Policy Manual

Policy No. 3.15

b. In-custody Deaths c. Any Use of Force investigation that is elevated and approved by the
Commissioner due to: (1) New information causes the response level to be raised or (2) Circumstances may require more comprehensive response.
B. Team Composition The FIT shall be comprised of the following minimum team members for each District: 1. 2 Supervisors 2. 4 Investigators 3. 2 Forensic Tech/Officers 4. V.I. Assistant Attorney General 5. Any member as approved by the Commissioner 6. The Force Review Board Administrator. Team members' duties and responsibilities are included in the Standard Operating Procedure for the Force Investigation Team.
C. Activation of FIT Upon notification of a Level 1 use of force, to include critical firearms discharges, the FIT supervisor shall notify the team members and the FIT will immediately respond to the scene.
D. Procedures for FIT Investigations
The FIT shall follow the guidelines set forth in the Reporting, Investigation and Review of Force Policy 3.2 Section IV.E.1.e
E. Training of Force Investigation Team Members
The VIPD shall provide FIT members an annual m1mmumup to of 80 40 hours of continuing education and training in force investigations and best practices, as well as legal updates as they become available.
G. Commissioner's Responsibilities The Commissioner shall ensure and expedite the FIT travel and accommodations between Districts as required by this Policy.

Force Investigation Team Policy

Delroy Richards, Sr. Police Commissioner
Page 5 of 4

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-28 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 6
IMT Working Draft
U.S. Virgin Islands Police Department Compliance and Change Management Unit

Auditing

Compliance Unit
Commander
Policy

Training

1 – IMT Working Draft for a VIPD Compliance and Change Management Unit – 09/07/18

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-28 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 2 of 6
IMT Working Draft
The Mandate
VIPD has been in a Consent decree for ten years with the majority of forward compliance progress within the last four years. As of the recent court hearing, the VIPD fell short of a few remaining paragraphs to begin the initial substantial compliance period. The presiding Federal District Court Judge set a goal of September 21, 2018 for full compliance with the 50 paragraphs, which will then trigger a two year maintenance period. The VIPD must remain in substantial compliance within the two‐year period, which if any compliant paragraph slips into non‐compliance, the two year period clock will start over. Continuing under a Consent Decree is costly to the Territory, further incentivizing completing the compliance requirements.
Situational Factors
The Independent Monitoring Team (IMT), as the Court’s Monitors, has urged for several years that the VIPD consolidate its compliance effort into one focused unit that has several capacities, in some cases mirroring that of the proposed Policy and Change Team (PCT). One critical element of these proposals has been and expanded and aggressive auditing capacity. Recently the VIPD has increased its auditor staff from three to five, resultant of review of a CD compliance unit within the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD); this collaboration with NOPD has also resulted in an increased desire to move toward more real time monitoring efforts. NOPD is a fairly recent CD but has moved rapidly toward compliance by using this dedicated compliance unit staffed by auditors and inspectors as well as compliance managers. While VIPD has had varied responses to CD generated compliance required, using ad‐hoc workgroups, the IAB staff and other staff from involved units within the VIPD, the IMT has always felt that the focus needed to be consolidated to a central unit.
In the IMT view, and based on the PCT Power Point (PPT) provided, the change management effort noted is not dissimilar to change that has occurred within the VIPD resultant of CD mandates. There have been internal organizational changes as well as procedural and value based changes that were directed at similar problems described within the PCT PPT. CD mandated or related policies were brought up Constitutional policing standards, especially those related to Use of Force (UOF); e.g. criteria for use of force has bene based upon the objectively reasonable standard since 2011, Force Investigation Teams and Force Review Boards since 2016, among others. In other cases, such as public transparency there has been little effort until lately and the VIPD now seems energized to engage and inform the public from several viewpoints, thus creating some change management resource requirements. Lastly, the VIPD introduced Procedural Justice within the agency and they need to continue their efforts with this emphasis.
For the VIPD, given the current state of CD compliance and the recent desire of the Federal Judge to gain Initial Substantial Compliance (ISC) by the Court’s target date and remain in compliance, the challenge at the moment is maintaining compliance status as they move toward and into the two year compliant period without errors. This is not to say that change may not be needed concurrently as issues arise or in the future, but rather is realistic that the VIPD needs to keep a close eye on the ball and end goal which
2 – IMT Working Draft for a VIPD Compliance and Change Management Unit – 09/07/18

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-28 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 3 of 6
IMT Working Draft
is Substantial Compliance and the termination of the CD. That can only be accomplished by intense monitoring and auditing of the CD compliance requirements.
This does not, in the IMT view, negate the need for change management within the VIPD as well as other critical skills such as strategic planning. But at the same time it must be understood that the VIPD suffers from a lack of depth in staffing capacity. Recent efforts to add staffing to the Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) that was an objective of the Court, was stymied by this lack of staffing resources. This indicates, in the IMT’s opinion that the VIPD cannot afford to staff both a compliance unit and a change management unit. Keeping with that view, we suggest a combination of the two efforts into one unit with staffing as shown below:
Compliance and Change Management Unit Structure

Auditing

Compliance and Change Management
Unit Commander
Policy

Training

Sergeant

Sergeant

Sergeant

Auditors
The following outlines a mechanism for the VIPD to maintain substantial compliance with the Consent Decree and enable change management within the department. The Compliance and Change Management Unit function will potentially result in a stronger policing agency in terms of capacity, supervision, and management. Below are examples of tasks, which are not all conclusive.

3 – IMT Working Draft for a VIPD Compliance and Change Management Unit – 09/07/18

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-28 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 4 of 6
IMT Working Draft
Auditing1 o Identifies areas where policy and training may need adjustments o Ensures the department is following their own polices and the Consent Decree o Allows for the identification of patterns and trends, which can bring about focused attention to personnel issues; crime patterns; other risk‐management issues impacting the department o Thoroughly reviews and assesses all use of force, citizen complaint, and other risk‐ management incidents to ensure consistency with VIPD Policy and CD o Refers all deficient audit assessments to the appropriate command staff for corrective action o Enables the department to identify areas, which impact financial and budgetary constraints o Promotes consistency in practice and procedure
Policy o Receives training and audit recommendations, which can be coordinated and produce timely policy changes to department o Consistent and timely yearly policy reviews o Maintain up‐to‐date with current and national law enforcement trends o Ensure department rules, polices, directives, and standard operating procedures are current
Training o Receives policy and audit recommendations, which can be coordinated and produce timely training to personnel o Continual efforts with Procedural Justice, as an example for fostering “change management” o Incorporation of Community & Problem‐Oriented Policing Principles o Identifies risk‐management issues impacting department and initiates appropriate training plans o Identify entry‐level, in‐service, supervision and management core components, which will sustain department reform efforts o Conduct a yearly needs assessment training plan
1 As the IMT testified in the 2nd QTR 2018 Court Hearing, the VIPD should use “caution” with the transition of the Use of Force Work efforts to the Audit Unit. The VIPD intends to discontinue the use of the Work Group as an additional review process and have the Audit Unit conduct audits. The Work Group should coordinate with the Audit Group in this transition. In addition, as heard from Court testimony, the current auditors do not have formal auditing training. The VIPD should seek formal auditing training for entry‐level auditing personnel and continue with yearly in‐service training.
4 – IMT Working Draft for a VIPD Compliance and Change Management Unit – 09/07/18

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-28 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 5 of 6
IMT Working Draft
This new process consisting of auditing, training, and policy will bring about continued efforts by the VIPD in their progress toward substantial compliance with the Consent Decree and long‐ term change management. The process is continual and all three components are dependent on each area to bring about department improvement with core areas for the betterment of the agency; personnel growth; providing Constitutional Policing for all.
Court Oversight Recently, the Federal Judge commissioned his own expert report to identify issues preventing compliance for the VIPD. The report contained several suggestions and pathways to compliance. Specifically, the report strongly suggested a Compliance Unit. The VIPD, Department of Justice (DOJ), and IMT coordinated efforts to review and assess the Court’s Expert Report. Further, the Court has expressed interest in full participation from everyone in the agency to assist in the VIPD’s efforts to sustained compliance along with openness and transparency to the residents of the Territory. Implementation Steps IMT believes that to implement this recommendation, the VIPD should develop a Policy document describing the purpose and scope of the unit’s responsibilities in order informs the department of the unit’s authority and organizational elements. In addition, the unit commander should develop a Standard Operational Procedure (SOP) that details the internal procedures, operational responsibilities, and audit protocols to use to conduct compliance audits of the CD requirements. The IMT can provide assistance in this, as we did with the FIT and FRB documents should the VIPD desire. Appropriate training for unit members should also be identified and sourced. Closing The VIPD is embarking toward their substantial compliance period with the Consent Decree. This progress has been long‐coming for the VIPD and the Territory. The VIPD is in a momentum, which now
5 – IMT Working Draft for a VIPD Compliance and Change Management Unit – 09/07/18

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-28 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 6 of 6
IMT Working Draft
calls for a paradigm shift to ensure their achievements and success are sustained for the long‐term. In order to sustain all of the to‐date progress, the VIPD should immediately transition to a Compliance and Change Management Unit. This Unit will focus, coordinate, and ensure solidification for a well‐ organized police agency.
6 – IMT Working Draft for a VIPD Compliance and Change Management Unit – 09/07/18

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-29 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 1
THIS EXHIBIT IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-30 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 1
THIS EXHIBIT IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-31 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 1

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-32 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-32 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 2 of 8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-32 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 3 of 8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-32 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 4 of 8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-32 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 5 of 8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-32 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 6 of 8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-32 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 7 of 8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-32 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 8 of 8

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-33 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 1
THIS EXHIBIT IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-34 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 1
THIS EXHIBIT IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-35 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 9

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-35 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 2 of 9

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-35 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 3 of 9

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-35 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 4 of 9

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-35 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 5 of 9

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-35 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 6 of 9

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-35 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 7 of 9

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-35 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 8 of 9

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-35 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 9 of 9

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-36 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 1
THIS EXHIBIT IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-37 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 1

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-38 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 24
Government of the United States Virgin Islands
Virgin Islands Police Department

Policy and Procedure Manual

Series DP

Effective Date November 1,
2013

Review Date Annually

Policy Number
7.1

Subject DISCIPLINARY POLICY WITH MATRIX APPENDIX
Chapter 7- Disciplinary Procedures
References

• New Policy
D Replaces-

I. POLICY:
It is the Virgin Islands Police Department's (VIPD) policy to impose an effective discipline system that is fair, rational, efficient and consistent, reflects the values of the VIPD, protects the rights of officers, and all department personnel, residents and visitors, promotes respect and trust within the VIPD and with the community and results in a culture of public accountability, individual responsibility and maintenance of the highest standards of professionalism.
Discipline is a process of imposing formal sanctions which will help train or correct poor performance of an employee, preferably through constructive rather than punitive measures.
II. PURPOSE:
The purpose of this order is to establish procedures concerning informal and formal disciplinary practices within the VIPD that results in strengthened relationship and increased levels of trust within the department as well as the community by ensuring both clarity in expectations and accountability for actions by both the VIPD and the individual officer.
All disciplinary action shall be administered for the purpose of insuring that the offense will not recur, and that the best interests of the community and the department will be paramount. Discipline may be imposed as counseling and educational process to assist an employee in meeting the minimum standards set by the department.

Disciplinary with Matrix Appendix

Page 1of24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-38 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 2 of 24

VIPD Policy Manual

Policy No. 7.1

Ill. DEFINITIONS:
Davs: The term "days," as used herein, means calendar days provided, however, that if the last day of any time period mentioned herein is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, the time period shall be extended to the next day.
Relief from dutv: An administrative action by a superior whereby a subordinate officer is temporarily relieved from performing his or her duties.
Discipline: Training or developing an employee by proper superv1s1on and instruction. Discipline may be positive (awards) or negative (punitive).

IV. PROCEDURES:
A. Positive discipline
Positive discipline seeks voluntary compliance with established policies, procedures, orders. Among them are mediation, early intervention systems, education and training, mentoring, and recognition of officers' positive actions on behalf of the VIPD and the public. Methods of positive discipline include:
1. Recognition of excellent job performance through rewards or awards.
a. When people outside the department compliment an employee's performance, the person who receives the information shall make a record of the comments and pass them to the employee's supervisor. When the Chief or other executive receives compliments about an employee, he or she will write a thank-you to the citizen. Copies of the citizen's statement and the Chiefs response shall be sent to the officer involved, the supervisor and, if the subject is deemed significant, a copy of all correspondence shall be placed in the employee's personnel file.
b. Truly exceptional acts shall be clearly and promptly identified to the Chief of Police or the Commissioner. These acts may be the basis for special awards or for special recognition by citizen-community groups or media coverage.
8. Authority to Impose Discipline I Corrective Measures
Final departmental authority and responsibility for disciplinary actions rests with the Police Commissioner. The Commissioner or designee is authorized to delegate some of the responsibility necessary for the effective implementation of the disciplinary system, particularly in minor matters involving counseling and training.

Disciplinary Policy with Matrix Appendix

Page 2of24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-38 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 3 of 24

VIPD Policy Manual

Policy No. 7.1

With the exception of oral reprimands and emergency suspensions all disciplinary actions taken by the Department must be approved by the Commissioner. Commanding Officers and supervisory personnel may take the following disciplinary measures:
1. Oral reprimand (must be reduced to writing for record purposes)
2. Written reprimand (subject to approval by the Commissioner)
3. Emergency suspensions (relieved of duty)
4. Written Recommendations for other penalties.
Only the Commissioner can suspend and demote; only the Governor has the authority to terminate employment.
C. Progressive discipline
Progressive discipline is a process for dealing with conduct that fails to meet established performance expectations. Its purpose is to assist employees in overcoming behavioral issues and improving performance. To be effective, progressive discipline must be consistent and fair and be impartial.
D. Consistency in discipline
The department abides by the philosophy that discipline must be applied consistently and uniformly. This policy describes complaint procedures against department employees. Additionally, it discusses employee recognition and penalties for various infractions.
1. The department does not provide employees with lists of specifically prohibited behavior. One list of examples of such behavior appears in this policy, but no list can be all-inclusive. Employees are expected to have a reasonable perception of what constitutes proper behavior, based on academy training and the observance of the behavior of officers generally.
E. Relief from duty
An employee may be relieved from duty whenever a superior officer has cause to questions an employee's physical or psychological fitness for duty. An internal affairs investigation may follow.
1. The First line supervisor, sergeant or higher ranking officer has authority to relieve an employee from duty, but must promptly report this action to the Chief of Police, accompanied by a written report setting forth details and circumstances.

Disciplinary Policy with Matrix Appendix

Page 3of24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-38 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 4 of 24

VIPD Policy Manual

Policy No. 7.1

2. If the necessity to relieve from duty is not immediate, the behavior or actions of the employee shall be deemed a matter for administrative investigations. In an administrative investigation, only the Commissioner of Police may relieve an employee from duty. Only the Commissioner may suspend without pay an officer whose continued presence on the job constitutes a substantial and immediate threat to the welfare of the department, the public, or to him I herself.
3. An officer who refuses to obey a direct order in conformance with the department's orders may be relieved from duty by the First line supervisor or senior officer, who may bring the matter to the Chief of Police through appropriate channels. The Chief or his designee shall conduct a hearing in accordance with the department's disciplinary procedures and the relevant Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and may then recommend a disciplinary course of action to include but not limited to suspension without pay or dismissal from employment.
4. As a result, the Commissioner may establish practices, make decisions and enter orders with regard to matters not directly related but ancillary to the imposition of discipline. These can include, but are not limited to , no contact orders, temporary or permanent assignments, regulating on-duty work hours and responsibilities, regulating secondary employment privileges, ordering psychological or other work related examinations, determining necessary remedial training or entering any other order, restriction or condition deemed appropriate under the circumstances. These practices do not constitute the imposition of discipline and are not regarded as a part of any disciplinary sanction. Therefore, the imposition of any of the above orders, conditions or restrictions may not be considered in determining whether a violation should be sustained and, if so, what the appropriate penalty should be.
F. Time Requirements
Pursuant to the VIPD disciplinary policy, the time requirements for the disciplinary process including filing an appeal I grievance is clearly identified with the respective employees Collective Bargaining Agreements. Due to the multiple Unions which employees of the VIPD belong, it is necessary to follow the respective Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) of the employee being disciplined.
G. Levels of Discipline I Penalties
Pursuant to the VIPD disciplinary policy, the following penalties are available:
1. Oral reprimand; counseling; training.

Disciplinary Policy with Matrix Appendix

Page 4 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-38 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 5 of 24

VIPD Policy Manual

Policy No. 7.1

2. Written reprimand.
3. Suspension without pay.
4. Demotion.
5. Dismissal from department.
H. Oral reprimand; counseling and training
Oral reprimands, while informal, require documentation with an employee's acknowledgment of such record. The following steps shall be observed:
1. At the time of an oral reprimand, the employee receiving it shall be counseled as to correct behavior, and further advised that a written record shall be maintained concerning the reprimand/counseling, and that the employee may read the record.
2. The employee shall be further advised that he or she has the right to file a statement in his or her personnel file setting forth his or her position, in case of disagreement.
3. The reprimanding supervisor shall record the reprimand/counseling using the department counseling form to the personnel record and it shall contain the following information:
a. Employee's name;
b. Date of reprimand/counseling;
c. Summary of reasons for reprimand/counseling;
d. Summary of employee's response;
e. Suggestions for improvement or specific actions suggested;
f. Name of counselor and signature.
g. The following statement must appear:
"I acknowledge that I have today received counseling and I have been advised of the following rights: (1) that a written record of reprimand/counseling shall be maintained; (2) that the employee has a right to review the record and respond in writing; (3) that the form shall become part of the personnel file; and (4) that the employee is required

Disciplinary Policy with Matrix Appendix

Page 5of24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-38 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 6 of 24

VIPD Policy Manual

Policy No. 7.1

to acknowledge the reprimand/counseling by signing the record."
h. The employee shall sign and date the form following the statement.
4. Oral reprimand/counseling may involve remedial training. This training may be deemed necessary to rectify the improper behavior. Remedial training may include attendance at academy classes, in-service, or other training specially created to help the employee correct or modify his or her behavior. Remedial training is reasonably offered until the employee can demonstrate proficiency in the corrected behavior. All training shall be documented.
5. If the employee has not behaved improperly following counseling for one year, the record of counseling shall be expunged from the employee's personnel file. Accumulation of three oral reprimands in one year shall result in a written reprimand or suspension, depending on circumstances.
6. Supervisors are expected to counsel employees regularly without oral reprimands. Most counseling is informal, positive, supportive, and perhaps undocumented.
a. Supervisors are responsible for counseling employees concerning jobrelated matters, within their capabilities. Many things can affect the job and an employee's performance, so job-related counseling may involve family and other individual, personal subjects. Counseling may include identification of unacceptable behaviors or actions, specifically what was done wrong and the desired or acceptable performance. Counseling can attempt to determine the reason for the particular behavior, determine and recommend how to correct or improve performance or to solve the problem.
b. A variety of counseling resources are available within the community including psychological, family, marital, and financial counseling. Employees in need of counseling, or desiring information about available resources, are encouraged to talk with the Human Resources section. The department recognizes that no stigma is attached to seeking professional counseling to solve problems. (See EIP manual and policy)
I. Written reprimand
A written reprimand, issued by the Chief of Police or Commissioner or his designee, cautions an employee about poor behavior, sets forth the corrected or modified behavior mandated by the department, and specifies the penalty in cases of recurrent poor behavior. A written reprimand becomes a permanent part of the employee's personnel record.

Disciplinary Policy with Matrix Appendix

Page 6of24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-38 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 7 of 24

VIPD Policy Manual

Policy No. 7.1

J. Suspension without pay
If the situation warrants, the Commissioner may suspend without pay, or in appropriate situations demote an employee in accordance with the rules and procedures of the department, providing that due process is afforded the affected employee.
1. Suspensions without pay shall normally be based on the disciplinary matrix.
2. Suspensions resulting from criminal investigations or arrest may be prolonged pending court action.
a. In no case shall an employee convicted of a felony continue to work for the department.
b. If an employee is acquitted of criminal charges, the employee may still be subject to disciplinary action.
3. Any member suspended for a period (30) thirty days or longer shall return all department-owned property. On any suspension, the officer must return to department custody his or her badge, identification card, issued firearm, or home fleet vehicle when applicable.
4. During a suspension, the employee shall not undertake any official duties.
K. Demotion
1. Demotion shall be to the next lowest rank. Demotion shall only apply to an officer of the rank of Police Corporal or above.
2. An employee may protest or appeal a suspension in accordance with the respective CBA.
L. Dismissal
Dismissals are made in cases of extreme misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance of duty. A complete record of the circumstances of the misbehavior shall be made by all persons having knowledge of the misbehavior.
1. Employees may protest or appeal a dismissal in accordance with the respective CBA.
2. Whenever dismissal or suspension is planned, the department shall provide notice to the employee in accordance with respective CBA.
M. Reporting arrests

Disciplinary Policy with Matrix Appendix

Page 7of24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-38 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 8 of 24

VIPD Policy Manual

Policy No. 7.1

Any employee, in or out of district or jurisdiction, arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any crime, or required to appear as a defendant in any criminal or civil proceedings, must immediately inform the Commissioner through proper channels in writing. Employees do not have to report parking tickets or minor traffic offenses. Additionally, employees must report summonses or arrests for reckless driving, DUI, second or more violations for speeding, or any other traffic offenses. Failure to notify the department of the foregoing shall be cause for disciplinary action.
V. TRAINING:
All supervisory personnel will be trained on this policy by the Training Division of the Virgin Islands Police Department.

. Querrard, Sr.

Disciplinary Policy with Matrix Appendix

Page 8of24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-38 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 9 of 24

VIPD Policy Manual

Policy No. 7.1

APPENDIX A - DISCIPLINARY MATRIX
The following matrix is a guide for the fair and impartial administration of discipline within the Virgin Islands Police Department.
The purpose of the matrix is to provide a guideline for possible discipline ranges when employees are found to have engaged in violations of policies or rules of conduct, to establish consistency, predictability, and fairness in the discipline process, and to deter misconduct.
It is the procedure of this disciplinary matrix to use this as a guideline to determine the appropriate penalty by considering the totality of the circumstances, including the employee's history and mitigating or aggravating factors. The matrix addresses the handling of both single and multiple offenses. For example, where an employee has engaged in multiple offenses, often the single act that warrants the highest penalty is used as the discipline guide, with the remaining acts considered as aggravating factors.
The discipline system of the VIPD must be fairly, efficiently, and consistently administered so as to promote and maintain a culture of public accountability, individual responsibility and maintenance of the highest standards of professionalism possible. The discipline ordered should reflect the mission and values of the VIPD and help to promote trust and respect within the department and the community.
The investigation of allegations of misconduct must be fair, thorough, conducted with full regard for the rights of employees and designed to develop all relevant facts necessary for the fair determination of the issue in question.
Offenses not specifically included in the Matrix shall result in penalties consistent with offenses of a similar nature and seriousness.
Repeated violations of any of the Department's Policies or any other course of conduct indicating a lack of regard or total disregard for the obligation or duties prescribed for members of the Department shall be just cause for imposition of maximum I aggravated penalty or dismissal proceedings.
Any prior sustained violation in a category greater than or equal to the current violation shall increase the penalty level by one. The prior violation must be within the specified time frame of the current violation.
A time limit has been established for reoccurrence of conduct and is included in the VIPD Disciplinary Matrix. Any prior sustained violation within the specified time frame, in a category lower than the current violation, may be considered as an aggravating factor.
When considering penalties, mitigating factors may reduce a penalty to non-disciplinary corrective action, while aggravating factors may increase the penalty to termination for

Disciplinary Policy with Matrix Appendix

Page 9of24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-38 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 10 of 24

VIPD Policy Manual

Policy No. 7.1

prohibited conduct that may not otherwise call for termination in the matrix.
Mitigating factors may include, but are not limited to the following: the misconduct was not premeditated; the employee had a secondary and/or minor role in the misconduct; the employee was forthright and truthful during the investigation; the employee accepted responsibility for his/her conduct; and the employee reported the incident.
Aggravating factors may include, but are not limited to the following : the misconduct was premeditated; the misconduct involved gross negligence or recklessness; the employee should have understood the consequences (length of service, training, etc.); the employee was not forthright or truthful during the investigation; serious consequences or injury occurred or could have occurred as a result of the misconduct; and the misconduct was committed with malicious intent or for personal gain. Other factors that should be considered include, but are not limited to: effect on the integrity of the department; degree of culpability; prior disciplinary history; severity of misconduct (multiple offenses); training; and length of service.
Violations that appear in multiple categories will require the Department to compare the underlying conduct to the definitions contained in each category in order to identify the appropriate category for the violation.
In some instances Demotion to a lower rank may be an acceptable means of discipline, depending upon the gravity and circumstances of the violation.
Probationary employees may be disciplined and dismissed without using the VIPD Discipline Matrix.
The following categories describe levels of conduct which will be deemed a violation of VIPD Policy, local and federal laws. The Matrix is divided into sections according to these categories.
Category A: offenses are generally minor violations or disregard of policy. These are
violations of policy that does not involve a misuse of authority or an ethical offense, and has no impact or has minimal adverse impact on public safety or the professional image of the department.
Category B: offenses are serious violations and disregard of policy. These are violations of policy that involve a misuse of authority or ethical offense and/or that creates or poses the potential for clear serious adverse impact on public safety or the professional image of the department.
Category C: offenses are more serious violations or disregard of rules or policies. These are violations of policy that involves a misuse or abuse of authority or an ethical offense, or that creates or poses the potential for a major adverse impact on public safety or the professional image of the department.

Disciplinary Policy with Matrix Appendix

Page 10 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-38 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 11 of 24

VIPD Policy Manual

Policy No. 7.1

Category D: offenses are major, non-correctable offenses, including crimes and violations of public trust, for which dismissal is the required penalty, regardless of the employee's prior disciplinary and work record. These are violations of policy that involves untruthfulness or other ethical offenses, any felonious conduct, or offenses that create or pose the potential for critical adverse impact on public safety or the professional image of the department.
When considering the penalty phase for sustained charges, follow the Penalty Table and always begin with the PRESUMPTIVE PENALTY. Mitigating or Aggravating penalties require specific justification to justify whether to go up (aggravating) or down (mitigating).

Discipline Level 1 2

Penalty Table

Mitigating Penalty

Presumptive Penalty

Training and/or Counseling and/or documented oral
reprimand

Written Reprimand

1-4 days Suspension

5 Days Suspension

Aggravating Penalty
1-4 Days Suspension
6-9 Days Suspension

3

6-9 Days Suspension

10 Days Suspension

11-19 Days Suspension

4

11-19Days Suspension

20 Days Suspension

21-29 Days Suspension

5

21-29 Days Suspension

30 Days Suspension

31-39 Days Suspension

6

31-39 Days Suspension

40 Days Suspension

41 -49 Days Suspension

7

41-49 Days Suspension

50 Days Suspension

Termination

8

50-60 Days Suspension

Termination

Disciplinary Policy with Matrix Appendix

Page 11of24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-38 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 12 of 24

VIPD Policy Manual

Policy No. 7.1

TABLE OF CHARGES

CATEGORY A Charges

OFFENCE
1st 2nd 3rd

1

Addressing political gatherings in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate while on duty or in uniform.

1

2

3

2 All Department equipment issued shall be maintained in proper order.

12 3

Assuming active roles in the management, organization, or financial 3 activities of political clubs, campaigns, or parties while on duty or in 1 2 3
uniform.

4 Eating on duty while conducting official business.

12 3

Endorsing or opposing a candidate for public office in a political 5 advertisement, broadcast, or campaign literature while on duty or in 1 2 3
uniform.

6

Engage in any activities or personal business which would cause them to neglect or be inattentive while on duty.

1

2

3

7 Engaging in idle conversation or loafing on duty.

12 3

8

Failure of employees on duty to style their hair according to established Departmental policy.

1

2

3

9

Failure of employees on duty to wear uniforms or other clothing in accordance with established Departmental policy.

1

2

3

10

Failure of employees to report to their supervisor any defect or hazardous condition in Departmental equipment.

1

2

3

11

Failure to be properly equipped and cognizant of information required for the proper performance of duty

1

2

3

12

Failure to be tactful, controls temper, and exercise the utmost patience and discretion in the performance of duties.

1

2

3

Failure to carry identification cards on their persons at all times, except

13 when impractical or dangerous to their safety or to an investigation.

1 2 3

Failure to follow chain of command. All applications, requests, complaints, etc., from any member of the Department shall be submitted 14 to the Commanders thru channels for transmittal to the Chief and 1 2 3 Commissioner.

Failure to furnish name and badge number to any person requesting that

15

information, when on duty, except when the withholding of such information is necessary for the performance of police duties or is

1

2

3

authorized by proper authority.

16 Failure to give prescribed identification when answering telephone.

12 3

Disciplinary Policy with Matrix Appendix

Page 12 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-38 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 13 of 24

VIPD Policy Manual

Policy No. 7.1

CATEGORY A

OFFENCE

Charges

1st 2nd 3rd

Failure to immediately report any changes in telephone numbers, addresses, marital status, dependents, or beneficiaries to the Virgin 17 Islands Police Department Human Resources Section during normal duty 1 2 3 hours of the Section.

Failure to know the rules, regulations, procedures, directives, or orders of

18 the Department and the employee's assigned Division.

1 2 3

Failure to maintain desks and/or lockers in a clean and orderly manner,
19 and mark, deface, or affix anything to a desk and/or locker without 1 2 3 permission of the Commissioner.

Failure to obtain and produce a certificate of medical treatment after

20 reporting sick and absent as required by law or policies and procedure.

12 3

Failure to operate official vehicles in a careful and prudent manner, and 21 obeying all laws and all Departmental orders pertaining to such operation.

1

2

3

22 Failure to prepare a departmental report when required .

12 3

23 Failure to render salute when appropriate.

1 2 3

24

Failure to report for duty at the time and place required by assignment or orders and shall be physically and mentally fit to perform their duties.

1

2

3

25

Failure to treat employee confidential information

address

and

telephone

information

as

1

2

3

26

Failure to use seatbelts I restraints in accordance with Virgin Islands laws and department policies.

1

2

3

Failure to utilize Department equipment only for its intended purpose and

27 in accordance with established Departmental procedures and training

1 2 3

Holds a political position that is incompatible or has a conflicting interest

28 with his/her duties as a police Department employee.

12 3

29

Initiating or circulating a petition to non-employees while on duty or in uniform.

1

2

3

Leave assigned duty post during a tour of duty except when authorized by 30 proper authority or when necessary to perform immediate police functions. 1

2

3

31

Mark, deface, or affix anything to the walls of a police building without permission from the Commissioner.

1

2

3

32

Operating a Department vehicle without a valid Virgin Islands operator's license on his person.

1

2

3

Organizing, selling tickets to, or actively participating in a fund-raising

33 function for a political party or candidate while on duty or in uniform.

12 3

34

Outside employment interferes with the employee's performance with the Department.

1

2

3

Disciplinary Policy with Matrix Appendix

Page 13 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-38 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 14 of 24

VIPD Policy Manual

Policy No. 7.1

CATEGORY A

OFFENCE

Charges

1st 2"d 3rd

35

Participating in any kind of work slowdown or sit-down or any other concerted interference with government operations.

1

2

3

36 Reading newspapers, books or periodical while on patrol.

12 3

Recommend or suggest in any manner, except in the transaction of 37 personal business, the employment or procurement of a particular 1 2 3
product, professional service, or commercial service.

38

Remove, alter, deface, or mark upon any official notice posted on any bulletin board.

1

2

3

39

Serving as delegates to a political party convention while on duty or in uniform.

1

2

3

40

Soliciting votes in support of, or in opposition to, any candidates while on duty or in uniform.

1

2

3

41 Untidy appearance while on duty or in uniform .

12 3

42

Using tobacco, in any form when employee is actively engaged in dealing with the public, while on duty.

1

2

3

43

Using tobacco, in any form when employee is in any vehicle owned, leased or rented by the Department.

1

2

3

44

Using tobacco, in any form when employee is on any premises owned, leased or rented by the Department

1

2

3

45 Violating safety rules without threat to life.

1 2 3

Attempt(s) to convert an enforcement contact (suspect, informant, and

46 traffic violator) into a social relationship [off-duty contact].

2 3 4

Emergency Driving - in a vehicle not meeting the definitions of an

47

emergency vehicle. According to Virgin Islands Law and Department policy

2

3

4

48

Failure to immediately notify a supervisor of a traffic accident involving a Department Vehicle

2

3

4

49

Failure to notify their supervisor if their performance could be impaired, when controlled substances, narcotics, or hallucinogens are prescribed.

2

3

4

50 Failure to perform duties at school crossing .

2 3 4

51 Failure to remain awake while on duty.

2 3 4

52

Failure to report to the Department the loss or suspension of any driving license.

2

3

4

Failure to submit a written request for off-duty employment for approval

53 prior to engaging in such employment.

2 3 4

Disciplinary Policy with Matrix Appendix

Page 14 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-38 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 15 of 24

VIPD Policy Manual

Policy No. 7.1

CATEGORY A Charges

OFFENCE 1st 2"d 3rd

Failure to take appropriate action on the occasion of a crime, disorder, or

54 other condition deserving police attention.

2 3 4

55 Illegal parking violation(s).

2 3 4

Maintain files or duplicate copies of official agency files in either manual or electronic formats at his or her residence or in other locations outside the 56 confines of the Department without express authorization of the 2 3 4 Commissioner.

57 Permitting unauthorized person(s) in department vehicle.

2 3 4

Use of Department Equipment: Use of Department equipment, materials, 58 supplies, or property not specifically assigned to an individual employee 2 3 4
without authorization absent extenuating circumstances.

59

Uses the influence of his/her position with the Department for political purposes.

2

3

4

60 Using department facilities for private gain, while on or off duty.

2 3 4

Without authorization or authority, excessive speed violation as defined in 61 Virgin Islands Code, Title 20, Section 494.

2

3

4

Disciplinary Policy with Matrix Appendix

Page 15 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-38 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 16 of 24

VIPD Policy Manual

Policy No. 7.1

TABLE OF CHARGES

CATEGORY B Charges

Employees shall not undertake any financial obligations which they know 1 or should know they will be unable to meet, and shall pay all just debts
when due.

2

Engage in acts of "horseplay" which involves the potential for risk of injury to the employee, other employees, other persons, or damage to property.

Failure to assist any person requesting, information or advice, or making complaints or reports, either by telephone or in person or neglecting to 3 provide or obtain all pertinent information in an official courteous manner and properly and judiciously act upon information received consistent with established Departmental procedures.

4

Pursuit Driving - Failure to notify radio I supervisor of involvement in a pursuit.

OFFENCE
1st 2nd 3rd
2 3 4 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4

5 Accidental discharge of a firearm with any injury to any person or self.

3 4 5

An employee, while on duty or off duty, or their agent records (audio 6 and/or video) any conversation with another employee without that 3 4 5
employee's knowledge.

7 Careless loss or damage to a department-owned firearm .

3 4 5

Divulging verbally or in writing any information about any accident or 8 incident involving government employees' property or equipment to 3 4 5
unauthorized persons.

9

Fails to refer complaints to an appropriate on-duty supervisor, to the Office of Internal Affairs, or the Investigating officer for recording.

3

4

5

Failure of employees who are given an otherwise proper order which is in 10 conflict with a previous order, rule, regulation, or directive to respectfully 3 4 5
inform the supervisor issuing the order of the conflict.

Failure of supervisors to request a drug or alcohol screening test when 11 they have reasonable suspicion that an employee is using and/or under 3 4 5
the influence of drugs or alcohol.

12

Failure to direct and/or control or otherwise effectively supervise a command, section, unit, squad, etc.

3

4

5

13 Failure to prefer disciplinary charges.

3 4 5

14

Failure to report any violation they have personal knowledge of having been committed by any employee of the Department.

3

4

5

Failure to report through the proper channels any violation of law, rules, 15 regulations, procedures, directives or orders that are brought to their 3 4 5
attention.

Disciplinary Policy with Matrix Appendix

Page 16 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-38 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 17 of 24

VIPD Policy Manual

Policy No. 7.1

CATEGORYB Charges

OFFENCE 1st 2"d 3rd

16

Failure to take physical or mental examinations as required by the Commissioner.

3

4

5

17 Fighting or quarreling among members of the Department.

3 4 5

Incident not involving an act of violence where elements of a 18 misdemeanor crime are met, regardless of whether the employee was 3 4 5
indicted, prosecuted, or convicted.

19 Intentional abuse of sick leave benefits.

3 4 5

20

Intentionally notification.

missing

a

scheduled

mandatory

training

after

proper

3

4

5

21

Make or transmit copies of recorded communications for purposes other than those involving official Department business.

3

4

5

22 Negligent control I failure securing of a prisoner.

3 4 5

23

Obey any order which they know or should know would require them to commit an illegal act.

3

4

5

24

Posting in any form or medium that brings discredit to the department or government.

3

4

5

25

Receiving any reward for police service rendered and fails to forward the reward and a written report to the Commissioner.

3

4

5

26

Report the use of any substance, prior to reporting for duty that impairs their ability to perform their duties.

3

4

5

27

Soliciting for attorneys, businesses or firms.

bondsmen,

tow

truck

operators,

or

other

3

4

5

28

Uncooperative and/or interfered with a traffic - related investigation on or off duty.

3

4

5

Unsatisfactory Performance: Failure to thoroughly search for persons, 29 property and locations, or collect, preserve and identify evidence in any 3 4 5
investigation or arrest.

30

Unsatisfactory Performance: under arrest.

Failure to thoroughly search individuals

3

4

5

31

Using rude , coarse, violent, profane, vulgar, sarcastic, or insulting language and /or conduct to the public or any officer.

3

4

5

32

Violation of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) rules and regulations, inappropriate actions, comment(s), gestures that violate EEO standards

3

4

5

While on duty, access any adult I pornographic or otherwise similarly

33

inappropriate web site on any department computer system (unless in performance I furtherance of an official investigation with supervisor's

3

4

5

knowledge).

Disciplinary Policy with Matrix Appendix

Page 17 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-38 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 18 of 24

VIPD Policy Manual

Policy No. 7.1

CATEGORY B Charges

OFFENCE
1st 2nd 3rd

34

Attempt to dissuade any citizen from lodging a complaint against any employee or the Department.

4

5

6

Authorize the use of their names, photographs, or official titles which

35

identify them as employees in connection with testimonials or advertisements of any commodity or commercial enterprise, without the

4

5

6

approval of the Commissioner.

36 Failure to accept and record all complaints.

4 5 6

37

Intentionally make an arrest, search or seizure which they know is not in accordance with law and Departmental procedures

4

5

5

38

Intentionally missing subpoena.

a court appearance

after proper notification I

4

5

6

Knowingly visit, enter, or frequent a house of prostitution, gambling house,

39

drug house, or establishment wherein the laws of the United States, the Virgin Islands, are regularly violated except in the performance of duty or

4

5

6

while acting under proper and specific orders from a supervisor.

40 Refusal to obey any lawful order or directive

4 5 6

Disciplinary Policy with Matrix Appendix

Page 18 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-38 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 19 of 24

VIPD Policy Manual

Policy No. 7.1

TABLE OF CHARGES

CATEGORYC Charges

OFFENCE 1st 2"d 3rd

1

Failure to prepare Response to Resistance Reports in accordance with the Reportable Use of Force Policy.

4

5

6

2

Installing unauthorized software on the department or government network.

4

5

6

Performing any act or omission not specifically covered in the rules and

3

procedures, charges and specification, which may be prejudicial to the good order and efficiency of the Department or which will discredit the

4

5

6

reputation of the department, or its employees.

Abuse, or negligently damaging or losing Department equipment; or 4 intentionally damaging and/or destroying departmental property or 5 6 7
equipment.

5

Actions amounting to harassment and/or intimidation of a citizen , department or government employee.

5

6

7

Address public gatherings, appear on radio or television, prepare any

article for publication, act as correspondents to a newspaper or a

6

periodical, release or divulge investigative information, or any other matters of the Department, while holding themselves out as representing

5

6

7

the Department in such matters without the express permission of the

Commissioner/designee.

7

Civilian employee in possession of a firearm not authorized by the Commissioner in a police facility.

5

6

7

8

Disseminating information obtained from the police department computer systems without authorization.

5

6

7

Engage in any activity involving moral turpitude that may cause the 9 Department to be brought into disrepute or discredit the operation or 5 6 7
efficiency of the Department.

Engaging in any remunerative occupation other than the duties of said 10 employment with the V.I. Government without the permission of the 5 6 7
Commissioner.

Failure of department member to notify Commissioner or his designee of 11 member's subpoena/agreement to appear and give testimony in a civil 5 6 7
litigation

Failure of department member to notify Commissioner or his designee of 12 member's being subpoenaed to give testimony as a character witness for 5 6 7
any individual in a criminal trial.

13

Failure to immediately report any personal injury received in the line of duty.

5

6

7

Disciplinary Policy with Matrix Appendix

Page 19 of 24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-38 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 20 of 24

VIPD Policy Manual

Policy No. 7.1

CATEGORYC Charges

OFFENCE 1st 2"d 3rd

15

Failure to report in writing, offers of bribes or gratuities to permit illegal acts.

5

6

7

16

Failure to submit all necessary injury/illness reports on time and in accordance with established Departmental procedures.

5

6

7

17

Failure to treat the official investigations, reports, and/or communications oral, written, or electronic business of the Department as confidential.

5

6

7

18

Inappropriate supervisor I direct subordinate personal relationship that includes sexual activity on or off duty.

5

6

7

19 Intentional abuse of disability benefits.

5 6 7

20

Intentional Improper use of the hand restraint techniques contrary to departmental training and/or policy.

5

6

7

21

Intentionally dry testing TASER in the absence of a department supervisor contrary to departmental training and/or policy.

5

6

7

Knowingly and willfully making a false entry and/or report, either written or

22

electronic in any departmental record or: Knowingly and willfully omitting and/or deleting information from an official report either written or

5

6

7

electronic.

23

Knowingly join or participate in any organization that advocates, incites or supports criminal acts, criminal conspiracies, or hate crime activities.

5

6

7

24 Knowingly make false accusations of employee misconduct.

5 6 7

25 Lending government firearm to another employee without authorization.

5 6 7

Pretend or feign illness or injury, falsely report ill or injured, or otherwise deceive or attempt to deceive the Department as to the condition of their 26 health or reports submitted are not truthful and complete, and has 5 6 7 knowingly entered, or caused to be entered, any inaccurate, false, or improper information.

Publicly criticize or ridicule the Department, its policies, or other employees by speech, writing, or other expression, where such speech, writing, or other expression is defamatory, obscene, unlawful, impairs the 27 operation or efficiency of the Department, is made with reckless disregard 5 6 7 for truth or falsity or could be reasonably interpreted as having an adverse effect upon the Department morale, discipline, operation of the Department or perception of the public.

28 Pursuit Driving - Failure to terminate pursuit on the order of a supervisor. 5 6 7

Regular or continuous associations or dealings with persons whom they

know, or should know, are persons under criminal investigation or

29

indictment, or who have a reputation in the community or the Department for present involvement in felonious or criminal behavior, except as

5

6

7

necessary to the performance of official duties, or where unavoidable

because of other personal relationships of the employee.

Disciplinary Policy with Matrix Appendix

Page 20of24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-38 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 21 of 24

VIPD Policy Manual

Policy No. 7.1

CATEGORYC Charges

OFFENCE 1st 2"d 3rd

31 Unauthorized disposing of departmental property and/or equipment.

5 6 7

Unprofessional conduct involving an act of violence where elements of a 32 misdemeanor are met, regardless of whether the employee was indicted, 5 6 7
prosecuted, or convicted.

33

Appear for duty, or be on duty while under the influence of intoxicants, or with an odor of intoxicants on their breath.

6

7

8

34 Carrying unauthorized I unapproved weapon and I or ammunition

6 7 8

35 Carrying unauthorized/ unapproved weapon and I or ammunition.

6 7 8

36 Consume intoxicating beverages while on duty.

6 7 8

Engage in gambling; including or illegal games of chance when otherwise 37 prohibited by law, while on duty or in uniform while off duty or on 6 7 8
government premises.

38

Failure to handle persons in custody in accordance with Departmental policies and procedures.

law and

6

7

8

39

Failure to submit all weapons carried while in performance of their duty for examination upon request/directed.

6

7

8

40

Improper handling, misuse and/or departmental training and/or policy.

display

of firearms

contrary

to

6

7

8

Possess, consume, store or bring into any police facility, onto any police

41

property whether owned, rented, or leased, or in any police vehicle, without the permission of the Commissioner or immediate supervisor any

6

7

8

alcoholic beverages, except when held as evidence or as seized property.

Solicit and/or accept from any person, business, or organization any gift

(including money, tangible or intangible personal property, food, beverage,

42

loan, promise, service, or entertainment) for the benefit of the employees or the Department if it may reasonably be inferred that the person,

6

7

7

business, or organization seeks to influence action of an official nature or

seeks to affect the performance or nonperformance of an official duty.

43 Unauthorized modification(s) to a departmental weapon/equipment.

6 7 8

44 Unauthorized use of TASER (on or off-duty).

6 7 8

Using official position, official identification cards, or badges for obtaining 45 privileges not otherwise available to them except in the performance of 6 7 8
duty.

46 Excessive use of force that results in injuries.

7 8

47

Sexual activity (on duty or off-duty) in a police department facility, vehicle, and/or grounds.

7

8

Disciplinary Policy with Matrix Appendix

Page 21of24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-38 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 22 of 24

VIPD Policy Manual

Policy No. 7.1

CATEGORYC Charges

OFFENCE
1st 2nd 3rd

Solicit and/or accept from any person, business, or organization, any gift (including money, tangible or intangible personal property, food, beverage, 48 loan, promise, service, or entertainment) for the benefit of the employees 7 8 or the Department without the express prior authorization of the Commissioner.

49

Using official position, official identification cards, or badges for avoiding consequences of illegal acts.

7

8

Disciplinary Policy with Matrix Appendix

Page 22of24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-38 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 23 of 24

VIPD Policy Manual

Policy No. 7.1

TABLE OF CHARGES

CATEGORYD Charges

OFFENCE 1st 2"d 3rd

1 Accepting bribes for permitting illegal acts.

8

2

Claim any found property or property turned into them during the course of their employment, including any property held as evidence.

8

3 Conviction and participation or involvement in a crime of moral turpitude. 8

4 Conviction of a Felony.

8

5 Conviction of a Misdemeanor excluding minor traffic violations

8

6

Divulge the identity of employees or persons giving confidential information except as authorized by Commissioner or his designee.

8

Fail to cooperate fully in any internal administrative investigation

7

conducted by this department or other authorized agency and provide complete and accurate information in regard to any issue under

8

investigation.

8 Fail to submit to ballistic tests on the order of the Commissioner/designee. 8

9

Giving false or misleading statements or willful omissions during any criminal or administrative investigation.

8

If the employee fail to report to the Commissioner in writing as soon as 10 possible; employee's arrest, indictment or charge for any criminal offense 8
outside this district or in another jurisdiction.

11 Intentional discharge of a firearm in violation of policy.

8

12

Intentional improper use of the TASER contrary to departmental training and/or policy.

8

13

Intentionally make false accusations of a criminal or traffic charge in an official capacity.

8

Knowingly interfere with Departmental investigations or any other 14 governmental agency or Actions jeopardizing the status of a criminal 8
investigation, administrative investigation, or prosecution.

15

Knowingly submitted a criminal investigation /internal investigation report with false information.

8

16

Lend to another person their identification cards or badges or permit them to be photographed or reproduced without approval.

8

Open defiance; deliberate or willful refusal to carry out or disregard a

17

lawful order/directive; direct refusal, and/or outright or blatant verbal indication or actions that clearly defy a lawful order, rule, regulation, or

8

directive.

18

Operated a government - owned vehicle while under the influence of illegal drugs or substances or alcohol.

8

Disciplinary Policy with Matrix Appendix

Page 23of24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-38 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 24 of 24

VIPD Policy Manual

Policy No. 7.1

CATEGORY D Charges

OFFENCE
1st 2nd 3rd

Possess or use any controlled substances, narcotics, or hallucinogens
19 except when prescribed in the treatment of employees by a physician or 8
dentist.

20

Possess, carry, or use any weapon prohibited by law or Departmental policies.

8

Racial profiling I civil rights type violations (enforcement based solely on 21 race, color, national origin, sex, religion, sexual orientation, or economic 8
status).

22

Refusal to obey a direct order resulting in major damage or impact to the department.

8

23

Refusal to take, tampering with, or failure of the illegal substance abuse screening test.

8

24 Unauthorized possession or use of explosives.

8

25 Unauthorized use of departmental funds.

8

26 Unauthorized Use of Force on Handcuffed or restrained individual(s).

8

27

Unlawfully using official position, official identification cards, or badges for personal or financial gain.

8

28

Unprofessional conduct where elements of a felony are met, regardless of whether the employee was prosecuted or convicted.

8

Upon the order of the Commissioner/designee or a supervisor, fail to

29

truthfully answer all questions specifically directed and narrowly related to the scope of employment and operations of the Department which may be

8

asked of them.

30 Use of unauthorized impact weapon

8

31 Using department position to interfere with prosecution .

8

Using information gained through their position as law enforcement
32 employees to improve their financial position or to advance the private 8
interests of themselves or others.

33

With the intent to defraud, submitting any type of report (overtime, employee reimbursement, etc.) for monetary gain.

8

Disciplinary Policy with Matrix Appendix

Page 24of24

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-39 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 1

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-40 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 10

2008-ATTENDED TRAINING/SEMINAR BY INTERNAL AFFAIRS PERSONNEL

Cpl. Lorrenie Hassell Agt. Daria Wilkinson

1. Investigative Interview Techniques for IA officer
1. Investigative Interview Technique for IA officer 2. Domestic Violence

Mrs. Josefina Martinez-Acosta 1. Microsoft Computer

Ms. Kathleen Powell

1. Microsoft Computer

Sgt. Kent Bellot Sgt. Roselyn Bedminister

1. Investigative Interview Technique for IA officer 2. Use of Deadly Force
1. Police Background Investigation 2. Use of Deadly Force 3. Domestic Violence

Det. Ivan Christopher

1. Investigative Interview Techniques for IA officer 2. Use of Deadly Force

Agt. Joia Peters

1. Investigative Interview Technique for IA officer 2. Domestic Violence

Agt. Kisha Mitchell

1. Investigative Interview Technique for IA officer 2. Domestic Violence

Agt. Kamilah Thompson

1 Investigative Interview Technique for IA officer 2. Domestic Violence

2009-ATTENDED TRAINING/SEMINAR BY INTERNAL AFFAIRS PERSONNEL

Agt. Vimaris Corcino

1. Administrative Hearing Process Seminar 2. Police Internal Affairs

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-40 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 2 of 10
Internal Affairs Attended Training Page 2 of 7

Agt. Chenelle Skepple Agt. Latefah Klyvert Agt. Daria Byron Sgt. Mirrett Benta
Josefina Martinez-Acosta

1. Administrative Hearing Process Seminar 2. Police Internal Affairs
1. Administrative Hearing Process Seminar 2. Police Internal Affairs
1. National lA Investigators Association Conference
1. V.I. Labor Management Committee Conference 2. Microsoft Excel 3. Microsoft Access
1. Microsoft Excel 2. Microsoft Acess

2010-ATTENDED TRAINING BY INTERNAL AFFAIRS PERSONNEL

Sgt. Marisol Irizarry Agt. Daria Wilkinson Sgt. Mirrett Benta
Investigation) Agt. Latefah Klyvert Agt. Vimaris Corcino Agt. Chenelle Skepple Agt. Felicia Bennerson IA Staff Supervisors & Agents Ms. Leslian McLeish

1. Supervisory Training 1. Consent Decree Training 1. Hostage Negotiation Training 2. Leadership and Management Seminar
(Procedures for conducting & Managing IA
1. IAPRO User’s Symposium Training 1. Shooting Reconstruction Training 1. Use of Force 1. Shooting Reconstruction Training 1. IAPRO Training-STX/STT
1. Disciplinary Administrative Hearing TrainingSTX/STT
1. Microsoft Excel

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-40 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 3 of 10 Internal Affairs Attended Training Page 3 of 7
2011-ATTENDED TRAINING BY INTERNAL AFFAIRS PERSONNEL

Agt. Vimaris Corcino
Agt. Latefah Klyvert IA Staff

1. Strengthening Response to Violence against Women Training
2. IAPRO Conference 3. Cell Phone Investigation Technology & Forensic
Data Recovery Certificate
1. Strengthening Response to Violence against Women Training
1. Mandatory Use of Force Training 2. Early Intervention Seminar

2012-ATTENDED TRAINING BY INTERNAL AFFAIRS PERSONNEL

Agt. Vimaris Corcino
Sgt. Gregory Coward Det. Vivianne Newton Agt. Kisha Mitchell
Det. Vivianne Newton

1. Advanced

Cell

Phone

Forensics

Training

1. Investigating Use of Force Training

1. Taser Train the Trainer Training

2013-ATTENDED TRAINING BY INTERNAL AFFAIRS PERSONNEL

Agt. Latefah Klyvert Agt. Chenelle Skepple
Agt. Latefah Klyvert

1. Officer Survival and Communications Spanish Guide 1. Conducting Officer Involved Shooting & In-Custody

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-40 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 4 of 10
Internal Affairs Attended Training Page 4 of 7

Agt. Kisha Mitchell

Death Investigations (20 Hours)

Sgt. Gregory Coward

1. Firearm Instructor Training 2. Crime Scene Investigative Training 3. Mastering Leadership-First Line Supervisors Training 4. Managing Police Misconduct Training 5. Prescriptive Interview and Interrogation Training

Det. Vivianne Newton Sgt. Gregory Coward
Agt. Vimaris James Agt. Chenelle Skepple
Det. Vivianne Newton Sgt. Gregory Coward Agt. Kisha Mitchell
IA Staff
Agt. Kisha Mitchell Det. Vivianne Newton

1. The Department of Homeland Security Surveillance Detection Training
1. Interview and Interrogation Training
1. Active Shooter Training
1. Early Intervention Protocol (EIP) Training 2. Webinar on Supreme Court Rulings 1. Strategic Plans for Diversity in Recruiting and Hiring

2014-ATTENDED TRAINING BY INTERNAL AFFAIRS PERSONNEL

Agt. Kisha Mitchell
IA Staff
Agt. Kisha Mitchell Sgt. Gregory Coward Sgt. Jason Marsh

1. The Reid Technique, Interview and Interrogation course 1. Webinar on Officer Termination: Legal Liability & Best Practices 1. Practical Kinesic Interview & Interrogation Training
1. Use of Force-Fore Science Training

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-40 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 5 of 10
Internal Affairs Attended Training Page 5 of 7

Agt. Chenelle Skepple

1. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security Intelligence Writing and Briefing

Agt. Joia Peters

1. Audit Training

2015-ATTENDED TRAINING BY INTERNAL AFFAIRS PERSONNEL

Det. Vivianne Newton Agt. Chenelle Skepple
Agt. Chenelle Skepple
Act. Director Jason Marsh Agt. Daria Byron
Agt. Daria Byron

1. Shooting Reconstruction 1. Use of Force Instructor Training Program (FLETC) 1. FBI LEEDA Administrative Training 1. Early Warning System (EWS) Webinar

2016-ATTENDED TRAINING BY INTERNAL AFFAIRS PERSONNEL

Agt. Latefah Klyvert Agt. Chenelle Skepple Agt. Vimaris James
Agt. Latefah Klyvert
Agt. Latefah Klyvert Agt. Vimaris James
Agt. Daria Byron Agt. Chenelle Skepple Agt. Kisha Mitchell
Agt. Daniella Ellington Agt. Jamesha Petty
Agt. Chenelle Skepple
Agt. Daria Byron Agt. Chenelle Skepple Agt. Kisha Mitchell

1. Force Review Board SOP Implementation Training 2. FIT SOP Procedure Implementation Training
1. Conducting Officer Involved Shooting & In-Custody Death Investigations (20 Hours) 1. Force Review Board SOP Implementation Training 2. Communication Techniques for Law Enforcement Officers 1. FBI LEEDA Supervisory Leadership Institute training
1. Investigative Interviewing Skills for Internal Affairs
1. Two Day Background Investigation Training/Course 1. FBI LEEDA Executive Leadership Institute training

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-40 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 6 of 10
Internal Affairs Attended Training Page 6 of 7

Det. Vivianne Newton Agt. Kisha Mitchell Sgt. Gregory Coward

1. Use of Force Training

Agt. Daria Byron Agt. Chenelle Skepple

1. Supervisory Investigation Use of Force training

Sgt. Gregory Coward

1. EIPRO Training 2. TAC*ONE Consulting 40 hour Law Enforcement Tactical Training 3. TAC*ONE Consulting 40 hour “Lone Wolf” Active
Shooter Course.
4. Software Demonstration (West Law)

IA Staff

1. Facebook & Investigation Techniques for Unmasking Hidden services & other dark web operations

Agt. Kisha Mitchell Agt. Chenelle Skepple

1. IAPRO Annual User’s Conference

Acting Dir. Jason Marsh

1. Train the Trainer Simulator Training

Det. Vivianne Newton

1. Alzheimer’s Training 2. Leadership Enrichment Seminar

Agt. Vimaris James Agt. Chenelle Skepple

1. From Confrontation to Conversation (ILOE)

2017-ATTENDED TRAINING BY INTERNAL AFFAIRS PERSONNEL

Det. Vivianne Newton Det. Vivianne Newton Agt. Kisha Mitchell Sgt. Gregory Coward

1. Leadership Enrichment Seminar 2. Alzheimer’s Training in Oxford Mis
1. Recruiting, Hiring & Officer Retention Training in San Antonio, TX.
1. NOBLE Conference in Washington
1. Evaluation of Force Training 2. Leadership and Accountability Training 3. Burden of Proof Training

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-40 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 7 of 10
Internal Affairs Attended Training Page 7 of 7

2018-ATTENDED TRAINING BY INTERNAL AFFAIRS PERSONNEL

Det. Vivianne Newton Agt. Chenelle Skepple
Det. Vivianne Newton Agt. Vimaris James
Det. Vivianne Newton Sgt. Gregory Coward Agt. Kisha Mitchell
Agt. Chenelle Skepple

1. National Internal Affairs Investigator’s Association Conference 1. AELE Use of Force Workshop Training
1. Procedural Justice Training
1. Procedural Justice-Executive Leadership Training

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM DGoocvumerennmt #e: n35t 4o-4f 0 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 8 of 10 The Virgin Islands of the United States
-- O -VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND APPLICANT SCREENING BUREAU

March 5, 2018

50F2 Hannahs Rest Suite #2
Frederiksted St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 00840
(340)778-3066
Police Operations and Administrative Services #45 Mars Hill, Frederiksted St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 00840
(340)778-2211

To: From:

Antonio Emanuel Director, Training Bureau
Chenelle Skepple_______________________ Acting Director, IA&ASB

Criminal Justice Complex Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 00802 (340)774-2211
Leander Jurgen Command Cruz Bay
St. John, U.S.V.I. 00830 (340)693-8880

Subject:

Consent Decree Training Budget FY-2019

In accordance with Paragraph 51 of the Consent Decree between the United States Department of Justice and the Government of the Virgin Islands, et al, that specifically states, among other things: “ the VIPD to establish policies and train all of its investigators on the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility: examination and interrogation of accused officers and others witnesses…” considering this mandate, the Internal Affairs and Applicant Screening Bureau is submitting the following training request:

Seminar Information Services. Inc. Administrative Assistants Conference

$2,290.00

CI Technologies Annual IAPRO and Blue Team Users Conference

$6,372.00

California Training Institute 2017 Use of Force Investigators Conference

$4,749.00

Public Agency Training Council (PATC)

Officer Involved Shooting

$6568.00

Detective and New Criminal Investigations

$6,386.00

Internal Affairs Conference and Certification

$5,884.00

Facsimile (340) 715-5517 St. Thomas  (340) 778-2373 St. Croix  (340) 776-6236 St. John

CoCnsaesnteD: e3c:r0ee8T-cravi-n0in0g1B5u8d-gRetAFMY-2-R01M9 Document #: 354-40 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 9 of 10
Page 2 of 2

First line Supervision: Leadership and Management Skill Supervisor Liability Investigative Techniques using Social Network Sites Internal Affairs Recruitment, Hiring Background Investigations & Retention Five Stages of Interview & Interrogation Techniques Emerging law Enforcement Legal trends Homicide and Questioned Death Scene Investigative Statement Analysis Use of force and Documentation

$5364.00 $4952.00 $4,276.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $7,250.00 $4,695.00 $6,448.05 $3,658.00 $3,490.00

AELE Workshops Use of Force

$7,172.00

Force Science Institute, Ltd Force Science Certification Course

$6,600.00

Backster School of Lie Detection Basic Polygraph Examiner Training Schedule

$6495.00

FBI-LEEDA Command Leadership Institute Training

$6,810.00

Institute of Police Technology and Management (IPTM) Crime Scene Processing Workshop Shooting Incident Reconstruction Forensic Mapping with total stations and CSI Mobile

$4,219.00 $5,390.00 $10, 812.00

Facsimile (340) 715-5517 St. Thomas  (340) 778-2373 St. Croix  (340) 776-6236 St. John

CConasesnet:D3e:c0re8e-Tcrva-i0ni0ng15B8ud-gReAt FMY--2R0M19 Document #: 354-40 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 10 of 10
Page 2 of 2

International Association for Crime Analysts (IACA) Foundations for Crime Analysis

Total:

$7,740.00 $138,620.05

Facsimile (340) 715-5517 St. Thomas  (340) 778-2373 St. Croix  (340) 776-6236 St. John

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-41 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, )

and THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE

)

DEPARTMENT,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

)

C.A. No. 3:08-CV-158

ATTORNEYS:

Jeffrey Murray, Esq. Aaron Fleisher, Esq. Paul Killebrew, Esq. United States Department of Justice Washington, D.C. Gretchen Shappert, United States Attorney Joycelyn Hewlett, AUSA Sansara Cannon, AUSA United States Attorney’s Office St. Thomas, VI
For the plaintiff,

Claude Walker, Attorney General Carol Thomas-Jacobs, AAG Terri L. Griffiths, SAAG Virgin Islands Department of Justice St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
For the defendants.
PROPOSED ORDER

GÓMEZ, J.

On July 6, 2018, the Court appointed Chief Robert McNeilly as an expert on police

practices and ordered Chief McNeilly to report to the Court on steps that the Virgin Islands

1

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-41 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 2 of 4
Police Department (VIPD) could take to advance compliance with the Consent Decree entered in this case. Dkt. #331. On August 20, 2018, the Court filed two reports authored by Chief McNeilly, which contained numerous recommendations to VIPD. Dkt. #346. At a hearing in this matter on September 4, 2018, the Court ordered the Parties to adapt Chief McNeilly’s recommendations into a Proposed Order. In their joint report regarding Chief McNeilly’s recommendations, Dkt. # XX, the Parties have demonstrated that VIPD has already implemented many of Chief McNeilly’s recommendations, though several remain to be fully implemented. The Parties adapted these remaining recommendations into a Proposed Order.
The premises considered, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Until VIPD has reached substantial compliance with the Consent Decree, the Parties and
IMT shall continue to use the 2016 Action Plan, Dkt. #220, and the Roadmap to Compliance, Dkt. #340 at 108-26, to guide their compliance activities. 2. Until the termination of the Consent Decree, VIPD shall provide updates to the Court, through its monthly reports or otherwise, on:
a. increases to the staffing of Internal Affairs, which is expected to advance VIPD toward compliance with Paragraphs 44(i) and 70(e);
b. the delivery of training recommended by Chief McNeilly, which is expected to advance VIPD toward compliance with Paragraphs 35(a), 44(i), and 64; and
c. any changes that it may make to the structure of its compliance unit, which is expected to advance VIPD toward compliance with all provisions of the Consent Decree that remain out of compliance.
3. Within one month of the issuance of this Order, VIPD shall provide documentation to the Court showing that:
2

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-41 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 3 of 4
a. its Training Advisory Committee has reviewed deficiencies, corrective action, and discipline related to use of force and civilian complaint investigations and assessed these matters for the purposes of developing training programs;
b. the directors of the training and audit units have received notice of deficiencies found in use of force and civilian complaint investigations;
c. the agency has implemented an audit to assess whether issues in use of force investigations that were identified by the audit unit have been addressed;
d. the agency tracks deficiencies in force and civilian complaint investigations, including corrective actions taken to address the deficiencies;
e. supervisors have conducted performance evaluations in which they have considered any deficiencies in force and civilian complaint investigations;
f. VIPD has adopted a final policy ending the practice of having St. Thomas’s and St. Croix’s Force Investigations Teams respond only to incidents on the other island;
g. the risk management Executive Committee has reviewed risk management data and made recommendations to command staff, command staff have considered these recommendations, and the compliance unit has tracked corrective actions;
h. the audit unit has implemented an audit to assess whether action plans created as part of the risk management system have been implemented;
i. the audit unit has implemented an audit to assess whether supervisors have received risk management information when new subordinates come under their command;
j. the audit unit is tracking disciplinary actions; and
3

Case: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM Document #: 354-41 Filed: 09/18/18 Page 4 of 4
k. the Commissioner has explained departures from the disciplinary matrix in writing.
4. Until the termination of the Consent Decree, VIPD shall promptly report to the Court when any of the following events occur: a. VIPD completes an investigation finding that a use of force violated the agency’s policies, which is expected to advance VIPD toward compliance with all provisions of the Consent Decree that remain out of compliance; b. the audit unit reports any deficiencies to the Commissioner in VIPD employees’ implementation of action plans created as part of the risk management system, which is expected to advance VIPD toward compliance with Paragraph 64; and c. the audit unit reports to the Commissioner regarding supervisors’ failure to consult the risk management system when new subordinates come under their command, which is expected to advance VIPD toward compliance with Paragraph 64.
__________________________ Curtis V. Gómez District Judge
4

 U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Special Litigation Section - PHB 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20035
October 5, 2005
Via Federal Express and U.S. Mail
Attorney General Kerry Drue Department of Justice G.E.R.S. Complex 48B-50C Kronprinsdens Gade St. Thomas, VI 00802
Commissioner Elton Lewis Office of the Police Commissioner Virgin Islands Police Department #45 Mars Hill Road Fredricksted, St. Croix, VI 00841
Attorney Daniel Mattarangas-King Office of the Police Commissioner #45 Mars Hill Road Fredricksted, St. Croix, VI 00841
Re: United States Department of Justice Investigation of the Virgin Islands Police Department
Dear Attorney General Drue, Commissioner Lewis and Attorney King:
As you know, in March 2004, the Civil Rights Division initiated an investigation of the Virgin Islands Police Department (“VIPD”), pursuant to Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (“Section 14141"). We would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation for the cooperation and documents that we have received thus far from the Virgin Islands and the VIPD. However, as you know, we have made repeated requests for and are still awaiting receipt of a number of documents, such as outstanding prosecutorial opinions and investigative files. We would greatly appreciate production of these items as soon as possible in order to complete our investigation.

- 2 -
To date, we have reviewed relevant VIPD policies and procedures and conducted interviews with Virgin Islands officials, VIPD command staff, a cross-section of VIPD supervisors and VIPD police officers.
At the beginning of our investigation, we committed to providing the Virgin Islands with technical assistance to improve VIPD’s practices and procedures and ensure compliance with constitutional rights. During our meetings with you and the VIPD command staff in April, July and August 2004, we told you that we would provide in writing more specifics about recommendations our police practices experts had made orally. In this letter, we convey our recommendations regarding the VIPD’s written policies. Important aspects of our fact-gathering process have yet to be completed, most notably reviewing documents related to specific incidents of VIPD officers’ uses of force. Therefore, this letter is not meant to be exhaustive, but rather focuses on significant recommendations we can provide at this preliminary stage of our investigation.
We hope this letter will assist in our mutual goal of ensuring that the VIPD provides the best possible police service to the people of the Virgin Islands. We look forward to continued cooperation toward this goal. We would be happy to provide examples of policies used by other police departments that might address some of the issues we raise below.
I. VIPD POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
The VIPD should revise and update its policies and procedures to be consistent and comprehensive.
Policies and procedures are the primary means by which police departments communicate their standards and expectations to their officers. Accordingly, it is essential that the VIPD’s policies be comprehensive, comprehensible, up-to-date and consistent with relevant legal standards and contemporary police practices.
It is our understanding that the VIPD’s policies and procedures are contained throughout various documents, including a police manual, a field manual, general orders and standard operating procedures. The official police and field manuals were adopted twenty years ago in 1985. Although some policies and procedures have been revised and updated through the issuance of general orders and standard operating procedures, the majority of the VIPD’s policies and procedures remain outdated. Moreover,

- 3 -

the field and police manuals do not consistently incorporate subsequent changes. Significant VIPD policies, such as those relating to the use of force, use of firearms and investigations are not organized by subject matter in one document, but instead are spread throughout different documents. As we discuss in detail below, several VIPD policies and procedures are inconsistent with generally accepted police practices and are insufficiently detailed to provide the appropriate guidance for officer conduct.
VIPD policies and procedures should apply uniformly and consistently to all Virgin Islands police officers, whether they are located on St. Croix, St. Thomas or St. John. We understand that several VIPD policies and procedures vary from island to island. For example, the Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”) for the Internal Affairs Units (“IAU”) for St. Croix and St. Thomas/St. John are different.1 We understand that even officer uniforms vary for each island. It is important for a police department, even one with particular geographical boundaries such as the Virgin Islands, to have consistent policies, procedures and practices.
We recommend that the VIPD’s policies and procedures be consolidated into one document for all three islands. Although we do not provide line-by-line edits and recommendations for all of the VIPD’s policies and procedures, we have endeavored to provide the VIPD with general recommendations regarding generally accepted police practices for significant VIPD policies and procedures (i.e., use of force, citizen complaints, investigations, discipline, supervisory oversight and training).
We recommend that updated and complete policies and procedures be distributed to all officers, and all officers should provide a written acknowledgment of their receipt, review and understanding of all VIPD policies. We suggest VIPD designate an individual to be responsible for reviewing the manuals and any revisions or new policies to ensure consistency. This individual would also be responsible for ensuring that all officers receive copies of the manuals and revisions, and for maintaining copies of officers’ signed acknowledgments.

1


There is one IAU for St. Croix and another IAU for St.

Thomas/St. John. Both IAUs are under the supervision of the

Director of the Internal Affairs Bureau. For purposes of this

letter, unless otherwise noted, references in this letter to the

IAU SOP are references to the St. Croix IAU SOP, which appears to

contain more information than the St. Thomas/St. John IAU SOP.

- 4 -

II. USE OF FORCE
The VIPD should revise its use of force policies regarding the use of force by VIPD officers and adopt an appropriate use of force continuum.
In the course of duty, police officers are sometimes required to use deadly and non-deadly force. Because the use of force can place officers, civilians and subjects at serious risk of harm, it is incumbent upon law enforcement agencies to ensure that officers use force appropriately. Use of force policies and procedures must clearly set forth standards for appropriate use of force that are in accordance with constitutional standards.
A. Legal Standards Governing the Use of Force
Uses of excessive force by police officers are violations of the Fourth Amendment and are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394 (1989). The analysis requires a balancing of the quality of intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the governmental interests. Id. at 396. The criteria courts apply to assess an excessive force claim include the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect presents an immediate safety threat to the officers or others, and whether the suspect is actively resisting or attempting to evade arrest. Id.; Abraham v. Raso, 183 F.3d 279, 288 (3d Cir. 1999). Lack of specific policy guidance on the appropriate use of force may lead officers to believe that they are justified in using force in situations in which it would be unreasonable or unnecessary. Conversely, unclear or overly general policies may result in officers refraining from using necessary and appropriate force out of an unwarranted fear of using excessive force.
The Supreme Court held that deadly force is permissible only when a suspect poses an immediate threat of serious physical harm to the officer or another person. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). The only exception to this general rule is the “fleeing felon” rule, which allows police officers to use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect in cases where there is probable cause to believe the suspect either poses an immediate threat of serious harm to the officer or another, or has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. Id.; Abraham v. Raso, 183 F.3d 279, 288 (3d Cir. 1999). Yet, even in such circumstances, police are required to provide a warning, if feasible, before

- 5 -

using deadly force. Garner, 471 U.S. at 11. Deadly force is permissible only for as long as the threat remains. When the threat is over, the use of deadly force must stop. VIPD’s use of force policy does not comport with these legal standards. Accordingly, as discussed in further detail below, we recommend that the VIPD’s use of force policy be revised to incorporate these constitutional standards.
B. VIPD’s Use of Force Policy2
Current VIPD policy instructs officers that they may use force as permitted by law, but the policy does not adequately identify authorized weapons or define key terms in the policy, such as “deadly force” and “deadly physical force.” The use of force policy is inconsistent with applicable legal standards and does not outline the limitations on the use of deadly and nondeadly force, including de-escalation techniques.
We recommend the use of force policy identify the weapons that are authorized for use by the department and where each weapon falls on the use of force continuum, discussed in further detail below. We recommend that the VIPD define key terms, such as force, deadly physical force, serious use of force, serious bodily injury, etc. The definition of deadly force should include any use of force that is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury in accordance with Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). The lack of clear and consistent definitions of key terms in a use of force policy is particularly important given the current absence of in-service training for VIPD officers. We recommend that the VIPD’s use of force policy identify any uses of force that are specifically prohibited or restricted to limited circumstances (e.g., choke holds or carotid control holds). The policy should include a description and the dangers of positional asphyxia and the methods and procedures to avoid it.
We recommend the VIPD use of force policy specify that

2


During our tour of St. Croix we received a document

labeled “Proposed Use of Force Policy, General Order 2004-001.”

General Order (“GO”) 2004-001 is currently being used as VIPD’s

Use of Force Policy. Reportedly, however, the policy still

requires the Governor’s final approval before it is an official

policy. Our observations and recommendations are based on our

review of GO 2004-001 and, where applicable, the VIPD Police

Manual, VIPD Field Manual, Standard Operating Procedures, and

other relevant GOs.

- 6 -

“deadly physical force” includes force methods that employ potentially lethal weapons (i.e., firearms, PR-24, etc.). Due to the possibility of death or serious bodily injury from the delivery of blows to the head with impact weapons, we recommend that the VIPD specifically limit strikes to the head with impact weapons, such as the PR-24 or flashlights, as tactics of last resort to be used only when the use of deadly force would otherwise be authorized. The only guidance the current VIPD policy provides regarding head strikes is that they “should be avoided to the extent possible.” (GO 2004-001, Section 4.2.4.).
VIPD’s policy should also define “non-deadly force.” We recommend that the VIPD’s definition include all uses of force beyond un-resisted handcuffing including, but not limited to, the use of hard-hand tactics, Oleoresin Capsicum (“OC”), and strikes with impact weapons. The use of force policy should include alternatives to more significant uses of force, such as emphasizing announcement of officers’ presence, verbal commands, the use of “soft hand” techniques (i.e., using hands to escort rather than control subjects) and other de-escalation techniques. At a minimum, the policy should require that officers use the lowest level of force necessary to safely resolve a situation, including non-threatening verbal commands and alternative negotiation techniques.
VIPD’s use of force policy should incorporate the deescalation techniques appropriate to interactions with individuals with mental illness or who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, including guidance to officers regarding the signs or symptoms for identifying such individuals. The policies and procedures should be revised to incorporate recent research and studies on police interactions with persons with mental illness and how best to accommodate these individuals. VIPD should establish special response teams on St. Thomas and St. Croix, composed of at least two officers who are specifically designated and trained, to respond to all situations involving individuals with mental illness. VIPD should establish a working relationship with local public mental health providers as a resource for training and support. Whenever practical, local mental health providers should be called to the scene of incidents involving persons with mental illness so that VIPD officers can utilize their knowledge and training.
C. Use of Force Continuum
The VIPD’s use of force continuum, which is included as an attachment to GO 2004-001, is incomplete because it fails to address and include several essential elements, such as adequate

- 7 -

and understandable diagrams and force definitions, the authorized types of force and authorized weapons.
We recommend the VIPD develop a comprehensive use of force continuum that augments and enhances a revised use of force policy. The use of force continuum should be a fluid and flexible policy guide to provide effective and efficient policing. Consistent with the practices of many other police departments, the continuum should be used to train officers to consider lower levels of force first, which protects the safety of both the officer and the civilian.
We recommend that the VIPD’s use of force continuum be revised to provide diagrams that illustrate the various descriptions of uses of force that may be employed and make them consistent with the terms and definitions outlined in other parts of the policy. The descriptions of force should be more detailed and include descriptions of how the various force options may be used, how the various applications of the options affect their placement in the use of force progression, and what level of force is appropriate in response to different levels of resistance by suspects, including de-escalation techniques and interactions with individuals with a mental illness or who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The continuum should include all of the actual types of force used by VIPD, including, firearms, OC spray, PR-24s, canines, batons, and any other use of force.
D. Specific Force Policies
We have reviewed VIPD’s use of force policies regarding specific uses of force and have the following comments.
1. Firearms
VIPD policies fail to provide clear guidance and comprehensive procedures regarding the use of firearms. Current VIPD policies inconsistently refer to the types of weapons and ammunition that are authorized to be carried by officers. For example, Section 5.7.3 of the VIPD Police Manual specifies that the regulation service revolver of the VIPD is a .38 caliber revolver, but GO 90-1 appears to revise this and specifies that the regulation service weapon for the VIPD is the .9 millimeter semi-automatic pistol or the .38 Special Double Action Revolver with a four-inch barrel. The policies fail to provide sufficient guidelines for firearms qualification. They fail to specify procedures following deadly force situations, including procedures for reporting and documenting firearm discharges. The

- 8 -

VIPD firearm policies do not provide important guidance to officers regarding the appropriate circumstances under which firearms may and may not be carried and used in off-duty situations.
We recommend the firearm policy clearly identify the equipment officers are expected to routinely carry and the appropriate exceptions. The policy should specify all firearms and ammunition that are allowed on- and off-duty. The VIPD should establish a system of accountability for both Departmentissued and personal ammunition so that the Department is able to monitor how much ammunition is used and the circumstances in which it is used. This will facilitate investigations into firearm discharges.
We recommend that officers qualify to use each type of firearm the VIPD allows them to carry biannually. Section 3.9 of GO 84-2 appears to allow officers who fail to qualify with their weapons to remain in their positions for up to six months before they are suspended from duty. We recommend that all officers who fail firearms qualifications on any weapon be barred from serving in posts that require the use of a weapon until such time as they are able to qualify on the required weapon.
We recommend that the firearms policy be revised to require that all discharges of firearms by officers on- or off-duty, including unintentional discharges, be reported and investigated. Current VIPD policy limits investigations to incidents in which an officer discharges a firearm “while acting in the capacity of a police officer.” (GO 2004-001, Section 4.4.1). Additionally, VIPD police officers are authorized to carry their weapons at all times, without any limitations. We recommend that the Department develop and implement guidelines and regulations for using and carrying firearms while off-duty, including prohibiting officers from carrying a firearm if they are or have been recently drinking alcohol.
2. Intermediate Force Weapons
GOs 2004-001 and 91-3 provide limited information and guidance regarding intermediate force weapons, including straight and ASP batons,3 O.C. Spray and stun guns. The policies fail to

3


During our site visits we were informed that the VIPD

had recently purchased ASP batons and would be distributing them

to officers in the near future. GO 2004-001 mentions batons and

kubatons, in addition to the ASP baton. We recommend VIPD

- 9 -

adequately identify all of the authorized intermediate force weapons and to provide instructions and guidance regarding the proper restrictions and use of such weapons. For example, current VIPD policy states generally that “[o]fficers may employ standard manufactured impact weapons capable of being carried on the uniform duty belt or plain-clothes assignment.” (GO 2004001, Section 4.2.4). In other words, VIPD officers appear to be authorized to carry as many impact weapons as they can fit on their duty belts. Additionally, GO 91-3 fails to specify which officers or rank of officers are authorized to carry and deploy stun guns and whether carrying stun guns will be mandatory or optional.
We recommend that VIPD create a separate and comprehensive policy that gives specific guidance and restrictions on all intermediate force weapons, including straight and ASP batons, O.C. Spray and stun guns. This policy should include, among other things, where these and other intermediate force weapons fall within the use of force continuum, the circumstances under which the intermediate weapon should be used and instructions on how to properly use it, prohibitions on the use of the weapon, whether all officer are required to carry them, reporting procedures, and decontamination procedures for O.C. Spray. Because officers may unnecessarily resort to their firearms if intermediate force options are not available, we recommend that all officers be required to carry O.C. Spray, in addition to the PR-24 or ASP Baton. Appropriate training on the use and deployment of all intermediate weapons should be developed and implemented.
3. Canines
The VIPD has canine units located on St. Croix and St. Thomas, which operate under the VIPD’s Special Operations Bureaus. The units follow the policies outlined in the Canine Corps Standard Operating Procedures (“CC SOP”). However, the outdated CC SOPs were promulgated in the mid- to late 1980s and do not reflect current generally accepted practices and procedures. The CC SOPs fail to give proper guidance for the use and prohibitions on the use of canines. They also fail to specify the individuals who are authorized to deploy canine teams and to provide operational control over the team during the deployment.
develop corresponding policies and procedures for the use of all existing and new intermediate force weapons employed by the VIPD.

- 10 -

We recommend VIPD’s canine policy be revised to give canine handlers adequate guidance and instructions regarding the use of canines. The policy should require canine officers to specifically announce that police officers with a trained police canine are on the premises, that a trained police canine is on the scene, and that there is a risk that the canine may bite. This complete announcement should be amplified, repeated at least once, and made in another language, if applicable, and the suspect should be given a reasonable amount of time to voluntarily surrender before the canine is deployed, absent exigent circumstances. If the deployment involves the search of a multi-level structure, the complete announcement should, if feasible, be made and repeated on each level to ensure that appropriate warning and opportunity to surrender is provided. It is generally accepted practice for canines conducting building searches for suspects to be unleashed but within visual observation of their handlers unless there are exigent circumstances.
Current canine policy provides that canines may be used to prevent “imminent danger” to life or property or prevent escapes from custody. Because the use of canines is a serious use of force, current policy should be revised to prohibit the use of canines for the protection of property. We also recommend the policy be revised to clarify that canines should not be used to prevent the escape of suspected misdemeanants. We recommend VIPD’s canine policy provide further guidance on those situations which are considered “imminent danger to life” situations and should cross-reference these situations to the use of force continuum.
We recommend that VIPD revise its canine policy to make clear that supervisory canine officers and canine handlers can not authorize deployment of their own dogs, absent extraordinary circumstances. Canine teams deployed in the field should be supervised by a non-involved canine supervisor or a field supervisor, when a canine supervisor is not available.
4. Specialized Units
VIPD has the following specialized units: Street Enforcement Team (“SET”); Marine Units; and Special Response Team (“SRT”) units. These teams perform distinct functions throughout the Virgin Islands, including protecting witnesses, serving high risk warrants, patrolling high crime areas, and other high risk duties. We were provided with few, if any, policies or procedures for these specialized units.

- 11 -

We recommend the VIPD develop clear policies and procedures for each of these specialized units, including officer selection criteria, authorized tactics and weapons, chain of command and training. Due to the high risk nature of the missions of these units, clear and detailed policies and procedures should be developed by the VIPD.
E. Use of Force Reporting
General Order 2004-001 limits the circumstances under which a use of force report is required to be made. For example, Section 4.2.3 requires a use of force report only when there is an injury, medical treatment is required or requested, or the force used related to a criminal charge (i.e., resisting arrest, assault, endangering or harassment). A use of force report is only required to be completed by the “arresting officer and any other officer notified by a supervisor.” In addition, this Section fails to identify the specific form to used or the time frame in which this report must be completed.
Section 4.4 outlines a different reporting procedure for the discharge of firearms, but it does not indicate whether this report is also considered a use of force report. Section 4.4 is deficient in several ways. It does not state whether the reporting requirements apply to all officers whether on- or offduty. It fails to specify the type of report to be completed (i.e., use of force report, narrative), who is required to complete the report (i.e., officers and/or supervisors), and what information is required in the reports. The time frames and limitations provided in Section 4.4 are inconsistent with generally accepted law enforcement practices. For example, Section 4.4 allows for firearm discharge reports to be completed within 72 hours of the incident and prohibits videotape or audiotape recorded interviews within the first 24 hours following an incident. These time frames should be shortened or eliminated.
We recommend that VIPD policy be revised to provide detailed guidance and procedures for reporting all uses of physical or instrumental force beyond un-resisted handcuffing on a form dedicated solely to recording use of force information.4 The policy should be revised to require the arresting officer and all

4


All uses of force should be recorded on this form,

including physical uses of force, shootings, or uses of force

involving other weapons such as stun guns, tasers, or ASP batons.

- 12 -
other officers who took part in or witnessed a use of force to prepare a report detailing the event.
We recommend the form be structured so that discrete information about multiple uses of force by multiple officers in a single incident may be recorded. The form should require officers to provide a detailed description of the incident, beginning with the basis for the initial contact, continuing through the specific circumstances and actions that prompted each use of force, resulting injuries, and medical treatment. The form should contain check boxes, which may be supported by a narrative, where appropriate. The form should include sections to indicate whether the named witnesses provided statements and for supervisors to evaluate each use of force.
We recommend that the policy specify that all use of force reports and information be appropriately and timely reported and recorded, the responsibility of the first-line supervisor to ensure the use of force is documented, and a procedure for the information to be provided to the chain-of-command. The policy should establish a review mechanism to ensure that officers are complying with the reporting procedures and provide for appropriate administrative sanctions for officers who fail to comply.
F. Use of Force Review and Investigation
Supervisory review of officer uses of force is critical to a department’s ability to ensure officers are using force in a manner consistent with constitutional standards and the department’s policies. Use of force reviews may identify both officer training needs and patterns of unauthorized or excessive uses of force. The information regarding each use of force should be tracked in an Early Warning System (“EWS”), as discussed in further detail below.
VIPD lacks a clear policy on reviewing uses of force and investigating those that appear excessive, avoidable, and/or indicative of potentially criminal misconduct. GOs 92-3 and 2004-001 specify that the VIPD will review all circumstances involving critical incidents or violent confrontations. However, 92-3 limits such critical incident review to situations where a firearm or other deadly weapon is used. This review policy inappropriately focuses on the type of weapon used. The review policy establishes a panel to review critical incidents and violent confrontations, but it does not provide any guidance to its members regarding the appropriate review process.

- 13 -

We recommend that the VIPD force review policy be revised to state that all shootings and uses of force, whether they involve a weapon or not, be reviewed by VIPD officials. All uses of force beyond un-resisted handcuffing should be reviewed at some level within a police agency. The policy should outline the procedures for supervisory review regarding lower-level uses of force and the procedures for review and investigation regarding higher-level uses of force, including potential criminal misconduct.5 The policy should provide clear guidelines for supervisors to follow in their review and investigation, including an approval signature or block on the appropriate forms and the circumstances under which a supervisor is required to notify command staff, including the Territorial Chief and the Police Commissioner.
We recommend that the IAU be responsible for routinely responding to the scene and investigating uses of force in which the subject is injured or complains of excessive use of force and all firearm discharges, except discharges in the course of training or certification.
III. VEHICLE PURSUITS
The VIPD’s vehicle pursuit policy is outdated and deficient in several areas. The policy fails to distinguish between “emergency driving” and “high speed pursuits.” It does not specify when such actions are authorized or the proper procedures for and the supervisory control of such pursuits.
We recommend that VIPD policy be revised to clarify the distinction between emergency driving and high speed pursuits. Emergency driving typically refers to situations where officers are responding to calls and situations involving the protection of life (e.g., responding to a bank robbery in progress). High speed pursuits generally refer to situations in which officers are pursuing, for example, an armed and dangerous felony suspect fleeing a scene in a vehicle.
Because high-speed vehicle pursuits present a great risk of harm to the officer, the subject, innocent bystanders and other drivers, they should only be authorized for the apprehension of individuals who are alleged to have committed or are committing specified serious felonies and who pose an immediate threat of

5


The policy should specifically provide the procedures

and guidelines for compelling statements from officers in

accordance with Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967).

- 14 -

serious physical harm to the officer or the public. Accordingly, we recommend the policy be revised to eliminate the general and broad category of “assaults,” which includes misdemeanor assaults, as a justification for high speed pursuits.
We recommend that the VIPD policy be revised to contain specific instructions and provisions for supervisory control of pursuits. In all cases of pursuit, a supervisor should take command of the pursuit and be responsible for its continuance or discontinuance. In addition to road, traffic, light, weather and vehicle conditions, and driver’s ability, the policy should be revised to require the supervisor to consider public safety and the likelihood of apprehending the suspect at another time. Following each pursuit, VIPD should conduct a supervisory review of the pursuit for consistency with VIPD policy. This review should consider only those facts known to officers at the time of the pursuit and not information subsequently obtained.
IV. HOLDING CELLS
We sent a letter addressed to Commissioner Lewis in October 2004, regarding our concerns about the VIPD holding cells in St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix. Our concerns included: 1) lack of policies or procedures for medical and mental health services for detainees; 2) presence of suicide hazards in the cells; 3) lack of procedures for the provision of food and necessary medication to detainees; 4) lack of functional fire control systems; 5) failure to provide for the safety and security of detainees; and 6) lack of adequate policies or procedures for the detention of juveniles. We provided you with technical assistance and sample policies and procedures regarding the various areas of concern in our October 2004 letter, which was re-sent to Attorney King with enclosures, per his request, on March 31, 2005. We recommend VIPD develop policies and procedures consistent with our recommendations to ensure the safety of all detainees.
V. MISCONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS
The VIPD should develop and implement a centralized, formal, structured and consistent system for receiving and investigating complaints of police misconduct.
A. Investigation of Citizen Complaints
An open, fair and impartial process for receiving and investigating citizen complaints serves several important

- 15 -

purposes. An appropriate citizen complaint procedure ensures officer accountability and supervision, deters misconduct, and helps maintain good community relations, increasing public confidence in, and respect for, the VIPD. Improving the current procedure for handling citizen complaints would maximize these goals.
1. Complaint Forms
Complaints may be made at an IAU office or any of the various zones located throughout the Virgin Islands.6 However, citizen complaint forms are inconsistently used. For example, the IAU SOP identifies three forms related to a citizen complaint: 1) complaint form (Form #91-2); 2) confirmation of complaint form (Form #91-3); and 3) termination of complaint form (Form #91-4). Although the VIPD Police Manual requires a supervisor to enter a complaint on an “appropriate form” based on a complainant’s recitation of the facts, a specific complaint form is not identified in the VIPD Police Manual. In fact, we understand that the zones use arrest reports, also known as 1As, instead of complaint forms to memorialize complaint information.
The IAU SOP’s citizen complaint forms are inadequate and inconsistent with generally accepted police practices. For example, the forms include an “Options” section, which appears to provide complainants with a choice between two procedural routes for their complaints. The first option allows for the possibility of, but does not require, an investigation regarding the complaint. The complaint form notifies complainants that, if a hearing is conducted under the first option, they will be subjected to questioning by the Chief of Police, an investigator and a union representative. However, there is no similar discussion of the accused officer’s obligations. The second option does not include an investigation requirement and simply states that the officer can be admonished verbally.
We recommend that VIPD citizen complaint policy be revised to require an investigation of every complaint. The appropriate command staff, rather than the complainant, should determine the appropriate action to be taken. The forms should be revised to eliminate the “options” section from the complaint forms. The forms should state that an investigation will be conducted, that the complainant will be notified of the results of the

6


According to the VIPD organizational chart, there are

seven zones: St. Croix has zones A, B, and C; St. Thomas has

zones A, B, and C, and St. John has zone D.

- 16 -

investigation and that the complainant’s cooperation is requested throughout the investigation.
We recommend the elimination of the “Termination of Complaint” form. The current complaint process provides that a complaint can be terminated, without an investigation, if the complainant “declares” the following: “I am satisfied with the manner in which this complaint was handled and do hereby consider this matter resolved.” It is inappropriate for a complaint to be unilaterally terminated by the complainant without an investigation. We recommend that at the conclusion of each investigation, all relevant parties, including the complainant, receive a letter setting forth the name of the complainant, the unique control number, the date of the incident, the name of the officer(s) involved, the key facts of the complaint, and the final disposition of the complaint. If sustained, the letter should indicate whether remedial actions will be or have been taken.
The letter advising the citizen of the resolution of the complaint should be drafted by the supervisor conducting the investigation and then reviewed and approved by the appropriate chain of command. If any individual in the chain of command review disagrees with the previous reviewer’s findings and/or recommendations, the reason for such modification should be in writing and kept with the original recommendation in the complaint file, and, after final review and approval, the letter to the complainant should be modified accordingly. Every misconduct complaint should begin with a citizen complaint form, and end with a letter, each document reflecting the same control number for ease of reference and later review, if any.
2. Complaint Intake
The VIPD’s current policies and procedures regarding complaint intake are located in the VIPD Police Manual and the IAU SOP. These two policies are inconsistent. For example, the IAU SOP requires the acceptance of anonymous complaints, but the VIPD Police Manual does not. The VIPD Manual requires complaints to be referred to a supervisor, but the IAU SOP does not. The VIPD Manual, unlike the IAU SOP, appears to require supervisors to complete complaint forms based on a complainants’ “recitation” of the facts, instead of allowing complainants to complete the form themselves.
There should be one comprehensive policy for complaint intake. That policy should be consistent in the VIPD Police Manual, the IAU SOP, and all other relevant documents. We

- 17 -

recommend revision to the VIPD policy to provide clear procedures regarding the intake of any complaint, including anonymous and confidential complaints, against a VIPD officer. This policy should include instructions to an officer for taking a complaint and prompt delivery to a supervisor.
A complaint process should allow unfettered ability to make complaints. The availability of a uniform complaint form and information about the complaint process should be prominently posted at each police station, zone, VIPD headquarters, other public facilities, and in locations which permit the forms to be obtained without a specific request by a citizen or a requirement that the complaint be recited to a supervisor.
3. Centralized Investigation Assignments
Neither the VIPD manuals nor the IAU SOP establish a system or procedure for tracking all complaints. There is no centralized numbering and tracking system for all incoming complaints, whether they are received by the zones or the IAUs. There is no agency or individual responsible for numbering, tracking and maintaining oversight of all complaints. Although the IAU SOP states that all complaints that are received at the IAU receive a tracking number, the IAU receives only a portion of all complaints. Complaints that are investigated by the zones do not necessarily receive a tracking number and, if they do, they may be duplicative of IAU tracking numbers.7
The Police Manual and the IAU SOP provide inconsistent and limited guidance for determining which complaints should be investigated by the zones and which should be investigated by the IAU. For example, the VIPD Police Manual provides that the zones investigate complaints of unnecessary use of force. (VIPD Police Manual Ch. 8.4.2). However, the IAU SOP provides that the IAU investigates complaints of unlawful uses of force and brutality. (IAU SOP Ch. 3.2).
We recommend that the VIPD institute a centralized numbering and tracking system for all complaints, regardless of the nature of the complaint, the seriousness of the allegation, or the location where or to whom the complaint is made. The VIPD policy should provide that every complaint receive a tracking number as soon as possible. A centralized numbering system should be maintained by the IAU for all complaints.

7


During our investigation, we received documents

regarding different complaint files with the same file numbers.

- 18 -

We recommend that the IAU be designated the primary and centralized agency to determine whether the investigation will be assigned to the zone, retained by the IAU, or referred for possible criminal investigation. If IAU refers a complaint to a zone, copies of all documents, findings, and recommendations should be immediately forwarded to the IAU for tracking and monitoring.8 The policy should specify a standard procedure for notifying the Police Commissioner, or his or her designee, of complaints soon as possible. For complaints alleging the excessive use of force or violation of a person’s constitutional rights, the Police Commissioner should be notified no less than twenty-four hours after receipt of a complaint.
4. Investigations and Referrals
VIPD does not have a consistent policy for conducting complaint investigations. The VIPD Police Manual does not provide any guidance to zone investigators. Although the IAU SOP provides limited guidance on conducting a complaint investigation to IAU investigators, it is outdated and inconsistent with accepted police practices. For example, in a stark departure from generally accepted law enforcement practices, the IAU SOP disposition categories are contingent upon whether the complainant suffers harm.9 The IAU SOP does not provide clear guidance regarding the distinction between criminal and administrative investigations and the requisite procedural and legal protections should there be potential criminal misconduct. The IAU SOP appears to presume that if there is a criminal investigation, there cannot be a parallel administrative investigation. The VIPD Police Manual provides that an administrative investigation will be conducted only if the criminal proceedings are dismissed.
We recommend that the VIPD adopt a single policy concerning the investigation of misconduct complaints, regardless of whether

8


During our investigation, we asked for copies of

several IAU investigation files. However, VIPD was unable to

locate these files at IAU because the investigations were

conducted at the zones. The citizen complaint policy should

provide for clear document retention policies and for IAU’s

central file to be regularly updated and supplemented.

9


The disposition categories are: proper conduct (no

harm); improper conduct (harm); policy failure (harm);

insufficient evidence; unfounded complaint; and partially

sustained.

- 19 -

the investigation is conducted by the IAU or a zone. The VIPD policy and training should include investigative and interview techniques, including examining and interrogating accused officers and other witnesses; identifying misconduct even if it is not specifically named in the complaint; the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility; the directive that officer and witness statements be weighed equally; and preponderance of the evidence as the appropriate burden of proof. We recommend that the VIPD policy require that all interviews be mechanically recorded using an audio or video tape.
We recommend that the categories of investigation disposition should not be conditioned on whether the complainant suffered harm. Harm can include physical or psychological harm, or violation of a person’s civil rights, for example. An officer may have engaged in improper conduct even though the complainant did not suffer harm. Similarly, whether a policy failure occurred should not be contingent on whether the complainant suffered harm. Accordingly, we recommend VIPD revise its policies to require that the investigative findings include whether: 1) the police action was in compliance with policy, training and legal standards, regardless of whether the complainant suffered harm; 2) the incident involved misconduct by any officer; 3) the use of different tactics should or could have been employed; 4) the incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling or other non-disciplinary corrective measures; and 5) the incident suggests that VIPD should revise its policies, training, or tactics.
We recommend that the policy provide clear guidance to all investigators regarding the procedures for handling criminal misconduct allegations, referring them to the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office or other appropriate agency for possible criminal prosecution, and the entity or individual that should make the determination of whether the complaint be investigated criminally. We recommend that the policy be revised to require the completion of an administrative investigation, irrespective of the initiation or outcome of criminal proceedings.
We recommend that the policies and procedures clarify the rights of officers who may be the subject of a misconduct investigation. During an administrative investigation, officers suspected of potentially criminal misconduct should be informed of their rights under Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), before questioning, including their rights against selfincrimination and to have counsel present during questioning. The VIPD policy should provide clear guidance to investigators

- 20 -

regarding the procedures for when and how to compel statements from officers for the purposes of an administrative investigation in conformance with Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967).
B. Internal Affairs Unit: Structure and Organization
The internal affairs component of a law enforcement agency safeguards the integrity of the department and its officers. It should seek to ensure that those who enforce the law will themselves follow the law, as well as maintain an acceptable level of professionalism. The VIPD should acknowledge and support the integral role an internal affairs unit serves by ensuring that the IAU be an autonomous and objective component of the police department, and that it is comprised of well-trained personnel who are staffed at adequate levels throughout the various districts.
1. Organization and Responsibilities
The IAU SOP states that there are three responsibilities of the IAU: applicant screening; internal investigations; and labor relations. Not only does the IAU SOP fail to prioritize these responsibilities, but it also fails to provide any standards or procedures with respect to conducting applicant screening. The investigating officer apparently has complete discretion to determine the suitability of VIPD applicants.
We recommend the VIPD establish clear standards and structure for the IAU to follow for screening VIPD applicants. The policy should provide objective standards by which VIPD applicants will be reviewed and accepted, including, the effect, if any, of a prior criminal history on the suitability of an applicant.
We recommend that someone other than the IAU Director serve as the labor relations specialist. It is critical for the IAU and its Director to have autonomy, objectivity and impartiality. The role of a “labor relations specialist” places the Director in potential conflicts of interest. For example, because contract negotiations and interpretation include issues directly related to the IAU (e.g., misconduct complaints and investigations), the Director of the IAU may be negotiating with the union, as the labor relations specialist, regarding pending misconduct penalties that s/he would have to impose as the IAU Director. We recommend that an independent person outside of the IAU be designated to serve in this capacity.

- 21 -

2. Staffing and Training
The VIPD has no policy establishing selection criteria for IAU positions, nor are there recruiting or training procedures. Currently, the VIPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau oversees two IAUs, which are comprised of different ranking supervisors and inconsistent staffing levels. For example, the St. Thomas/St. John IAU supervisor is a Sergeant, but the St. Croix IAU supervisor is a Corporal. The St. Thomas/St. John IAU’s investigators are a Corporal and police officer, but the St. Croix IAU’s investigators are a Corporal and two “agents.” The IAU SOP does not provide an explanation for the different staffing levels or the distinction between an “agent investigator” and “police officer investigator.”
We recommend that the VIPD develop a policy regarding selection criteria for IAU personnel, including recruiting and training procedures. An IAU component must be appropriately staffed and trained to handle investigative and administrative responsibilities. In selecting IAU personnel, their disciplinary histories must be taken into account to ensure that only officers with the highest ethical standards serve as investigators. IAU investigators should not be selected to investigate a particular matter if they had any involvement in the incident under review or whose relationship with an officer in question would create an appearance of bias or impropriety. The VIPD should offer incentives to encourage qualified officers to apply for IAU positions.
We recommend that the Districts for St. Thomas/St. John and St. Croix maintain consistent staffing, or, at least, require the equivalent rank for supervisory staff.
VI. DISCIPLINE
The VIPD should develop and implement a formal, structured and consistent system for determining and imposing discipline.
Several of the areas of concern regarding the VIPD disciplinary system are directly related to the deficiencies in investigative procedures. For example, because there is no centralized tracking, it is possible for zone commanders to use their discretion to designate a charge against an officer as “minor” and summarily impose a verbal reprimand as the sole disciplinary action before the Deputy Chief of Police or the IAU ever learns about the complaint. (Chapter 8.3.5).

- 22 -

We are concerned with the VIPD’s short 50-day statute of limitations for instituting disciplinary action. Current VIPD policy requires disciplinary action to be instituted within 50 days from the date the alleged violation was committed or becomes known or should have become known to the department. No disciplinary action may be instituted after ninety (90) days following the alleged infraction. Based on our preliminary review of citizen complaint investigations, a number of complaint investigations may not have been thoroughly completed because of this short statute of limitations period. We recommend the VIPD explore its options to extend this statute of limitations period. Irrespective of the short statute of limitations period, VIPD’s failure to complete investigations precludes the department from identifying potential system-wide issues, providing corrective training, and revising policies, as necessary. VIPD policy should identify clear time periods by which the various steps of a complaint adjudication process should be completed, from complaint receipt to the imposition of discipline, if any. Absent exigent circumstances, extensions should not be granted without the Police Commissioner’s written approval and notice to the complainant. In the limited circumstances when an extension is necessary, appropriate tolling provisions should be outlined in the policy.
We recommend that the VIPD policy be revised so that no penalties, including verbal reprimands and counseling, be imposed without final authorization by the appropriate chain of command. The policy should include review and approval of any discipline by the chain of command and, ultimately, the Police Commissioner, before any discipline is imposed.
VII. SUPERVISORY OVERSIGHT
VIPD command staff should examine and review officer conduct on a regular basis as a proactive measure to minimize and detect misconduct, and to identify training and policy issues.
A. Risk Assessment and Management
There is a lack of structured and formal oversight of VIPD officers by command staff. There do not appear to be regular review procedures formalized in policy. To the contrary, review of officer activity appears to be informal and ad hoc.
We recommend that the VIPD implement policies and procedures for VIPD supervisors to routinely review all aspects of VIPD officer conduct, including a review of: 1) all uses of force, as

- 23 -

set forth above; 2) probable cause for arrests and the appropriateness of charges filed; and 3) reasonable suspicion for stops and searches that do not result in an arrest.
We recommend that VIPD policy require supervisors to review and approve all arrest reports and searches and seizures, and to record their approval on the arrest or incident reports by handwritten or electronic signature. We recommend that the Police Commissioner, or his or her designee who will directly report to the Police Commissioner, meet annually with every VIPD officer to discuss his or her complaint history, if any, and to discuss any problems or concerns officers may have concerning the department.
B. Early Warning System
The VIPD does not have, but should adopt, a risk assessment system or an Early Warning System (“EWS”) as an integral part of its risk management program. The VIPD can develop an EWS that is appropriate and applicable to its needs and size. Whether paperbased or computer-based, even a simple EWS would provide a useful assessment of each officer’s conduct as well as the department as a law enforcement agency. We recommend that the VIPD implement policies and procedures to collect data on individual officers for the purpose of maintaining, integrating, and retrieving information necessary for effective supervision and management of VIPD personnel. The EWS should contain information on all investigations and complaints, including non-sustained complaints and complaints prior to final disposition, discipline and other corrective actions, uses of force, arrests and charges, searches and seizures, service calls, training, awards and commendations, sick leave, civil lawsuits and other items relevant to an officer’s conduct. The VIPD can then use this data regularly and proactively to promote best professional police practices; improve accountability and management; manage the risk of police misconduct and potential liability; and evaluate and audit the performance of officers and units on a regular basis. We recommend that the VIPD require supervisors, including command staff, to review this data for every officer they supervise on a regular, predetermined basis, such as every quarter.
The policy implementing these recommendations should also establish guidelines regarding specific events that will trigger an additional supervisory review, such as a specific number of uses of force or citizen complaints within a discrete period. Once an officer has been selected for this additional review, a report should be prepared that details all use of force reports, formal and informal complaints, calls for service, sick leave,

- 24 -

counseling reports, civil lawsuits, and commendations pertaining to the officer within the past ten years. The officer’s immediate supervisor and command staff should then meet to discuss the report and determine if any corrective action is warranted. The supervisor’s and command staff’s recommendations should then be forwarded to the Police Commissioner for his or her review and implementation. The effectiveness of the implemented recommendations should be determined by monitoring the officer and drafting written reports on the officer’s conduct on a monthly basis. Both the supervisory recommendations and the written monthly report should be included in the officer’s file.
We recommend that the VIPD consider utilizing peer reviews of the information contained in the reports by comparing complaints, use of force reports, and other pertinent information about a particular officer with similar information from other officers on the same patrol team or shift. In addition, the policy should provide explicit guidance to supervisory officers reviewing reports to ensure that patterns of possible misconduct are identified, analyzed and addressed properly by command staff. The aim of this process is to give supervisors valuable information that, if received early, could identify potential problem officers before misconduct actually develops.
VIII. OFFICER TRAINING
The VIPD should develop comprehensive training programs for new and experienced VIPD officers.
A. Police Academy Training
Based on our investigation and discussions with the Director of Training, there are no standard curricula or lesson plans for training provided to new recruits.10 The VIPD’s Recruit Rules and Procedures Manual (“Recruit Manual”) does not contain any substantive information regarding police tactics, practices, procedures or protocol. The content of each subject matter area is left to the discretion of the instructor. There are no standards for selection of instructors, except that we were told that Assistant Attorneys General are requested to provide instruction on legal matters, such as search and seizure.
10
 VIPD recruits attend a 26-week academy training along with other territorial law enforcement agencies, including the Territorial Marshals, Department of Planning and Natural Resources, and the Taxi Commission.

- 25 -

Moreover, we understand that there is no standardized or formalized written examination that each recruit must pass. It is our understanding that each instructor creates his or her own test to determine the recruits’ proficiency in the relevant subject matter area.
We recommend that the VIPD develop standardized curricula, lesson plans, and written tests for each section of a recruit’s training at the police academy, including, but not limited to, use of force, Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements. This training should also include role-playing and interactive exercises regarding situational ethical and use of force scenarios, including de-escalation techniques, cultural diversity and community policing. The exercises should include training on interactions with persons from different racial, ethnic, and religious groups, persons of the opposite sex, persons of different sexual orientations, and persons with disabilities. The curricula and lesson plans should incorporate comprehensive and updated police practices and be approved by legal counsel and the Police Commissioner. There should be an approved, standardized and written examination at the end of the academy to measure an acceptable level of proficiency and competency in all areas covered by the training. Recruits should be required to pass the examination to become a VIPD officer. We recommend that all instructors receive certification to serve as instructors. This certification can be obtained through programs and seminars offered by various certifying agencies throughout the United States.
B. Field Training
A structured field training program is essential for training new recruits. Field training for new officers is an integral component of any comprehensive officer training program, and minimizes the risk of officers engaging in problematic behaviors, including the use of excessive force.
Although the VIPD has a number of officers that are designated as Field Training Officers (“FTOs”), there is no policy, standard or procedure for selecting, training, or evaluating an FTO. FTOs are selected by the Territorial Chief. There are no written standards for an officer to qualify or to be selected as an FTO. It is our understanding that after graduation from the police academy, new recruits are assigned to an FTO for a probationary year. Although new recruits accompany an FTO on patrol, there is no structured field training program.
We recommend that the VIPD develop and implement a field

- 26 -

training program. The field training program should utilize qualified FTOs to supervise and train new VIPD officers. FTOs should have at least three years experience on the VIPD. Additionally, FTO instructors should have completed a course on how to serve in that capacity. An FTO candidate’s experience, complaint history and interpersonal skills should be considered as selection criteria. We recommend that the VIPD take measures to recruit and train qualified FTOs, including providing incentives to current officers to encourage them to apply to become FTOs. The VIPD should develop and implement a mechanism for evaluating FTOs and for removing FTOs who fail to perform adequately, and whose actions while serving as FTOs would have disqualified them from selection.
C. In-Service Training
In addition to the absence of any formal training for new recruits after the police academy, VIPD does not have a structured training program for experienced officers.
We recommend that the VIPD develop and implement an inservice training program for all officers. Consistent with most police departments throughout the country, VIPD should provide in-service training that includes a minimum of 40 hours per year of training (excluding firearms re-qualification) on police topics, such as: use of force, firearms, defensive tactics, policies and procedures, current legal issues or other issues that are essential to police work, searches and seizures, legal developments and police integrity. The VIPD in-service training should include de-escalation techniques for interactions with persons with mental illness and those who may be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. We recommend that officers receive firearms training biannually for all service weapons used by VIPD officers. All VIPD personnel should receive training on the new complaint policy and procedures. We recommend that training be conducted by instructors who have been trained and certified to be instructors, and who are competent in the subject matter.
We note that one potential resource for the VIPD in establishing and improving in-service and field training officer programs may be the longstanding training and grant programs administered by other components of the Department of Justice, such as the Office of Justice Programs. While these programs are completely separate and independent of the Civil Rights Division’s investigations, we would be pleased to provide you

- 27 -
 with contact information for exploring the possibility of such assistance.
IX. CONCLUSION
We strongly urge the VIPD to adopt these technical assistance recommendations as it revises its policies and procedures. We look forward to working with you and the VIPD as our investigation proceeds. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202)514-6255, Je Yon Jung at (202)305-1457 or Michael Frazier at (202)307-2715.
Sincerely,
/s/ Shanetta Y. Cutlar
Shanetta Y. Cutlar Chief Special Litigation Section
cc: Anthony Jenkins United States Attorney for the Virgin Islands

 District Court of the Virgin Islands District of the Virgin Islands (St. Thomas Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:08-cv-00158-RAM-RM

United States of America v. Territory of the VI, et.al. Assigned to: Judge Robert A. Molloy Referred to: Magistrate Judge Ruth Miller Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

Date Filed: 12/23/2008 Date Terminated: 03/24/2009 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff United States of America,

represented by Je Yon Jung US Department of Justice 601 D Street NW #5916 Washington, DC 20004 202-305-1457 Email: jeyon.jung@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 06/23/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY

Jeffrey R Murray United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 202-353-9269 Fax: 202-514-2012 Email: jeff.murray@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joycelyn Hewlett U.S. Attorney's Office Ron De Lugo Federal Bldg 5500 Veterans Drive, Suite 260 St Thomas, VI 00802 340-774-5757 Fax: 340-776-3474 Email: joycelyn.hewlett@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marina Mazor United States Department of Justice

V. Defendant Virgin Islands

Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 202-305-3347 Fax: 202-514-2012 Email: marina.mazor@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 06/23/2016
Sansara Adella Cannon U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FEDERAL BLDG. AND U.S. COURTHOUSE 5500 VETERAN DRIVE SUITE 2 ST. THOMAS, VI 00802-6424 340-715-9412 Fax: 340-776-3474 Email: Sansara.cannon@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Jackson Morse United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530 202-305-4039 Fax: 202-514-2012 Email: jack.morse@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol Thomas-Jacobs Department of Justice 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade GERS Building St Thomas, VI 00802 340-774-5666 ext 101 Fax: 340-776-3494 Email: carol.jacobs@doj.vi.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terri L. Griffiths

Defendant Virgin Islands Police Department
Defendant Virgin Islands Police Department

PMB 287 8168 Crown Bay Marine #505 St.Thomas, VI 00802 340-998-8830 Email: terri@griffiths-law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren M Williams Department of Justice General Gade #11CC St Thomas, VI 00804 340-774-5666 Fax: 340-776-3494 Email: fatmot@live.com
represented by Carol Thomas-Jacobs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terri L. Griffiths (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren M Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol Thomas-Jacobs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terri L. Griffiths (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren M Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # Docket Text

12/23/2008 12/23/2008 03/24/2009 08/19/2009
08/20/2009
02/04/2010
02/16/2010 03/22/2010 06/29/2010 07/20/2010 09/02/2010
09/20/2010

1 COMPLAINT against all defendants filed by United States of America,. (Jung, Je) (Entered: 12/23/2008)
2 Joint MOTION for Settlement by Consent Decree by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Consent Decree) (Jung, Je) (Entered: 12/23/2008)
3 CONSENT DECREE(CVG) (TRH) (Entered: 03/24/2009)
4 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Comply with Paragraph 82 of Consent Decree by Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 08/19/2009)
5 Opposition to Motion re 4 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Comply with Paragraph 82 of Consent Decree filed by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Side Letter Agreement) (Jung, Je) (Entered: 08/20/2009)
6 ORDER (CVG) It is hereby ORDERED that the Virgin Islands Police Department's Motion for Extension of Time is DENIED as moot.(THIS IS A TEXT ORDER NO DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED) (SED) Modified on 2/5/2010 (TRH). (Entered: 02/04/2010)
7 MOTION to Reopen Case and Hold Status Conferences by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Jung, Je) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
8 STIPULATION Joint Motion to Modify Consent Decree by United States of America,. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Jung, Je) (Entered: 03/22/2010)
9 ORDER (CVG), that Paragraphs 96 and 98 of the March 23, 2009 Consent Decree are amended. (SED) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
Case Reassigned to Magistrate Judge Ruth Miller. US Magistrate Judge Geoffrey W. Barnard no longer assigned to the case. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Ruth Miller. (TRH) (Entered: 07/20/2010)
10 It is hereby ORDERED that a hearing in this matter is SCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:30 a.m. on October 1, 2010. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (SED) (Entered: 09/02/2010)
11 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically for October 1, 2010 Hearing by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Jung, Je) (Entered: 09/20/2010)

09/27/2010 10/01/2010
10/15/2010 10/19/2010 10/19/2010 10/19/2010 10/29/2010 11/18/2010 11/22/2010
11/22/2010

12 NOTICE of Appearance by Marina Mazor on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America, (Mazor, Marina) (Entered: 09/27/2010)
13 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Curtis V Gomez: Motion Hearing held on 10/1/2010 re 7 MOTION to Reopen Case and Hold Status Conferences filed by United States of America,, 11 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically for October 1, 2010 Hearing filed by United States of America; Court find that Atty. Jung will not participate by phone this time. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (LT) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
14 MOTION In Response to Court's October 1, 2010, Order Regarding Revised Consent Decree Timelines by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Jung, Je) (Entered: 10/15/2010)
15 NOTICE of Filing Consent Decree Compliance Timelines by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit VIPD Timelines) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 10/19/2010)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by Warren M Williams on behalf of Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department (Williams, Warren) (Entered: 10/19/2010)
17 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Consent Decree Timelines by Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 10/19/2010)
18 ORDER (CVG) that a hearing in this matter is scheduled to commence promptly at 9:00 a.m. on November 22, 2010. (SED) (Entered: 10/29/2010)
19 ORDER (CVG). The hearing in this matter, previously scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on November 22, 2010 is RESCHEDULED for 9:45 a.m. on November 22, 2010. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (SED) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
20 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Curtis V Gomez: Hearing on Time-line held on 11/22/2010. Parties arrived at dates as to all the provisions in the Consent Decree. Court will may set a hearing at the end of the compliance date, June 2011, if nescessary. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (LT) (Entered: 11/22/2010)
21 Minute Order. Proceedings held in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Ruth Miller: In Chambers Conference held on 11/22/2010. (AO) (Entered: 11/22/2010)

11/24/2010 12/01/2010
12/09/2010
12/16/2010 02/01/2011 03/28/2011 06/09/2011 08/31/2011 09/01/2011

22 NOTICE Joint Notice of Filing Virgin Islands Police Department's Revised Consent Decree Time Table by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit VIPD Timetable) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 11/24/2010)
23 ORDER (RM) dated 12/1/10 finding as moot 11 Motion for Leave to Appear Telephonically; finding as moot 17 Motion for Extension of Time to File Revised Consent Decree Timetable. Revised Consent Decree Timetable was filed on November 24, 2010. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (SLR) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
24 NOTICE Joint Notice of Filing of the First, Second, and Third Quarterly Reports of the Independent Monitor for the Virgin Islands Police Department by United States of America, (Attachments: # 1 First Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Virgin Islands Police Department, # 2 Second Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Virgin Islands Police Department, # 3 Third Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Virgin Islands Police Department) (Mazor, Marina) (Entered: 12/09/2010)
25 ORDER (CVG). It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall comply with the revised consent decree time table filed at Docket Entry 22. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (SED) (Entered: 12/16/2010)
26 Letter from Steven M. Witzel (TRH) (Entered: 02/04/2011)
27 NOTICE of Filing of Fourth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Virgin Islands Police Department by Steven M. Witzel (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Witzel, Steven) (Entered: 03/28/2011)
28 NOTICE of Filing of First Quarterly Report of 2011 of the Independent Monitor for the Virgin Islands Police Department by Steven M. Witzel (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Witzel, Steven) (Entered: 06/09/2011)
29 NOTICE of Filing of Second Quarterly Report of 2011 of the Independent Monitor for the Virgin Islands Police Department by Steven M. Witzel (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Witzel, Steven) (Entered: 08/31/2011)
30 NOTICE of Amended Certificate of Service by Steven M. Witzel re 29 Notice (Other) of Filing of Second Quarterly Report of 2011 of the Independent Monitor for the Virgin Islands Police Department (Witzel, Steven) (Entered: 09/01/2011)

12/27/2011 01/09/2012
02/22/2012 02/23/2012 03/13/2012 03/13/2012 03/15/2012 03/21/2012 04/02/2012 04/12/2012

31 STATUS REPORT (Third Quarterly Report of 2011 of the Independent Monitor for the Virgin Islands Police Department) by Steven M. Witzel. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Witzel, Steven) (Entered: 12/27/2011)
32 NOTICE of filing VIPD's Response to Independent Monitor's 2011 Third Quarter Report by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department re 31 Status Report (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit VIPD's Response to Monitor's 2011 Third Quarter Report) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 01/09/2012)
33 ORDER (CVG) an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the VIPD has complied with the terms of the consent decree is SCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:30 a.m. on April, 23, 2012. (DHK) (Entered: 02/22/2012)
Set Hearings: Evidentiary Hearing set for 4/23/2012 09:30 AM in District Judge Ctrm1-STT before Chief Judge Curtis V Gomez. (TRH) (Entered: 02/23/2012)
34 STATUS REPORT (Notice of Filing) by Steven M. Witzel. (Attachments: # 1 Fourth Quarterly Report of 2011 of the Independent Monitor for the Virgin Islands Police Department, # 2 Certificate of Service) (Witzel, Steven) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
35 NOTICE of Filing of Corrected Certificate of Service by Steven M. Witzel re 34 Status Report (Witzel, Steven) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
36 NOTICE of Filing of VIPD's Response to 4th Quarter Report by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department re 34 Status Report (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 03/15/2012)
37 Joint MOTION to Continue Hearing by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order granting Parties' Motion for Continuance) (Mazor, Marina) (Entered: 03/21/2012)
38 ORDER (CVG) the joint motion to continue the April 23, 2012, Hearing 37 is DENIED. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (DHK) (Entered: 04/02/2012)
39 Joint MOTION Status conference by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order granting joint motion) (Mazor, Marina) (Entered: 04/12/2012)

04/20/2012 04/23/2012 05/03/2012 05/05/2012 05/10/2012
05/11/2012 05/29/2012
05/30/2012 05/31/2012

40 ORDER (CVG) the motion for a status conference 39 is DENIED as moot. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (DHK) (Entered: 04/20/2012)
41 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Curtis V Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 4/23/2012. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (LT) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
42 MOTION Entry of Order by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order) (Mazor, Marina) (Entered: 05/03/2012)
43 Opposition to Motion re 42 MOTION Entry of Order filed by Defendants Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (ThomasJacobs, Carol) (Entered: 05/05/2012)
44 ORDER (CVG) a hearing on whether the Consent Decree should be amended is SCHEDULED to commence promptly at 10:30 a.m. on June 21, 2012; each party shall have a representative at the hearing who has the authority to consider, and offer a position on, any proposed amendment to the Consent Decree. (Omnibus Hearing set for 6/21/2012 10:30 AM in STT Courtroom 1 before Chief Judge Curtis V Gomez.) (DHK) (Entered: 05/10/2012)
45 MOTION to Continue and for Telephonic Participation in Hearing by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Mazor, Marina) (Entered: 05/11/2012)
46 ORDER (CVG) a status conference in this matter is SCHEDULED to commence promptly at 2:30 p.m. on May 31, 2012. The parties are instructed to contact the Clerk's office if they wish to appear by telephone. (Status Conference set for 5/31/2012 02:30 PM in Chambers before Chief Judge Curtis V. Gomez.) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (DHK) (Entered: 05/29/2012)
47 NOTICE of Appearance by Marina Mazor on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America, (Mazor, Marina) (Entered: 05/30/2012)
48 ORDER (CVG) the hearing on the motion to amend 42 , previously scheduled for June 21, 2012, is RESCHEDULED for 10:30 a.m. on July 26, 2012. (Omnibus Hearing set for 7/26/2012 10:30 AM in STT Courtroom 1 before Chief Judge Curtis V. Gomez.) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (DHK) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

05/31/2012 07/10/2012 07/10/2012 07/24/2012
07/26/2012 07/26/2012
07/26/2012 08/10/2012 08/16/2012

49 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Curtis V Gomez: Telephone Conference held on 5/31/2012. Motion to continue, granted. (LT) (Entered: 06/01/2012)
50 STATUS REPORT (Notice of Filing) by Steven M. Witzel. (Attachments: # 1 First Quarterly Report of 2012 of the Independent Monitor for the Virgin Islands Police Department, # 2 Certificate of Service) (Witzel, Steven) (Entered: 07/10/2012)
51 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Brief by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplemental Brief) (Mazor, Marina) (Entered: 07/10/2012)
52 ORDER (CVG) the United States' motion for leave to file a brief 51 is GRANTED; not later than 10:30 a.m. on July 26, 2012, the Virgin Islands Government shall file a response to the United States' brief, addressing the Court's authority to amend the Consent Decree, with references to the appropriate authorities; not later than 10:30 a.m. on July 26, 2012, the Virgin Islands Government shall submit invoices, receipts, or any other record detailing the costs and fees it has paid the Monitoring Team to date. (DHK) (Entered: 07/24/2012)
53 Opposition to Motion re 51 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Brief filed by Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 07/26/2012)
54 NOTICE Invoices of and Payments to the Monitoring Team by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 07/26/2012)
55 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Curtis V Gomez: Motion Hearing held on 7/26/2012 re 42 MOTION Entry of Order filed by United States of America,. Parties to submit joint submissions to the court within 21 days. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (LT) (Entered: 07/30/2012)
56 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Action Plan by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Mazor, Marina) (Entered: 08/10/2012)
57 ORDER (CVG) no later than August 31, 2012, the parties shall jointly submit an action plan; if the parties are unable to agree to any term of the action plan, they shall include their objection(s) in the jointly

08/30/2012 10/11/2012 10/15/2012 11/02/2012
12/13/2012 01/14/2013 01/28/2013 01/31/2013

submitted action plan, along with any suggested alternative terms. (Granting 56 Motion for Extension of Time to File.) (DHK) (Entered: 08/16/2012)
58 NOTICE Parties' joint filing of action plan by United States of America, (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Consent Decree Action Plan) (Mazor, Marina) (Entered: 08/30/2012)
59 NOTICE OF FILING) by Steven M. Witzel. (Attachments: # 1 Second Quarterly Report of 2012 of the Independent Monitor for the Virgin Islands Police Department, # 2 Certificate of Service) (Witzel, Steven) Modified on 10/12/2012 (TRH). (Entered: 10/11/2012)
60 Joint MOTION Modify Consent Decree Paragraphs by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Mazor, Marina) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
61 ORDER (CVG) the Action Plan, appended hereto and incorporated herein by reference is ADOPTED, and the parties shall comply with its terms; the Action Plan, appended hereto and incorporated by reference herein, shall be made part of the Consent Decree; the relevant portion of Paragraph 103 of the Consent Decree shall be AMENDED to read:The Agreement will terminate two years after the VIPD and the Territory have achieved compliance with each of the provisions of this Agreement, and have maintained substantial compliance for at least two years. (DHK) (Entered: 11/02/2012)
62 ORDER (CVG) the joint motion to amend the Consent Decree 60 is GRANTED. (DHK) (Entered: 12/13/2012)
63 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Paragraph 33 of Consent Decree by Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 01/14/2013)
64 STATUS REPORT (Notice of Filing) by Steven M. Witzel. (Attachments: # 1 Third Quarterly Report of 2012 of the Independent Monitor for the Virgin Islands Police Department, # 2 Certificate of Service) (Witzel, Steven) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
65 MOTION for extension of time to complete Blue Team training and to complete training on the Vehicle Pursuit and Spike Strip policies (unopposed) by Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 01/31/2013)

02/21/2013 03/12/2013
04/10/2013 04/11/2013 06/28/2013 07/02/2013 08/08/2013 09/07/2013 09/10/2013

66 ORDER (CVG) the motion of the parties to correct the December 13, 2012, Order 63 is GRANTED (DHK) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
67 ORDER (CVG) the Virgin Islands' motion to amend the Consent Decree 65 is GRANTED; the relevant portions of the Consent Decree shall be amended to provide that vehicle pursuit and spike strip training shall be completed not later than April 30, 2013; the relevant portions of the Consent Decree shall be amended to provide that vehicle pursuit and spike strip training shall be completed not later than March 15, 2013. (DHK) (Entered: 03/12/2013)
68 NOTICE of filing by Steven M. Witzel (Attachments: # 1 Fourth Quarterly Report, # 2 Certificate of Service) (Witzel, Steven) (Entered: 04/10/2013)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IS NOT AN ATTACHMENT Re: 68 Notice (Other). (KAB) (Entered: 04/11/2013)
69 MOTION VIPD's Motion for Extension of Time to Comply with Audit Requirements of Action Plan by Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 06/28/2013)
70 Response re 69 MOTION VIPD's Motion for Extension of Time to Comply with Audit Requirements of Action Plan filed by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A - email from VIPD to DOJ, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B - email from DOJ to VIPD, # 3 Text of Proposed Order) (Mazor, Marina) (Entered: 07/02/2013)
71 STATUS REPORT (Notice of Filing) by Steven M. Witzel. (Attachments: # 1 First Quarterly Report of 2013 of the Independent Monitor for the Virgin Islands Police Department, # 2 Certificate of Service) (Witzel, Steven) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
72 ORDER (CVG) that an evidentiary hearing on the VIPDs motion for extension of time to comply with audit requirements is SCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:30 a.m. on September 18, 2013. (HRH) (Entered: 09/07/2013)
73 Joint MOTION to Stay September 18, 2013 hearing pending parties' renegotiation of Consent Decree and Action Plan by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Mazor, Marina) (Entered: 09/10/2013)

09/13/2013 10/01/2013 10/01/2013 10/02/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013
11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/14/2013 11/18/2013

74 ORDER (CVG) the evidentiary hearing in this matter previously scheduled for September 18, 2013 is RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:30 a.m. on October 9, 2013. (HRH) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
75 Joint MOTION to Amend Consent Decree Action Plan by Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Text of Proposed Order) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
76 Joint MOTION to Terminate October 9, 2013 Evidentiary Hearing by Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
77 ORDER (CVG) the evidentiary hearing in this matter previously scheduled for October 9, 2013 is RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:30 a.m. on November 18, 2013. (HRH) Modified on 10/7/2013 (KAB).(This is a text ENTRY ONLY) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
78 Joint MOTION Clarification of subject matter of 11/18/13 hearing by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Mazor, Marina) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY FILER WAS INSTRUCTED TO REFILE DOCUMENT. MEMEORANDUM IN SUPPORT IS A SEPARATE DOCUMENT Re: 78 Joint MOTION Clarification of subject matter of 11/18/13 hearing . (KAB) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
79 Joint MOTION Clarification of subject matter of 11/18/13 hearing (corrected) by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Mazor, Marina) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
80 NOTICE of Filing (Status Report) by Steven M. Witzel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Second Quarterly Report of 2013, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Service) (Witzel, Steven) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IS NOT AN ATACHMENT Re: 80 Notice (Other). (KAB) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
81 NOTICE of Appearance by Joycelyn Hewlett on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America, (Hewlett, Joycelyn) (Entered: 11/14/2013)
82 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 11/18/2013.Matter taken under

12/09/2013 12/19/2013 12/26/2013 12/26/2013 01/30/2014 02/11/2014 02/20/2014 02/20/2014 02/24/2014

advisement (Court Reporter FTR GOLD RECORDING.) (TRH) (Entered: 11/19/2013)
83 Joint MOTION to Supplement 75 Joint MOTION to Amend Consent Decree Action Plan by Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 12/09/2013)
84 STATUS REPORT (Notice of Filing) by Steven M. Witzel. (Attachments: # 1 Third Quarterly Report of 2013 of the Independent Monitor for the Virgin Islands Police Department, # 2 Certificate of Service) (Witzel, Steven) (Entered: 12/19/2013)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY FILER WAS INSTRUCTED THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IS NOT AN ATTACHMENT. Re: 84 Status Report. (KAB) (Entered: 12/26/2013)
85 STATUS REPORT Corrected Notice of Filing by Steven M. Witzel. (Attachments: # 1 Third Quarterly Report of 2013 of the Independant Monitor for the Virgin Islands Police Department) (Witzel, Steven) (Entered: 12/26/2013)
86 ORDER (CVG) A hearing in this matter is SCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:00 a.m. on February 25, 2014. (HRH) (Entered: 01/30/2014)
87 ORDER (CVG) finding as MOOT VIPD's Motion for Extension of Time to Comply with Audit Requirements 69 . (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF associated with this entry.) (HRH) (Entered: 02/11/2014)
88 STATUS REPORT (Notice of Filing) by Steven M. Witzel. (Attachments: # 1 Fourth Quarterly Report of 2013 of the Independent Monitor for the Virgin Islands Police Department, # 2 Certificate of Service) (Witzel, Steven) (Entered: 02/20/2014)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IS NOT AN ATTACHMENT Re: 88 Status Report. (KAB) (Entered: 02/20/2014)
89 Second MOTION to Amend/Correct Consent Decree Action Plan by Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit VIPD Audit Report, # 3 Exhibit Action Plan Redline, # 4 Exhibit Action Plan Clean Copy, # 5 Exhibit Promotional Examinations Report) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 02/24/2014)

02/25/2014 03/07/2014 04/10/2014 04/30/2014 05/01/2014 05/07/2014
05/08/2014
05/22/2014 05/23/2014
05/27/2014 05/28/2014

90 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 2/25/2014. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (CAB) (Entered: 02/25/2014)
91 NOTICE of VIPD's areas of substantial compliance by May 27, 2014 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
92 Letter from Fried Frank (CAB) (Entered: 04/10/2014)
93 ORDER (CVG) amending the Consent Decree. (HRH) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
94 ORDER (CVG) finding as moot 73 Motion to Stay (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 05/01/2014)
95 Joint MOTION to Approve Charles A. Gruber Consulting, Inc., as the Independent Monitor by Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
96 Amended MOTION to Approve Charles A. Gruber Consulting, Inc., as the Independent Monitor re 95 Joint MOTION to Approve Charles A. Gruber Consulting, Inc., as the Independent Monitor by Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (ThomasJacobs, Carol) (Entered: 05/08/2014)
97 AMENDED ORDER (CVG) amending the Consent Decree. (HRH) (Entered: 05/22/2014)
98 Joint MOTION Amend Date for Filing of November 2014 Progress Report and Evidentiary Hearing by Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
99 STATUS REPORT (Notice of Filing) by Steven M. Witzel. (Attachments: # 1 First Quarterly Report of 2014 of the Independent Monitor for the Virgin Islands Police Department) (Witzel, Steven) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY ATTORNEY SIGNATURE IS MISSING Re: 98 Joint MOTION Amend Date for

Filing of November 2014 Progress Report and Evidentiary Hearing . (KAB) (Entered: 05/28/2014)

05/30/2014

100 ORDER (CVG) finding as moot 75 Motion to Amend Consent Decree. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 05/30/2014)

05/30/2014

101 ORDER (CVG) finding as moot 76 Motion to terminate October 9, 2013, hearing. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 05/30/2014)

05/30/2014

102 ORDER (CVG) finding as moot 79 Motion for clarification of subject matter of hearing. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 05/30/2014)

06/02/2014

103 NOTICE Report by United States of America, Regarding Defendants' Progress Toward May 27, 2014 Quarterly Goals (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Appendix) (Mazor, Marina) (Entered: 06/02/2014)

06/02/2014

104 NOTICE of Filing of VIPD's Status Report by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 06/02/2014)

06/06/2014

105 ORDER (CVG) The evidentiary hearing in this matter previously scheduled for June 9, 2014, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:00 AM on June 18, 2014. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (HRH) (Entered: 06/06/2014)

06/06/2014

106 NOTICE of VIPD's Quarterly Goals for Quarter Ending August 15, 2014 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (ThomasJacobs, Carol) (Entered: 06/06/2014)

06/18/2014

107 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 6/18/2014. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (CAB) (Entered: 06/19/2014)

06/27/2014

108 NOTICE of Filing of Additional Quartely Goals by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 06/27/2014)

07/03/2014

109 ORDER(CVG) The quarterly goals submitted by the Virgin Islands to be completed by August 15, 2014, are ACCEPTED. (HRH) (Entered: 07/03/2014)

07/28/2014 110 ORDER (CVG) The hearing in this matter previously scheduled for August 25, 2014, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at

9:00 AM on September 3, 2014. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF associated with this entry.) (HRH) (Entered: 07/28/2014)

08/25/2014

111 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Progress Reports for Quarter Ending August 15, 2014 by Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 08/25/2014)

08/26/2014

112 STATUS REPORT by Gruber. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Appendix B part 1, # 3 Appendix B part 2, # 4 Appendix C, # 5 Appendix D) (TRH) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/27/2014: # 6 Second Quarterly Report of 2014 from the Independent Monitor) (TRH). (Entered: 08/26/2014)

08/29/2014

113 NOTICE Joint Report Regarding Defendants' Progress Toward Achieving August 15, 2014 Quarterly Goals by United States of America, (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Independent Monitors' Report on Defendants' Compliance Status for Quarterly Goals for Quarter Ending August 15, 2014, # 2 Appendix Appendix A to Monitors' Report) (Mazor, Marina) (Entered: 08/29/2014)

09/03/2014

114 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Ruth Miller: Evidentiary Hearing held on 9/3/2014. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (TRH) (Entered: 09/03/2014)

09/03/2014

115 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Chambers Conference held on 9/3/2014. (TRH) (Entered: 09/04/2014)

09/10/2014

116 ORDER (CVG) finding as moot 83 Motion to Supplement ; finding as moot 89 Motion to Amend Complaint. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (HRH) (Entered: 09/10/2014)

09/12/2014

117 NOTICE of Filing Quarterly Goals for Quarter ending November 21, 2014 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (ThomasJacobs, Carol) (Entered: 09/12/2014)

09/15/2014

118 NOTICE notice -general response by Gruber (Attachments: # 1 IMT reponse ti VIPD Quarterly Goals Nov 2014) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 09/15/2014)

09/16/2014

NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IS NEEDED IN PROPER FORMAT. PLEASE FILE Re: 118 Notice (Other). (KAB) (Entered: 09/16/2014)

09/16/2014 119 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gruber (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 09/16/2014)

10/02/2014 120 NOTICE Response to 1Q2014 Quarterly Audits by VIPD by Gruber (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 10/02/2014)

11/07/2014

121 ORDER (CVG) The hearing in this matter previously scheduled for November 27, 2014, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:00 AM on December 17, 2014. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (HRH) (Entered: 11/07/2014)

11/23/2014

122 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Progress Report for Quarter Ending November 21, 2014 by Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 11/23/2014)

11/24/2014

123 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Quarterly Status Report for Quarter Ending November 21, 2014 by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Mazor, Marina) (Entered: 11/24/2014)

11/28/2014

124 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gruber (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 certificate of service) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 11/28/2014)

12/01/2014

125 ORDER (CVG) The parties' motions for an extension of time in which to file their quarterly reports are hereby GRANTED. Such reports shall be filed no later than December 3, 2014. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (HRH) (Entered: 12/01/2014)

12/01/2014

NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY FILER USED WRONG EVENT. FILER WAS INSTRUCTED TO REFILE DOCUMENT Re: 124 Certificate of Service. (KAB) (Entered: 12/01/2014)

12/01/2014 126 NOTICE other by Gruber (Attachments: # 1 cert of service, # 2 report/update) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 12/01/2014)

12/03/2014

127 NOTICE United States' Report Regarding Defendants' Progress Toward Compliance With Quarterly Goals for Quarter Ending on November 21, 2014 by United States of America, (Attachments: # 1 Appendix) (Mazor, Marina) (Entered: 12/03/2014)

12/03/2014

128 NOTICE of VIPD Status Report for Quarter Ending November 21, 2015 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit VIPD Report) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 12/03/2014)

12/08/2014

129 NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas Jackson Morse on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America, (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 12/08/2014)

12/10/2014

130 NOTICE by Gruber (Attachments: # 1 amended Appendix to report, # 2 certificate of service) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 12/10/2014)

12/10/2014

131 NOTICE Notice of Filing of United States' Amended Report Regarding Defendants' Progress Toward Compliance with Quarterly Goals for Quarter Ending Nov. 21 2014 by United States of America, (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Amended Interim Report, # 2 Appendix Redline Amended Interim Report) (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 12/10/2014)

12/12/2014

132 ORDER (CVG) The quarterly goals, to be achieved by the end of the quarter ending in November, are hereby ACCEPTED. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (HRH) (Entered: 12/12/2014)

12/12/2014

133 NOTICE of Quarterly Goals for Period Ending February 20, 2015 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 12/12/2014)

12/16/2014

134 MOTION to Permit VIPD to Bring Laptop and Supporting Device into Court Room by Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 12/16/2014)

12/17/2014

135 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 12/17/2014. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sheet) (CAB) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/25/2015: # 2 Chambers conference) (CAB). (Entered: 12/18/2014)

12/29/2014

136 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by United States of America, for proceedings held on 12/17/2014 before Judge Gomez.. (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 12/29/2014)

12/31/2014 137 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Consent Decree and May 22 Order by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Attachments:

# 1 Appendix Proposed Modifications, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Morse, Thomas) Modified on 8/26/2015 (CBF). (Entered: 12/31/2014)

02/04/2015

Motions terminated (CVG): 96 Amended MOTION to Approve Charles A. Gruber Consulting, Inc., as the Independent Monitor re 95 Joint MOTION to Approve Charles A. Gruber Consulting, Inc., as the Independent Monitor filed by Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands, 95 Joint MOTION to Approve Charles A. Gruber Consulting, Inc., as the Independent Monitor filed by Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands. These motions were ruled on orally. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.)(HRH) (Entered: 02/04/2015)

02/04/2015

138 ORDER (CVG) finding as moot 98 Motion ; finding as moot 111 Motion for Extension of Time to File.(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (HRH) (Entered: 02/04/2015)

02/13/2015

139 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on December 17, 2014, QUARTERLY REVIEW HEARING, before Judge CURTIS V. GOMEZ. Court Reporter/Transcriber CHANDRA R. KEAN, RMR, Telephone number 340.775.8012. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 3/9/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/19/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/18/2015. (Kean, Chandra) (Entered: 02/13/2015)

02/20/2015

140 MOTION to Extend Quarter to March 20, 2015 by Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (ThomasJacobs, Carol) (Entered: 02/20/2015)

02/20/2015

141 Response re 140 MOTION to Extend Quarter to March 20, 2015 filed by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 02/20/2015)

02/25/2015

Set Hearings: Evidentiary Hearing set for 2/26/2015 09:00 AM in STT Courtroom 1 before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. (CAB) (Entered: 02/25/2015)

02/25/2015

Set Hearings: Evidentiary Hearing set for 5/28/2015 09:00 AM in STT Courtroom 1 before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. (CAB) (Entered: 02/25/2015)

02/25/2015

Set Hearings: Evidentiary Hearing set for 8/27/2015 09:00 AM in STT Courtroom 1 before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. (CAB) (Entered: 02/25/2015)

02/25/2015

Set Hearings: Evidentiary Hearing set for 2/25/2016 09:00 AM in STT Courtroom 1 before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. (CAB) (Entered: 02/25/2015)

02/25/2015

Set Hearings: Evidentiary Hearing set for 5/26/2016 09:00 AM in STT Courtroom 1 before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. (CAB) (Entered: 02/25/2015)

02/25/2015

Set Hearings: Evidentiary Hearing set for 8/25/2016 09:00 AM in STT Courtroom 1 before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. (CAB) (Entered: 02/25/2015)

02/25/2015 142 ORDER (CVG)denying 140 Motion to extend quarterly deadlines. (Entered: 02/25/2015)

02/25/2015

143 ORDER (CVG) For purposes of Paragraph 96 of the Consent Decree, the quarters shall end on the third Friday of May, August, November, and February. It is further ORDERED that the monitors quarterly written, public report for a given quarter, as required by Paragraph 96 of the Consent Decree, shall be filed with the Court no later than the fourth Monday of the month in which that quarter ends, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. (HRH) (Entered: 02/25/2015)

02/25/2015

Set Hearings: Evidentiary Hearing set for 2/26/2015 09:00 AM in STT Courtroom 1 before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. Evidentiary Hearing set for 5/28/2015 09:00 AM in STT Courtroom 1 before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. Evidentiary Hearing set for 8/27/2015 09:00 AM in STT Courtroom 1 before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. Evidentiary Hearing set for 2/25/2016 09:00 AM in STT Courtroom 1 before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. Evidentiary Hearing set for 5/26/2016 09:00 AM in STT Courtroom 1 before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. Evidentiary Hearing set for 8/25/2016 09:00 AM in STT Courtroom 1 before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. (CAB) (Entered: 02/25/2015)

02/26/2015

144 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: In Chambers Conference held on 2/26/2015. (Court Reporter none.) (CAB) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/30/2015: # 1 minute entry) (CAB). (Entered: 03/03/2015)

03/06/2015

145 NOTICE Quarterly Goals Ending May 2015 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 03/06/2015)

03/10/2015

146 NOTICE Amended Notice of Filing of VIPD's Quarterly Goals for the Period Ending May 15, 2015 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 03/10/2015)

03/27/2015

147 STATUS REPORT by Gruber. (Attachments: # 1 status report, # 2 Appendix, # 3 Appendix, # 4 cert of service) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 03/27/2015)

04/03/2015 148 NOTICE Re: Training Opportunities for VIPD by United States of America, (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 04/03/2015)

04/28/2015

149 ORDER (CVG) The quarterly goals, to be achieved by the end of the quarter ending in May, 2015, are hereby ACCEPTED. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (HRH) (Entered: 04/28/2015)

05/25/2015

150 NOTICE ! Quarter 2015 Report by Gruber 1 Quarter 2015 Report by Gruber (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet notice of filing, # 2 certificate of service) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 05/25/2015)

05/25/2015

151 NOTICE of VIPD's Progress Report for the Quarter Ending May 15, 2015 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit VIPD's Progress Report) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 05/25/2015)

05/25/2015 152 NOTICE DOJ Report Re: May 2015 Quarterly Goals by United States of America, (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 05/25/2015)

05/28/2015

153 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 5/28/2015. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (CAB) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2015: # 1 In Chambers Conference) (CAB). (Entered: 05/28/2015)

06/09/2015 154 ORDER (CVG) to set long-term goals. (HRH) (Entered: 06/09/2015)

06/12/2015

155 NOTICE of VIPD's Quarterly Goals for the Quarter Ending August 21, 2015 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (ThomasJacobs, Carol) (Entered: 06/12/2015)

06/16/2015

156 NOTICE of New Deadlines for Delinquent Goals by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 06/16/2015)

06/16/2015

157 NOTICE of Substantial Compliance Schedule by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 06/16/2015)

07/10/2015

158 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Consent Decree and May 22 Order by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Appendix, # 3 Text of Proposed Order) (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 07/10/2015)

07/23/2015 159 NOTICE of Compliance by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 07/23/2015)

07/29/2015

160 ORDER (CVG) The quarterly goals, to be achieved by the end of the quarter ending in August, 2015, are hereby ACCEPTED. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (HRH) (Entered: 07/29/2015)

08/04/2015 161 NOTICE of Compliance by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 08/04/2015)

08/06/2015 162 Response re 161 Notice (Other) filed by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Mazor, Marina) (Entered: 08/06/2015)

08/18/2015 163 Response re 161 Notice (Other) filed by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 08/18/2015)

08/20/2015

164 NOTICE of Reply to US Response to Defendants' Notice of Compliance with Delinquent Goals with New Compliance Date of July 22, 2015 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department re 162 Response (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Policy, # 2 Exhibit Power DMS Sample) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 08/20/2015)

08/21/2015 165 ORDER (CVG) amending the Consent Decree. (HRH) (Entered: 08/21/2015)

08/24/2015

166 STATUS REPORT 2Quarter Report by Independent Monitor of VIPD by Gruber. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix part II, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Affidavit certificate of service) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 08/24/2015)

08/24/2015

167 NOTICE of VIPD's Status Report for Quarter Ending August 21, 2015 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit VIPD's Status Report for Quarter Ending August 21, 2015) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 08/24/2015)

08/24/2015

168 NOTICE of Report Re VIPD Quarterly Goals by United States of America, (Attachments: # 1 Appendix IMT Letter to VIPD Re Training Materials) (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 08/24/2015)

08/26/2015 169 ORDER (CVG) finding as moot 134 Motion to permit VIPD to bring laptop into courtroom. (Entered: 08/26/2015)

08/26/2015 170 ORDER (CVG) finding as moot 137 Motion to Amend Consent Decree. (Entered: 08/26/2015)

08/26/2015

171 ORDER (CVG) The hearing in this matter currently scheduled for August 27, 2015, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:00 A.M. on Tuesday, September 1, 2015. (This a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.)(AFS) (Entered: 08/26/2015)

08/28/2015

172 NOTICE New Deadlines For Delinquent Quarterly Goals for the Quarter Ending August 21, 2015 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 08/28/2015)

09/01/2015

173 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 9/1/2015. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (TRH) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/1/2015: # 1 Exhibit List) (TRH). (Entered: 09/01/2015)

09/11/2015

174 NOTICE of VIPD's Quarterly Goals for the Period Ending November 6, 2015 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (ThomasJacobs, Carol) (Entered: 09/11/2015)

10/05/2015 175 Joint MOTION to Continue November 26 Hearing by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 10/05/2015)

10/06/2015

NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY PROPOSED ORDER IS NEEDED Re: 175 Joint MOTION to Continue November 26 Hearing. (KAB) (Entered: 10/06/2015)

10/06/2015

176 NOTICE Text of Proposed Order Regarding November 26 Hearing by United States of America, re 175 Joint MOTION to Continue November 26 Hearing (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 10/06/2015)

10/08/2015

NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY INCORRECT FILING. PROPOSED ORDER IS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE MAIN DOCUMENT Re: 176 Notice (Other). (KAB) (Entered: 10/08/2015)

10/08/2015

177 NOTICE of Filing of Text of Proposed Order by United States of America, re 175 Joint MOTION to Continue November 26 Hearing (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Re Nov 26 Hearing) (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 10/08/2015)

10/27/2015

178 ORDER (CVG) The joint Motion to Continue November 26 Hearing 175 is hereby GRANTED. The hearing previously scheduled for November 26, 2015, at 9:00 AM is hereby RE-SCHEDULED to

commence promptly on December 7, 2015, at 9:00 AM. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (NAW) (Entered: 10/27/2015)

11/13/2015

179 NOTICE VIPDs NEW DEADLINE FOR DELINQENT QUARTELY GOAL FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 6, 2015 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 11/13/2015)

11/13/2015

180 NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH DELINQUENT GOALS WITH NEW COMPLIANCE DATE OF NOVEMBER 6, 2015 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 11/13/2015)

11/13/2015

181 NOTICE AMENDED NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH DELINQUENT GOALS WITH NEW COMPLIANCE DATE OF NOVEMBER 6, 2015 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 11/13/2015)

11/20/2015

182 STATUS REPORT 3rd Quarterly Report 2015 by Gruber. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 11/20/2015)

11/20/2015

183 NOTICE of VIPD's Quarterly Goals for the Quarter Ending February 16, 2016 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (ThomasJacobs, Carol) (Entered: 11/20/2015)

11/20/2015

184 NOTICE of Filing of VIPD's Status Report by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Status Report) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 11/20/2015)

11/20/2015 185 NOTICE Report on Nov 2015 Quarterly Goals by United States of America, (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 11/20/2015)

11/22/2015

186 MOTION to Withdraw 183 Notice (Other) , MOTION for Extension of Time to File Quarterly Goals for Period Ending February 6, 2016 by Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 11/22/2015)

11/22/2015

187 NOTICE of Filing of VIPD's Quarterly Goal for the Period Ending February 6, 2016 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 11/22/2015)

11/23/2015

NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY INCORRECT FILING.PLEASE REFILE >Re: 182 Status Report. (KAB) (Entered: 11/23/2015)

11/23/2015

NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY INCORRECT FILING Re: 183 Notice (Other). (KAB) (Entered: 11/23/2015)

11/24/2015

188 08-cv-00158 ANSWER to Complaint by Gruber. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Appendix) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 11/24/2015)

11/25/2015 189 NOTICE of filing by Gruber (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Appendix) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 11/25/2015)

11/25/2015

190 NOTICE of US Response to Defendants Notice Re Nov 6 Goals by United States of America, re 181 Notice (Other) of Compliance (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 11/25/2015)

11/30/2015

NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY FILER USED WRONG EVENT Re: 188 Answer to Complaint. (KAB) (Entered: 11/30/2015)

12/07/2015

191 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 12/7/2015. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (CAB) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/2/2016: # 1 contination of hearing) (CAB). (Entered: 12/07/2015)

12/23/2015

192 NOTICE of Status of Compliance with Delinquent Goals with Compliance date of December 18, 2015 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 12/23/2015)

01/06/2016

193 NOTICE of US Response to Defendants Notice Re Dec 18 Goals by United States of America, re 192 Notice (Other) (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 01/06/2016)

02/12/2016

194 NOTICE OF VIPDS NEW DEADLINE FOR DELINQENT GOALS 2/6/16 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (ThomasJacobs, Carol) (Entered: 02/12/2016)

02/19/2016

195 NOTICE Amended Notice of VIPD's Deadlines for Delinquent Quarterly Goals for the Quarter ending February 5, 2016 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 02/19/2016)

02/19/2016

196 NOTICE quarterly report by Gruber (Attachments: # 1 Appendix appendix to report, # 2 cert of service, # 3 notice of filing) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 02/19/2016)

02/19/2016 197 NOTICE of Filing of VIPD's Status Report for the Quarter Ending February 5, 2016 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police

Department (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 02/19/2016)

02/19/2016 198 NOTICE of Report Regarding VIPD Quarterly Goals by United States of America, (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 02/19/2016)

02/25/2016

199 NOTICE of Compliance with Delinquent Goal with complaince date of Feb 5, 2016 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 02/25/2016)

02/25/2016

201 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 2/25/2016. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (CAB) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/26/2016: # 1 continuation of minute sheet in chambers) (CAB). (Entered: 03/01/2016)

02/26/2016

200 NOTICE of Filing of Quarterly Goals for Period Ending May 6, 2016 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 02/26/2016)

04/06/2016

202 ORDER (CVG) The Motion for Extension of Time to File Quarterly Goals 186 is MOOT. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (NAW) (Entered: 04/06/2016)

04/06/2016

203 NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH DELINQUENT GOALS WITH COMPLIANCE DATE OF MARCH 31, 2016 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) Modified on 4/7/2016 (KAB). (Entered: 04/06/2016)

04/20/2016

204 Response re 203 Notice (Other) of Compliance with Delinquent Goals filed by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 04/20/2016)

05/13/2016

205 NOTICE VIPDS NEW DEADLINE FOR DELINQENT QUARTERLY GOALS FOR QUARTER ENDING MAY 6, 2016 by Virgin Islands Police Department (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 05/13/2016)

05/20/2016

206 NOTICE quarterly report by Gruber First Quarter 2016 (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet notice of filing, # 2 Affidavit cert of service) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 05/20/2016)

05/20/2016 207 NOTICE US Report Re: Quarterly Goals Due May 2016 by United States of America, (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 05/20/2016)

05/20/2016

208 NOTICE of VIPD's Status Report for Quarter Ending May 6, 2016 by Virgin Islands Police Department (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (ThomasJacobs, Carol) (Entered: 05/20/2016)

05/25/2016

NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY INCORRECT FILING Re: 206 Notice (Other). (KAB) (Entered: 05/25/2016)

05/25/2016

210 NOTICE of Hearing: (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) Evidentiary Hearing set for 5/26/2016 09:00 AM in STT Courtroom 1 before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. (CAB) (Entered: 05/25/2016)

05/25/2016 209 NOTICE quarterly report by Gruber (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit quarterly report) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 05/25/2016)

05/26/2016

211 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 5/26/2016. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (Attachments: # 1 second page minute sheet, # 2 Exhibit Sheet) (CAB) (Entered: 05/26/2016)

05/26/2016

212 NOTICE of VIPD's Quarterly Goals for the Period Ending August 6, 2016 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (ThomasJacobs, Carol) (Entered: 05/26/2016)

05/26/2016

213 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: In Chambers Conference held on 5/26/2016. (Court Reporter none.) (CAB) (Entered: 05/26/2016)

06/03/2016

214 MOTION for Extension of Time to File by Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 06/03/2016)

06/03/2016

215 ORDER (CVG) The Motion for Extension of Time 214 is hereby GRANTED. VIPD shall no later than 3:00 PM on June 9, 2016, file its action plan for the goals for the quarter ending August 6, 2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (NAW) (Entered: 06/03/2016)

06/07/2016 216 ORDER (CVG) Setting deadlines for interim and quarterly goals (NAW) (Entered: 06/07/2016)

06/13/2016

217 NOTICE of Plan of Compliance for Goals for the Quarter Ending August 6, 2016 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plan of Compliance) (ThomasJacobs, Carol) (Entered: 06/13/2016)

06/23/2016 218 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by United States of America, (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/23/2016)

06/27/2016 219 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey R Murray on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America, (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/27/2016)

07/29/2016

220 NOTICE Joint Notice of Filing of Plan for Achieving Substantial Compliance by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 07/29/2016)

08/09/2016

221 ORDER (CVG) The evidentiary hearing previously scheduled for 9:00AM on August 25, 2016, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:30AM on August 25, 2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (NAW). (Entered: 08/09/2016)

08/16/2016

222 ORDER (CVG) The hearing in this matter previously scheduled for 9:30 AM on August 25, 2016, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 10:00 AM on August 25, 2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (NAW) (Entered: 08/16/2016)

08/16/2016

223 Consent MOTION to Continue by Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 08/16/2016)

08/17/2016

224 ORDER (CVG) The hearing in this matter previously scheduled for August 25, 2016, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:30 AM on August 24, 2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (NAW) (Entered: 08/17/2016)

08/17/2016

228 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Telephone Conference held on 8/17/2016. (Court Reporter none.) (CAB) (Entered: 08/24/2016)

08/19/2016

225 NOTICE quarterly report by Gruber (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet notice of filing, # 2 cert of service) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 08/19/2016)

08/19/2016 226 STATUS REPORT Re: Goals Due Aug 5, 2016 by United States of America,. (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 08/19/2016)

08/19/2016

227 NOTICE of Filing Status Report for Quarter Ending August 6, 2016 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 08/19/2016)

08/24/2016

229 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 8/24/2016. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sheet) (CAB) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/29/2016: # 2 In Chambers Conference) (CAB). (Entered: 08/24/2016)

08/25/2016 230 NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY Re incorrect filing 225 Notice (Other). (KAB) (Entered: 08/25/2016)

08/26/2016

231 NOTICE of VIPD's Quarterly Goals for the Quarter ending November 4, 2016 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (ThomasJacobs, Carol) (Entered: 08/26/2016)

09/02/2016

232 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Briefing by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 09/02/2016)

09/02/2016

233 ORDER (CVG) The Joint Motion for Extension of Time 232 is hereby GRANTED. The parties shall submit their briefs no later than 3:00 PM on September 21, 2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (NAW) (Entered: 09/02/2016)

09/21/2016 234 NOTICE of Memorandum Regarding Sanctions by United States of America, (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 09/21/2016)

09/21/2016

235 NOTICE of Defendants' Brief re August 24, 2016 Order by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 09/21/2016)

10/17/2016 236 NOTICE of Unavailability by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 10/17/2016)

10/25/2016 237 Sealed Letter. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (CAB) (Entered: 10/25/2016)

10/28/2016

238 ORDER (CVG) The evidentiary hearing previously scheduled for November 24, 2016, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:00 am on November 21, 2016. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (NAW) (Entered: 10/28/2016)

11/18/2016 239 NOTICE quarterly report by Gruber (Attachments: # 1 quarterly report) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 11/18/2016)

11/18/2016

240 NOTICE of Filing of VIPD Status Report by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit VIPD) (ThomasJacobs, Carol) (Entered: 11/18/2016)

11/18/2016 241 NOTICE of Report Regarding Quarterly Goals by United States of America, (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 11/18/2016)

11/18/2016

242 COUNTER PROPOSAL to Stipulation by Law Enforcement Supervisors Union. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment) (CBF) Modified on 11/21/2016 (CBF). (Entered: 11/21/2016)

11/18/2016

243 PROMOTIONS W/I the VIPD as per Consent Decree proceedings. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Promotions) (CBF) Text Modified on 11/21/2016 to correct file date(CBF). (Entered: 11/21/2016)

11/21/2016

244 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 11/21/2016. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (TRH) (Entered: 11/21/2016)

11/28/2016

245 ORDER (CVG) on the twenty first day of each month, the parties shall submit to the Court, via the electronic case filing system, a report on VIPDs progress towards achieving compliance with the decrees remaining outstanding requirements; and it is further ORDERED that VIPD shall achieve substantial compliance with all of the Consent Decrees requirements no later than February 23, 2017. (NAW) (Entered: 11/28/2016)

12/21/2016

246 NOTICE of VIPD's December 2016 Report by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 12/21/2016)

12/21/2016 247 NOTICE of DOJ's Dec 2016 Monthly Report by United States of America, (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 12/21/2016)

01/20/2017 248 NOTICE of Jan 2017 Monthly Report by United States of America, (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 01/20/2017)

01/22/2017

249 NOTICE of VIPD's January 2017 Report by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Attachments: # 1 Use of Force Report, # 2 Man & Super and Citizen Complaint Report, # 3 Training Report) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 01/22/2017)

02/10/2017 250 MOTION for Extension of Time to Comply With all Requirements of Consent Decree by Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police

Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) Modified on 2/14/2017 (KAB). (Entered: 02/10/2017)

02/17/2017

251 STATUS REPORT by Gruber. (Attachments: # 1 Quarterly Report, # 2 Appendicies to Quarterly Report) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 02/17/2017)

02/17/2017 252 NOTICE of February 2016 Quartlery Report by United States of America, (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 02/17/2017)

02/17/2017

253 NOTICE of Filing VIPD's Monthly & Quarterly Status Report by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit UOF Report, # 2 Exhibit UOF 5 Year Trend, # 3 Exhibit MSCC Report, # 4 Exhibit Training Report) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 02/17/2017)

02/18/2017

254 Response re 250 MOTION Motion for Extension of Time to Comply With all Requirements of Consent Decree filed by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 02/18/2017)

02/23/2017

255 NOTICE of Appearance by Terri L. Griffiths on behalf of Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

02/23/2017

256 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 2/23/2017. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sheet) (CAB) (Entered: 03/13/2017)

03/14/2017

257 MOTION to Continue Status Report Deadline to 4/1/17 by Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (July 21, 2016 Email)) (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 03/14/2017)

03/14/2017

258 MOTION to Continue Corrected Status Report Deadline to 4/1/17 by Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (July 21, 2016 Email)) (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 03/14/2017)

03/15/2017

NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Proposed order is needed Re: 258 MOTION to Continue Corrected Status Report Deadline to 4/1/17. (KAB) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

03/15/2017 259 NOTICE (proposed order) by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department re 258 MOTION to Continue Corrected Status Report

Deadline to 4/1/17 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

03/21/2017

260 STATUS REPORT and Motion for Misc. Relief by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (STT Closures), # 2 Exhibit 2 (UOF Progress), # 3 Exhibit 3 (Clio), # 4 Exhibit 4 (Training), # 5 Exhibit 5 (Gruber Payments), # 6 Exhibit 6 (Directive), # 7 Exhibit 7 (Minutes), # 8 Exhibit 8 (STX Closures), # 9 Exhibit 9 (Griffin), # 10 Exhibit 10 (Duggan correspondence), # 11 Exhibit 11 (7.3 Timeline), # 12 Exhibit 12 (Gruber email)) (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 03/21/2017)

03/21/2017 261 STATUS REPORT for March 2017 by United States of America,. (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 03/21/2017)

03/31/2017

262 NOTICE Supplemental Progress by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department re 260 Status Report,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1a (Citizen Complaint Trend), # 2 Exhibit 1b (Detainee Injuries), # 3 Exhibit 1c (Vehicle Pursuit Trend)) (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 03/31/2017)

04/21/2017 263 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 04/21/2017)

04/21/2017

264 STATUS REPORT by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1a, # 2 Exhibit 1b, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4) (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 04/21/2017)

04/24/2017

265 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. Amendment to 264 Status Report . (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 04/24/2017)

05/16/2017

266 NOTICE of Appearance by Sansara Adella Cannon on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America, (Cannon, Sansara) (Entered: 05/16/2017)

05/19/2017 267 STATUS REPORT For Quarter Ending May 5 by United States of America,. (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 05/19/2017)

05/19/2017 268 NOTICE quarterly report by Gruber (Attachments: # 1 quarterly report) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 05/19/2017)

05/23/2017 269 STATUS REPORT by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 05/23/2017)

05/24/2017 270 ORDER (CVG) The evidentiary hearing previously scheduled for 9:00 am on May 25, 2017, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence

promptly at 10:30 am on May 25, 2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (NAW). (Entered: 05/24/2017)

05/25/2017

273 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 5/25/2017. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sheet) (CAB) (Entered: 05/30/2017)

05/26/2017 271 NOTICE Joint Filing Re: Timeline for Document Review by United States of America, (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 05/26/2017)

05/26/2017 272 NOTICE Compliance by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 05/26/2017)

06/21/2017 274 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 06/21/2017)

06/21/2017

275 STATUS REPORT by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A(1) M&S Work Group, # 2 Exhibit A(2) Complaint Review Plan, # 3 Errata B (UOF Report), # 4 Exhibit C (Training Report)) (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 06/21/2017)

07/20/2017

276 ORDER (CVG) The evidentiary hearing previously scheduled for August 24, 2017, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:00 am on August 31, 2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (NAW) (Entered: 07/20/2017)

07/20/2017 277 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/20/2017)

07/21/2017

278 STATUS REPORT by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 07/21/2017)

08/03/2017

279 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File the Independent Monitor's Quarterly Report by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/03/2017)

08/03/2017

280 ORDER (CVG) The Joint Motion for Extension of Time 279 is hereby GRANTED. The Independent Monitor's Second Quarterly Report of 2017 shall be submitted no later than 5:00 pm on August 24, 2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (NAW) (Entered: 08/03/2017)

08/03/2017 281 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey R Murray on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America, (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/03/2017)

08/08/2017

282 ORDER (CVG) that the Motion for Extension of Time to Comply With All Requirements of the Consent Decree 250 is hereby GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the VIPD shall achieve substantial compliance with all of the Consent Decrees requirements no later than November 23, 2017. (Entered: 08/08/2017)

08/18/2017 283 STATUS REPORT for Quarter Ending August 4, 2017 by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/18/2017)

08/24/2017 284 NOTICE Quarterly Report by Gruber (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet cover and cert) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 08/24/2017)

08/24/2017

285 STATUS REPORT by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (MSCC Report), # 2 Exhibit B (UOF), # 3 Exhibit C (Report Template)) (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 08/24/2017)

08/31/2017

286 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 8/31/2017. (Court Reporter Chandra Kean.) (CAB) (Main Document 286 replaced on 8/31/2017) (CAB). (Entered: 08/31/2017)

09/21/2017 287 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/21/2017)

10/19/2017 288 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/19/2017)

10/23/2017

289 MOTION to Stay 90-Day by Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F) (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 10/23/2017)

11/01/2017

290 Response re 289 MOTION to Stay 90-Day filed by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/01/2017)

11/17/2017 291 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/17/2017)

11/17/2017

292 ORDER (CVG) The evidentiary hearing in this matter currently scheduled for November 23, 2017, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:00 A.M. on December 14, 2017. (This is a

TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (AFS) (Entered: 11/17/2017)

11/17/2017 293 STATUS REPORT by Gruber. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 11/17/2017)

11/21/2017 294 STATUS REPORT by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 11/21/2017)

11/21/2017

295 ORDER (CVG) The evidentiary hearing in this matter currently scheduled for December 14, 2017, is hereby CANCELLED. A status conference in this matter is hereby scheduled to commence promptly at 9:00 A.M. on December 20, 2017. The November 23, 2017, deadline for additional compliance with the consent decree is hereby EXTENDED to February 21, 2018. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (AFS) (Entered: 11/21/2017)

11/29/2017

296 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/29/2017)

12/11/2017

297 MOTION Attend by telephone by Defendants Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 12/11/2017)

12/14/2017

NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY Proposed order is needed Re: 297 MOTION Attend by telephone . (KAB) (Entered: 12/14/2017)

12/15/2017 298 Proposed Pretrial Order Doc. No. 297 by Virgin Islands Police Department. (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 12/15/2017)

12/18/2017

299 ORDER (CVG) The status conference in this matter currently scheduled for December 20, 2017, is hereby CANCELLED. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (AFS) (Entered: 12/18/2017)

12/19/2017 300 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/19/2017)

12/21/2017

NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY FILER USED WRONG EVENT Re: 298 Proposed Pretrial Order. (KAB) (Entered: 12/21/2017)

12/21/2017 301 STATUS REPORT by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 12/21/2017)

01/09/2018

302 ORDER (CVG) A status conference in this matter is hereby SCHEDULED to commence promptly at 11:15 A.M. on Tuesday, January 16, 2018. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (AFS) (Entered: 01/09/2018)

01/13/2018

303 ORDER (CVG) Local counsel shall attend the January 16, 2018, status conference in person. Parties residing on the mainland are not required to attend the status conference in person. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (AFS) (Entered: 01/13/2018)

01/15/2018

304 MOTION Telephone Access & Guidance for January 16, 2018 Hearing by Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 01/15/2018)

01/19/2018 305 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/19/2018)

02/02/2018 306 NOTICE Progress by Virgin Islands Police Department (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 02/02/2018)

02/06/2018

307 ORDER (CVG) The motion to continue 258 is MOOT. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (AFS) (Entered: 02/06/2018)

02/15/2018 308 STATUS REPORT by Gruber. (Attachments: # 1 status report) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 02/15/2018)

02/16/2018 309 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/16/2018)

02/19/2018

Set Hearings: Evidentiary Hearing set for 2/22/2018 09:00 AM in STT Courtroom 3 before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. (CAB) (Entered: 02/19/2018)

02/21/2018

310 ORDER (CVG) The evidentiary hearing in this matter currently scheduled for 9:00 A.M. on February 22, 2018, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 10:00 A.M. on February 22, 2018. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (AFS) (Entered: 02/21/2018)

02/21/2018 311 STATUS REPORT without exhibits by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 02/21/2018)

02/22/2018

312 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 2/22/2018. (Court Reporter Vashti Gerald-Berry.) (CAB) (Entered: 02/22/2018)

02/27/2018

313 NOTICE of Filing of Force Checklists by United States of America, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Force Checklists) (Morse, Thomas) (Entered: 02/27/2018)

03/21/2018

314 NOTICE Progress Report by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Redacted Memo)) (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 03/21/2018)

03/21/2018 315 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/21/2018)

04/19/2018 316 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/19/2018)

04/23/2018

317 STATUS REPORT by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (M &S MEMO), # 2 Exhibit 2 (UOF MEMO), # 3 Exhibit 3 (DRAFT FLOWCHART)) (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 04/23/2018)

05/17/2018

318 ORDER (CVG) The evidentiary hearing in this matter currently scheduled for May 24, 2018, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:00 A.M. on June 26, 2018. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (AFS) (Entered: 05/17/2018)

05/19/2018 319 NOTICE Quarterly Report by Gruber (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 05/19/2018)

05/21/2018 320 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/21/2018)

05/21/2018 321 STATUS REPORT by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 05/21/2018)

06/21/2018 322 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/21/2018)

06/21/2018

323 STATUS REPORT by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (IA Action Plan), # 2 Exhibit B (BWC pilot), # 3 Exhibit C (auditors status), # 4 Exhibit D (Policies and DMS)) (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 06/21/2018)

06/26/2018 324 ORDER (CVG) By no later than noon on June 27, 2018, the parties shall file briefs: (1) advising the Court as to their position on the Courts

suggested approach; and (2) identifying potential experts to assist the Court. (AFS) (Entered: 06/26/2018)

06/26/2018

326 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 6/26/2018. (Court Reporter Desiree Hill.) (CAB) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/13/2018: # 1 Chambers Conference) (CAB). (Entered: 06/27/2018)

06/27/2018 325 NOTICE of United States' Position on Court's Proposal by United States of America, (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/27/2018)

06/28/2018

327 ORDER (CVG) The deadline for the parties to file briefs identifying potential experts is hereby extended to July 5, 2018, at noon. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (AFS) (Entered: 06/28/2018)

07/02/2018

328 ORDER (CVG) A telephonic status conference in this matter shall commence promptly at 10:30 A.M. on July 3, 2018, before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. The parties shall call 340-774-1800 in advance of the conference. (This is a TEXT-ONLY entry. There is no PDF attachment.) (AFS) (Entered: 07/02/2018)

07/03/2018

332 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Status Conference held on 7/3/2018. (Court Reporter none.) (CAB) (Entered: 07/18/2018)

07/05/2018

329 NOTICE of Compliance (Expert Brief) by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department re 327 Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 07/05/2018)

07/05/2018

330 Response re 324 Order, 327 Order United States' Recommendation on Court Experts' Scope of Work filed by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/05/2018)

07/06/2018

331 ORDER (CVG) Robert W. McNeilly is appointed as an expert on police practices; Timothy L. Lake is appointed as an expert on efficient governmental administration and governmental policy implementation; by no later than August 7, 2018, at 3:00 P.M., McNeilly and Lake shall submit a report to the Court that recommends specific steps, including a timeline for the accomplishment of such steps, to be undertaken by the VIPD, that will place the VIPD on a pathway to achieving substantial compliance with the terms of the consent decree by September 21, 2018; McNeilly and Lake are hereby empowered and charged with identifying: 1. Areas where VIPD should prioritize its compliance efforts, 2. Areas where an additional investment of resources by VIPD could achieve marked improvements in compliance, 3. Areas where targeted technical assistance could achieve marked improvements in

compliance, 4. Areas where changes to policies, protocols, or practices could achieve marked improvements in compliance, and 5. Any issues that are preventing the VIPD from reaching substantial compliance with the terms of the consent decree; the parties shall provide McNeilly and Lake with all reasonable assistance and cooperation necessary for McNeilly and Lake to complete their charged duties; and the VIPD shall bear the experts reasonable fees and costs associated with completing the tasks outlined in this order. (AFS) (Entered: 07/06/2018)

07/20/2018 333 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/20/2018)

07/20/2018

334 STATUS REPORT by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (UOF report), # 2 Exhibit B (Training Report)) (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 07/20/2018)

08/07/2018

335 ORDER (CVG) A telephonic status conference in this matter shall commence promptly at 10:45 A.M. on August 8, 2018, before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. The parties shall call 340-774-1800 five minutes in advance of the conference. (This is a TEXT-ONLY entry. There is no PDF attachment.) (AFS (Entered: 08/07/2018)

08/08/2018 336 NOTICE by United States of America, (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/08/2018)

08/08/2018

337 ORDER (CVG) The telephonic status conference in this matter currently scheduled for 10:45 A.M. on August 8, 2018, before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 3:00 P.M. on August 8, 2018. The parties shall call 340774-1800 five minutes in advance of the conference. (This is a TEXTONLY entry. There is no PDF attachment.) (AFS) (Entered: 08/08/2018)

08/08/2018 338 Clerk's notice of intent to dispose of exhibits (TRH) (Entered: 08/08/2018)

08/08/2018

341 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Status Conference held on 8/8/2018. (Court Reporter Persha Warner.) (CAB) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/09/2018

339 ORDER (CVG) By no later than 3:00 P.M. on August 15, 2018, Robert W. McNeilly shall file a consolidated supplemental report that: (1) includes his findings from the expert report submitted to the Court on August 8, 2018; and (2) includes:(a) a detailed description of the specific tasks that need to be undertaken by VIPD to bring those outstanding provisions in the consent decree into substantial

compliance by September 21, 2018; (b) specific recommendations addressing the manner by which such tasks shall be completed; and (c) specific deadlines within which such tasks shall be completed such that the VIPD will be in in substantial compliance on or before September 21, 2018. (AFS) (Entered: 08/09/2018)

08/17/2018 340 NOTICE Quarterly Report by Gruber (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 08/17/2018)

08/20/2018

342 ORDER (CVG) The quarterly evidentiary hearing in this matter is hereby SCHEDULED to commence promptly at 10:00 a.m. on August 23, 2018. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (BRW) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018

343 Emergency MOTION to Continue August 23 2018 hearing by Defendants Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (IACP Agenda)) (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018

344 NOTICE of No Objection by United States of America, re 343 Emergency MOTION to Continue August 23 2018 hearing (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018

345 ORDER (CVG) The emergency motion docketed at ECF 343 is hereby GRANTED in part. The quarterly evidentiary hearing in this matter previously scheduled for August 23, 2018 is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:00 A.M. on September 4, 2018. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018

346 ORDER (CVG) At the September 4, 2018 evidentiary hearing, the parties shall be familiar with, and prepared to address, the tasks outlined in the attached expert reports of Robert McNeilly. (CAA) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/21/2018 347 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/21/2018)

08/21/2018 348 STATUS REPORT by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 08/21/2018)

08/28/2018

349 ORDER (CVG) The motion for a 90-day abeyance docketed at ECF 289 is MOOT. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 08/28/2018)

08/29/2018 350 ORDER (CVG) The motion to permit attendance by telephone docketed at ECF 304 is MOOT. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY.

There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 08/29/2018)

09/04/2018

351 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 9/4/2018. (Court Reporter Persha Warner.) (CAB) (Entered: 09/04/2018)

09/04/2018

352 ORDER (CVG) The quarterly evidentiary hearing in this matter previously scheduled for November 22, 2018, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:00 a.m. on November 26, 2018. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 09/04/2018)

09/12/2018

353 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by United States of America, for proceedings held on September 4, 2018 before Judge Gomez.. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/12/2018)

09/18/2018

354 STATUS REPORT And Proposed Order by United States of America,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit, # 27 Exhibit, # 28 Exhibit, # 29 Exhibit, # 30 Exhibit, # 31 Exhibit, # 32 Exhibit, # 33 Exhibit, # 34 Exhibit, # 35 Exhibit, # 36 Exhibit, # 37 Exhibit, # 38 Exhibit, # 39 Exhibit, # 40 Exhibit, # 41 Text of Proposed Order) (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/18/2018)

10/03/2018

355 ORDER (CVG) A telephonic status conference in this matter shall commence promptly at 10:30 A.M. on October 4, 2018, before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. The parties shall call 340-774-1800 in advance of the conference. (This is a TEXT-ONLY entry. There is no PDF attachment.) (CAA) (Entered: 10/03/2018)

10/05/2018

356 NOTICE of Compliance with Court's Instruction by United States of America, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Order) (Fleisher, Aaron) (Entered: 10/05/2018)

10/05/2018

357 ORDER (CVG) When the IMT reports on VIPD's compliance with the Consent Decree in its quarterly reports, it shall include VIPD's efforts to implement Chief McNeilly's recommendations to the extent that the IMT disagrees with, or finds deficient, any assessments regarding implementation of Chief McNeilly's recommendations that may be submitted by the parties. The parties and the IMT shall collaboratively undertake such efforts as will avoid duplication of efforts, and as will minimize costs to the VIPD. (CAA) (Entered: 10/05/2018)

10/19/2018 358 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Fleisher, Aaron) (Entered: 10/19/2018)

10/22/2018 359 STATUS REPORT by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 10/22/2018)

11/16/2018

360 STATUS REPORT VIPD Third Quarter 2018 by Gruber. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit status report) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 11/16/2018)

11/21/2018 361 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/21/2018)

11/25/2018

362 STATUS REPORT by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 11/25/2018)

11/26/2018

363 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 11/26/2018. (Court Reporter Persha Stoutt-Warner.) (TRH) (Entered: 11/26/2018)

11/26/2018

364 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Status Conference held on 11/26/2018. (Court Reporter n/a.) (TRH) (Main Document 364 replaced on 11/26/2018) (TRH). (Entered: 11/26/2018)

11/26/2018

365 ORDER (CVG) An evidentiary hearing in this matter shall commence promptly at 9:00 A.M. on December 19, 2018, before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. (This is a TEXT-ONLY entry. There is no PDF attachment.) (CAA) (Entered: 11/26/2018)

11/28/2018 366 NOTICE of Compliance (Policy 7.3) by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 11/28/2018)

11/29/2018 367 NOTICE of Compliance by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 11/29/2018)

11/29/2018 368 NOTICE of Compliance (44i) by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 11/29/2018)

12/07/2018

369 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 9/04/2018, before Judge Curtis V. Gomez. Court Reporter/Transcriber Persha Stoutt-Warner, Telephone number (340)643-7385. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 12/31/2018.

Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/10/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/10/2019. (Stoutt-Warner, Persha) (Entered: 12/07/2018)

12/09/2018

370 NOTICE of Compliance with the CONSENT DECREE by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 12/09/2018)

12/10/2018

371 ORDER (CVG) The parties shall file a notice with the Court advising the Court of any change in position or status of any principal involved in this matter, including counsel, at least seven days in advance of the effective date of any change in status or position; provided, however, that, such notice to the Court shall be filed immediately if a principal is afforded less than seven days notice before a change in status or position is effective. (CAA) (Entered: 12/10/2018)

12/19/2018

374 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 12/19/2018. (Court Reporter Persha Warner.) (CAB) Modified on 12/28/2018 (CAB). (Entered: 12/28/2018)

12/20/2018

372 NOTICE of Resignation of Attorney General Claude Walker by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 12/20/2018)

12/21/2018 373 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

12/31/2018 375 NOTICE Resignation by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Griffiths, Terri) (Entered: 12/31/2018)

01/11/2019

376 Set Hearings: Evidentiary Hearing set for 2/28/2019 09:00 AM in STT Courtroom 1 before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. (CAB) (Entered: 01/11/2019)

01/18/2019

377 MOTION to Stay Monthly Report Deadlines and Status Conference Due to Lapse in Appropriations by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/18/2019)

01/21/2019 378 STATUS REPORT For January 2019 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 01/21/2019)

01/22/2019 379 NOTICE by Plaintiff United States of America, (CAB) (Main Document 379 replaced on 1/23/2019) (CAB). (Entered: 01/22/2019)

01/29/2019

380 ORDER (CVG) The United States's motion to stay ECF 377 is MOOT. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 01/29/2019)

02/15/2019

381 STATUS REPORT Fourth Quarterly 2018 by Gruber. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Appendix) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 02/15/2019)

02/21/2019 382 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Fleisher, Aaron) (Entered: 02/21/2019)

02/21/2019

383 NOTICE of February 2019 Status Report by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2018-2019 Training Schedule, # 2 Exhibit In -Service Training STX, # 3 Exhibit In-Service Training STT) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 02/21/2019)

02/25/2019

384 ORDER (CVG) The evidentiary hearing in this matter previously scheduled for 9:00 A.M. on February 28, 2019, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 8:30 A.M. on February 28, 2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 02/25/2019)

02/28/2019

385 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 2/28/2019. (Court Reporter Persha Warner.) (CAB) (Entered: 03/11/2019)

03/21/2019 386 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/21/2019)

03/21/2019 387 STATUS REPORT by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 03/21/2019)

04/02/2019

388 ORDER (CVG) A telephonic status conference in this matter shall commence promptly at 11:30 A.M. on April 3, 2019, before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. The parties shall call 340-774-1800 in advance of the conference. (This is a TEXT-ONLY entry. There is no PDF attachment.) (CAA) (Entered: 04/02/2019)

04/02/2019

(CVG) Telephonic Status Conference set for 4/3/2019 11:30 AM before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 04/02/2019)

04/03/2019

389 ORDER (CVG) A telephonic status conference in this matter shall commence promptly at 9:30 A.M. on April 10, 2019, before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. The parties shall call 340-774-1800 in advance

of the conference. (This is a TEXT-ONLY entry. There is no PDF attachment.) (CAA) (Entered: 04/03/2019)

04/08/2019

390 Set Hearings: Evidentiary Hearing set for 5/23/2019 09:00 AM in STT Courtroom 1 before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. (CAB) (Entered: 04/08/2019)

04/22/2019 391 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/22/2019)

04/23/2019

392 STATUS REPORT April 2019 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 04/23/2019)

05/10/2019

393 NOTICE PARTIES JOINT POSITION ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE INDEPENDENT MONITORING TEAM by United States of America, (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/10/2019)

05/17/2019

394 STATUS REPORT 1Q2019 IMT Quarterly Report by Gruber. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit status report, # 2 Appendix) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 05/17/2019)

05/21/2019 395 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/21/2019)

05/21/2019

396 STATUS REPORT May 2019 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 05/21/2019)

05/23/2019

397 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 5/23/2019. (Court Reporter Persha Warner.) (CAB) (Entered: 05/23/2019)

05/23/2019 398 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS LIST by Virgin Islands Police Department.. (CAB) (Entered: 05/23/2019)

06/20/2019 399 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/20/2019)

06/21/2019

400 STATUS REPORT for June 2019 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit CCMU May Monthly Progress Report, # 2 Exhibit Use of Force Training STX, # 3 Exhibit Use of Force Training STT) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 06/21/2019)

07/22/2019 401 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/22/2019)

07/23/2019

402 STATUS REPORT VIPD July 2019 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit IAPro Setup & Recovery Plan, # 2 Exhibit CCMU July 22, 2019 Report) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 07/23/2019)

07/30/2019

403 ORDER (CVG) The quarterly evidentiary hearing in this matter is hereby SCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:30 A.M. on August 29, 2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 07/30/2019)

08/14/2019

404 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Independent Monitor's Quarterly Report by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/14/2019)

08/15/2019

405 ORDER (CVG) The parties' joint motion, ECF 404 , for an extension of time to file the Independent Monitoring Team's Quarterly Report is GRANTED. The Independent Monitoring Team shall file its Quarterly Report no later than August 23, 2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 08/15/2019)

08/21/2019 406 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/21/2019)

08/21/2019

407 STATUS REPORT by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit CCMU July 31, 2019 Assessment of Paragraph 37, # 2 Exhibit UOFWG Response to CCMU's Report dated August 6, 2019, # 3 Exhibit CCMU Revised Assessment of Paragraph 37, # 4 Exhibit CEW Annual Audit, # 5 Exhibit CCMU August 19, 2019 Monthly Progress Report) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 08/21/2019)

08/21/2019

408 NOTICE of Correct Exhibit 2 in Support of August 2019 Status Report by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department re 407 Status Report, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit UOFWG Response to CCMU Assessment of Paragraph 37) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 08/21/2019)

08/23/2019 409 STATUS REPORT Second Quarter 2019 by Gruber. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 08/23/2019)

08/27/2019

410 NOTICE VIPD Supplement to VIPD Status Report by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department re 407 Status Report, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit VIPD Response to IMT 2Q2019 Quarterly Draft Report, # 2 VIPD Supplemental Response to IMT 2Q2019 Quarterly Draft Report) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 08/27/2019)

08/28/2019

411 ORDER (CVG) The quarterly evidentiary hearing in this matter previously scheduled to commence at 9:30 A.M. on August 29, 2019, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 10:30 A.M. on August 29, 2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 08/28/2019)

08/29/2019

412 ORDER (CVG) The quarterly evidentiary hearing in this matter previously scheduled to commence at 10:30 A.M. on August 29, 2019, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 11:00 A.M. on August 29, 2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 08/29/2019)

08/29/2019

413 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 8/30/2019. (Court Reporter Persha Warner.) (CAB) Modified on 9/13/2019 (CAB). (Entered: 08/30/2019)

09/10/2019

414 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department for proceedings held on August 29, 2019 before Judge Curtis Gomez.. (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 09/10/2019)

09/16/2019

415 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 8/29/2019, before Judge Curtis V. Gomez. Court Reporter/Transcriber Persha Stoutt-Warner, Telephone number (340)643-7385. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 10/10/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/20/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/18/2019. (Stoutt-Warner, Persha) (Entered: 09/16/2019)

09/19/2019

416 NOTICE of VIPD's Brief Regarding Substantial Compliance with Paragraph 37 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 09/19/2019)

09/23/2019

417 STATUS REPORT For September 2019 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department, Steven M. Witzel. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit CCMU Report) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 09/23/2019)

09/23/2019 418 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/23/2019)

09/24/2019

419 ORDER (CVG) A status conference in this matter shall commence promptly at 2:00 P.M. on September 25, 2019, before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. (This is a TEXT-ONLY entry. There is no PDF attachment.) (CAA) (Entered: 09/24/2019)

10/21/2019 420 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Fleisher, Aaron) (Entered: 10/21/2019)

10/22/2019

421 ORDER (CVG) The quarterly evidentiary hearing in this matter previously scheduled for November 28, 2019, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 2:00 p.m. on November 22, 2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) Modified on 10/23/2019 (KAB). (Entered: 10/22/2019)

10/23/2019

422 STATUS REPORT for October 2019 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit CCMU Compliance Status Report) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 10/23/2019)

10/30/2019

423 ORDER (CVG) The quarterly evidentiary hearing in this matter previously scheduled to commence at 2:00 p.m. on November 22, 2019, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 10:00 a.m. on November 22, 2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 10/30/2019)

11/15/2019 424 STATUS REPORT Third Quarter 2019 by Gruber. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 11/15/2019)

11/18/2019

Set Hearings: Evidentiary Hearing set for 11/22/2019 10:00 AM in STT Courtroom 1 before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez. (CBF) (Entered: 11/18/2019)

11/21/2019 425 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/21/2019)

11/21/2019

426 ORDER (CVG) The quarterly evidentiary hearing in this matter previously scheduled to commence at 10:00 a.m. on November 22, 2019, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 10:30 a.m. on November 22, 2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 11/21/2019)

11/21/2019 427 STATUS REPORT for November 2019 by Virgin Islands Police Department. (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 11/21/2019)

11/22/2019

428 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 11/22/2019. (Court Reporter Persha Stoutt-Warner.) (TRH) (Entered: 11/22/2019)

11/22/2019

429 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Status Conference held on 11/22/2019. (TRH) (Entered: 11/22/2019)

12/10/2019 430 NOTICE Position on Defendant's Compliance with the Consent Decree by United States of America, (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/10/2019)

12/11/2019

431 NOTICE VIPD Brief Regarding Sustantial Compliance by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 12/11/2019)

12/20/2019 432 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/20/2019)

12/23/2019

433 STATUS REPORT for December 2019 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit CCMU Reports) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 12/23/2019)

01/21/2020 434 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/21/2020)

01/22/2020

435 STATUS REPORT for January 2020 by Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit CCMU December Monthly Audit Report) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 01/22/2020)

02/12/2020

436 ORDER (CVG) The evidentiary hearing in this matter previously scheduled for February 27, 2020, is hereby RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:00 A.M. on March 4, 2020. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 02/12/2020)

02/20/2020 437 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/20/2020)

02/21/2020

438 STATUS REPORT 4th Quarterly Report 2019 by IMT by Gruber. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 02/21/2020)

02/21/2020

439 STATUS REPORT for February 2020 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Schedule Input of case into IAPro, # 2 Exhibit Roll Call Training Schedule, # 3 Exhibit CCMU Audit Report) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 02/21/2020)

02/25/2020

NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY Incorrect filing. Status report is an attachment to the main document. Re: 438 Status Report. (KAB) (Entered: 02/25/2020)

03/03/2020

440 STATUS REPORT 4th Quarter 2019 IMT by Gruber. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit status report) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 03/03/2020)

03/04/2020

441 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Curtis V. Gomez: Evidentiary Hearing held on 3/4/2020. (Court Reporter Persha Warner.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sheet) (CAB) (Entered: 03/04/2020)

03/09/2020

442 NOTICE of VIPD Post Hearing Brief on VIPD's Plan to Bring CC Paragraphs into Substantial Compliance by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Directive CCII, # 2 Exhibit Memorandum dated March 6, 2020, # 3 Exhibit Commanders Attendance, # 4 Exhibit Planning Worksheet) (ThomasJacobs, Carol) (Entered: 03/09/2020)

03/23/2020 443 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/23/2020)

03/23/2020

444 STATUS REPORT for the Period March 2020 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit CCMU March 20, 2020 Report) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 03/23/2020)

04/21/2020 445 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/21/2020)

04/21/2020

446 STATUS REPORT for April 2020 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Request for CEW Extension, # 2 Exhibit CCMU April Report) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 04/21/2020)

05/07/2020

447 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically at May 28 Hearing by Plaintiff United States of America,. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/07/2020)

05/08/2020

448 ORDER (WAL) REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Robert A. Molloy for all further proceedings. District Judge Curtis V. Gomez no longer assigned to case. dated 04/27/2020 (MA) (Entered: 05/08/2020)

05/18/2020

449 STATUS REPORT First Quarter 2020 IMT Report by Gruber. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 05/18/2020)

05/20/2020

NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Incorrect filing. Please re-file with the proper format.The notice of filing is the main document. Re: 449 Status Report. (KAB) (Entered: 05/20/2020)

05/20/2020

450 STATUS REPORT First Quarter 2020 IMT Report by Gruber. (Attachments: # 1 status report) (GRUBER, CHARLES) (Entered: 05/20/2020)

05/21/2020 451 STATUS REPORT by United States of America,. (Murray, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/21/2020)

05/21/2020

452 STATUS REPORT May 21, 2020 by Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit IAPro August 2019 Report, # 2 Exhibit CCMU May Report) (Thomas-Jacobs, Carol) (Entered: 05/21/2020)

05/22/2020

453 ORDER (RAM) The quarterly evidentiary hearing in this matter previously scheduled for May 28, 2020, is hereby CANCELLED. The motion of the United States, ECF 447 , for leave to appear telephonically at the May 28, 2020, hearing is MOOT. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (CAA) (Entered: 05/22/2020)

 THIRD QUARTERLY REPORT OF 2014 
 FROM THE 

INDEPENDENT MONITOR
 FOR THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT

CHARLES A. GRUBER CONSULTING INC. INDEPENDENT MONITOR www.imt-policemonitor.org

INDEPENDENT MONITORING TEAM
Independent Monitor Chief Charles A. Gruber
Elgin, Illinois Police Department (retired)
Police Practices Experts Superintendent Ann Marie Doherty
Boston, Massachusetts Police Department (retired) Chief Robert L. Stewart
Ormond Beach, Florida Police Department (retired)
CAG Staff & Consultants Jerome A. Needle, Project Manager
Director of Program & Research, International Association of Chiefs of Police (retired) Palmer D. Wilson, Technical Manager Lieutenant, (Commander) Office of Staff Inspections, Montgomery County, Maryland Department of Police (retired) Leon A. Casey, Sr., Field Coordinator Resident Agent in Charge, U.S. Customs Service (retired)
CHARLES A. GRUBER CONSULTING INC. INDEPENDENT MONITOR
www.imt-policemonitor.org
Report Date: 25 November 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................1


I.

INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................6


II. THE SUMMIT ...............................................................................................................................7


III. COMPLIANCE STATUS ............................................................................................................10


IV. ON-GOING COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: REMOVING BARRIERS .......................................18 


V. USE OF FORCE CASE ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................19 


VI. K-9 DEPLOYMENT REPORTING ............................................................................................21 


VII. COMPLIANCE KEYS PROGRESS ............................................................................................22 


VIII. COMPLIANCE KEY AUGMENTATION .................................................................................24 


IX. VIPD AUDITING PERFORMANCE .........................................................................................25 


X. A PERSPECTIVE ON VIPD COMPLIANCE WORKLOAD ...................................................26 


XI. VIPD STATUS REPORT #20 .....................................................................................................26


XII. NEXT QUARTER .......................................................................................................................34


APPENDIX A: THIRD QUARTER 2014 COMPLIANCE SNAPSHOT ..............................................36 


CHARTS

Chart 1: Overall CED Compliance – 3Q2014 ........................................................................................12
 Chart 2: Substantial Compliance Trend ..................................................................................................12
 Chart 3: Overall Compliance for Group 1 Use of Force 3Q2014............................................................13 

Overall Compliance for Group 2 Citizen Complaints 3Q2014 .................................................13 
 Overall Compliance for Group 3 Management & Supervision 3Q 2014 ..................................14 
 Overall Compliance for Group 4 Training 3Q2014...................................................................14 
 Overall Compliance for Group 5 Implementation 3Q2014 .......................................................15 
 Chart 4: Group 1 Use of Force CD Compliance Levels by Phase 3Q20144 ..........................................15 
 Group 2 Citizen Complaints CD Compliance Levels by Phase 3Q2014 ..................................16 

Group 3 Management & Supervision CD Compliance Levels by Phase 3Q2014 ...... 16 
 Group 4 Training CD Compliance Levels by Phase 3Q2014 ...................................... 17 
 Group 5 Implementation CD Compliance Levels by Phase 3Q2014 .......................... 17 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This is the report of the Independent Monitoring Team (IMT) for the Third Quarter of 2014, July 1 through September 30. The IMT’s last report, for the Second Quarter of 2014, highlighted challenges and opportunities introduced to the Consent Decree environment by two parallel sets of events, the Quarterly Goals mandate of the United States District Court and Independent Monitoring Team leadership transition. The report concentrated heavily on an immediate need to "Reset Compliance Strategy & Programming." It set forth the outlines of IMT intents with regard to compliance strategy plans, infrastructure development and capacity building, including information technology improvements to serve both VIPD and the IMT compliance operations. Innovations and modifications were already underway at that time. Still in progress, Second Quarter work by the VIPD and the IMT is cited as a primary factor in a Third Quarter characterized by robust activity and measurable accomplishment.
During the Third Quarter the IMT was on-site in the Virgin Islands, twice, back-to-back weeks in August and September, with its full team. Formal Monthly Consent Decree Meetings occurred in each of the three months of the Quarter. Our Police Practice Experts (PPEs) engaged continually with Work Group Chairs and Point Persons and the VIPD Compliance Coordinating Team. The newly formed Audit & Inspection Unit received start-up guidance. The IMT technical assistance work included support for Force Investigation Team planning and organization. Additional advisory work to help develop templates for supervisors to complete force investigations occurred. Guidance on misconduct complaints and allegations was constant. Our Virgin Islands-based Field Coordinator was present to observe and report on Monthly Meetings and trainings and followed up on several citizen inquiries. Topic-specific Department of Justice engagement occurred with frequency.
Quarter Three is most notable for several events that clarified the status of and influenced compliance priorities and programming. These were the Compliance Status Summit, a prehearing meeting with Judge Curtis Gomez, and the September 3rd U.S. District Court Evidentiary Hearing on VIPD Quarterly Goal Compliance. The hearing included testimony from the IMT, VIPD executives and staff, the United States Department of Justice CRT, and the Chief of the
1


Civil Division, Office of the Attorney General, USVI. A very important agreement was concluded with the VIPD. The Department has committed to conducting eight (8) system and process workflow mappings and evaluations to identify and remedy compliance barriers. These are: Use of Force Reporting; Use of Force Investigation; Shooting Investigation; Citizen Complaint System; Early Intervention Process; Discipline Process; Audit System; and Training Advisory Committee work.

The IMT is concerned about absence of response from the VIPD executive leadership to an issue of core significance to the VIPD officer training and behavior. It concerns possible confusion regarding "officer perception of threat" versus reasonable man perception of threat as a force standard. This consideration is of such significance that the IMT documented it in a letter to executive management (September 18, 2014). The IMT had not received a formal response from the Commissioner by the end of the Quarter. (Note: the matter remains unresolved as of the date of issue of this report, November 21, 2014.)

Compliance Status: Quarter Three, 2014

The VIPD has achieved Substantial Compliance for 31 paragraphs. Twenty (20) are not yet in Substantial Compliance. This is the first time in the history of the VIPD Consent Decree that more paragraphs have been in full compliance than have not. The work done at the Summit explains some of the surge in compliance.

�

Paragraphs In Substantial Compliance At The End Of Quarter Three,

2014 are: 31, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 , 53,

54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 70, 75, 76, 78, 79 and 80.

(Note: Bolded/underlined paragraphs have training evaluated under

paragraph 75 and implementation under paragraph 100.)

□ Paragraphs That Attained Substantial Compliance At The End Of Quarter Three, 2014 are: 41, 46, 51, 54, 55, 56, 61, 53, 65, 75, 76, 78, and 80.

□ Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance: 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 44, 58, 59, 60, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 81, 100, 101.

Compliance/Non-Compliance patterns vary among Consent Decree paragraph groupings. Three groupings have a majority of paragraphs in Substantial Compliance: Citizen Complaints (15 of

2


17); Management Supervision (7 of 12); and Training (5 of 9). Measured by the Compliance/Non-Compliance ratio, the Use of Force Group continues to lag (4 of 11).
Summit Accomplishments
The IMT believes that the work done at the August, 2014 Summit positions all parties to pursue, achieve, confirm, and sustain Consent Decree intents and requirements more productively going forward. The primary accomplishments of the Summit collaboration included:
□ Complete and documented agreement on compliance status at the paragraph and for the first time, sub-paragraph level.
□ Mutual agreement to introduce a new compliance threshold for the sub-paragraphs, “Partial Compliance.”
□ Definition and documentation of impediments and barriers to paragraph and sub-paragraph compliance.
Post-Summit Evaluation by the VIPD participants reinforce the IMT’s judgments of the value of the effort and its belief that a new and stronger platform is in place to support and leverage ongoing compliance activity.
Compliance Barriers
The IMT’s Second Quarter Report recommended seven (7) actions, carefully selected for predictably positive impact on Consent Decree compliance and constitutional policing. Movement was discernible in several action areas during the past Quarter, unevenly. Receiving the most concentrated VIPD attention during the Third Quarter was the long-languishing start-up of the Audit & Inspections Unit. Not entirely ignored but not addressed nearly to the expectation of the IMT were the Force Investigation Team start-up. These considerations, and the continuing issue of gaps in supervisory accountability, must receive intensified VIPD action in Quarter Four.
3


Force and Citizen Complaint Case Analysis
The IMT’s Third Quarter Review of Use of Force and Citizen Complaint allegations resurfaced patterns of errors or omissions that require continuing attention. These are: absence of supporting records in case packages; over-reliance on cut and paste language; violation of report submission deadlines; failure to interview all witnesses; failure to submit subject statements; tactical errors, without training/retraining recommendations; no RRRs or witness statements from (additional) offices at the scene; and absence of references to attempts to deescalate. The VIPD continues to work to remedy these patterns and omissions. The IMT continues to monitor and provide technical assistance.
VIPD Auditing Performance
The findings of the IMT review of the VIPD’s First Quarter 2014 Audit deserve mention. The IMT was pleased to report that, overall, the VIPD audit performance advanced noticeably. Our response concluded that:
The 2014 First Quarter Audit and the Audit Report is materially superior to the previous audit and report. In its diagnostic dimension, presentation, simplicity and clarity it exhibits greater understanding of audit processes and suggests growing confidence by Work Group members. It is unmistakably closer to what an Audit is supposed to be and do – identify CD accomplishments and isolate shortfalls, setting them out for attention, response and re-auditing.
Advancements notwithstanding, this Audit, primarily a collection of separate components, conducted by four less than fully integrated Work Groups is observably uneven. The growth in the mechanics of auditing, analysis and presentation was not paralleled to nearly the same degree by CD outcomes – substantial compliance achievements during the First Quarter. However, the IMT finds the First Quarter effort highly encouraging. (Page 1.)
Cautionary Note
Third Quarter accomplishments energized compliance efforts. Important building blocks were put in place. Against this backdrop, we offer a cautionary note. Several sets of actions are in play or stand as commitments to pave the way to further and sustained compliance:
4


□ Over 40 self-selected requirements, recommended in VIPD Audit Reports.
□ About 30 impediments/barriers defined and documented at the Summit.
□ Eight (8) system/process workflow mapping and evaluation exercises. The magnitude of the VIPD compliance workload demands stability of the compliance team during and after Territorial and department leadership transition. The IMT has called attention to this need, repeatedly. We now urge that in the very near future the size and composition of the VIPD compliance team be reassessed. Enhancing the size of the team and composition (skill sets) may well be in order. Next Quarter Judge Gomez has ordered that a second summit be conducted. Scheduled, tentatively, for November, the agenda is being developed but is not yet finalized. However, a goal by goal review of the pending Court established goals will be included. Likely topics include the force issues; the Force Review Board; planning, designing and documenting strategies and tactics to address the Compliance Barriers defined during Summit 1; functioning and effectiveness of the Early Intervention Process.
5


I. INTRODUCTION

This is the report of the Independent Monitoring Team (IMT) for the July through September Quarter, 2014. Third Quarter activity by all parties to the Consent Decree and the IMT was impressive in its intensity, spirit of collaboration, and productivity. While many requirements and expectations remain unfulfilled or partially fulfilled, the IMT has concluded that a compliance plateau has been reached and the VIPD Consent Decree performance capability has matured to the point where additional Consent Decree critical tasks and projects can be/have been recommended. These will be supported by the IMT technical assistance work, going forward.
Achievements of the Quarter include:
□ The Summit. An intense two day event that concluded with a meticulously documented, mutually developed profile of and agreement on the status of Consent Decree compliance and noncompliance, anchored at the paragraph and sub-paragraph level. Impediments and barriers to compliance were documented as well.
□ Citizen Complaint & Use of Force Case Evaluation & Analysis. The IMT’s evaluation documents ten (10) patterns of errors and/or omissions. Many of these reinforce findings and observations cited in bi-weekly and monthly reports from the VIPD Audit Work Groups. The Department and the IMT continued and will continue to address and remedy the patterns, jointly.
□ Compliance Keys Progress. The IMT’s Second Quarter Report itemized a series of system development and policy enhancement actions, carefully selected and required to move the Consent Decree forward and promote and sustain constitutional policing. Three of the seven actions recommended are:
■ Establish a Force Review Board ■ Establish a Shooting Investigation Team ■ Establish the Audits & Investigations Unit
These three have "…self-evident and direct linkage to CD compliance" and do not pose particularly challenging planning and implementation requirements. Movement has occurred on all of these systems since the Summit, unevenly. Movement is discernible however. We anticipate that the VIPD Work Groups will report on programs next Quarter. Grouped with these
6


three was "Zero Tolerance for managerial and supervisory disregard for accountability under the CD agreement." This has been and remains a constant as a compliance key.
Three additional compliance key actions recommended concern (1) promotional preparation, readiness, and testing; (2) integrated academy, field, and in-service training that fosters constitutional policing values; and (3) community engagement in compliance activities. These will have direct impact on compliance as well, but are more complicated in transformation requirements. To our knowledge, no movement has occurred on these. In the case of integrated training practices, additional IMT evaluation remains to be done.
This report also comments on obligations emerging from an IMT-initiated agreement for the VIPD to conduct flow evaluations of Consent Decree critical operating systems. Like our Second Quarter Report, and as will be standard in all future Quarterlies, visual, easily digestible Compliance Summary Charts are included, with notations on change from the previous Quarter.
This report closes with a reality-check retrospective on the VIPD compliance "workloadresource equation." A by-product consequence of accelerating progress is a burgeoning set of new obligations for the VIPD and a growing portfolio of needed operational fixes and innovations.
II. THE SUMMIT
The IMT’s Second Quarter was dominated by re-set activities. Having just taken control of the independent monitoring function, considerable time was devoted to infrastructure and capacity building, rethinking Consent Decree compliance tactics, and concentration on Consent Decree barriers, opportunities and remedies. Less than full and mutual VIPD, DOJ, and IMT concurrence on compliance status and threshold requirements was a material concern to all parties, as well as source of controlled, but nevertheless omnipresent disagreement. To address this condition head-on, as well as to leverage other issues and opportunities, the IMT arranged for and designed a Consent Decree Summit.
7


Conducted on August 26 and August 27, 2014 at the VITEMA facility, St. Thomas, US VI, key participants included the VIPD executive leadership, Work Group chairs and members, the Office of the US VI Attorney General, a representative from the Governor’s Office, the VIPD Territorial Compliance Manager and Compliance Coordinator, and the entire IMT. Summit proceedings featured plenary components and break-off Work Group-IMT pairings to dissect compliance status.

Summit Accomplishments

The results and accomplishments of the Summit are documented in a report filed with the U.S. District Court one day after the completion of the Summit. The Executive Summary of that report, Compliance Requirements, August 15, 2014, is reproduced here:

This report summarizes the present status of the Territory of the Virgin Islands (VI) and the Virgin Island Police Department (VIPD) compliance with the Consent Decree (2008-158, as amended). It is the first time that compliance status has been presented down to the sub-paragraph level for all paragraphs.

This report is notable in that the compliance status was fully agreed to by the VIPD and the Independent Monitor. This has resulted from a productive collaboration at a Summit style meeting in St. Thomas, USVI, on August 26-27, 2014. The objectives or focused outcomes of that Summit were to:

-

Confirm and document VIPD compliance status, each paragraph and

sub-tasks.

-

Confirm and document Substantial compliance standards and metrics.

-

Identify compliance process barriers and solutions.

-

Establish understanding of IMT plans for support, protocols, and

technical assistance.

At the outset of the Summit there were 19 subparagraphs in Substantial Compliance. As a result of the exhaustive paragraph by paragraph review, utilizing a comprehensive set of worksheets that detail key status and documentation of all 53 operational Consent Decree paragraphs, IMT Monitoring Team was able to place an additional 12 paragraphs into Substantial Compliance, bring the current status level to 31 in Substantial compliance, 20 in Not In Substantial Compliance, and 2 in NA status.

Mutual agreement was also reached between the IMT and the VIPD to introduce a new classification at the sub-paragraph level only, of "Partial Compliance." The Partial Compliance plateau was set at 51% of those sub-

8


paragraphs that had a numeric threshold. This action acknowledges significant progress in sub-paragraph components, while the VIPD continued to work toward Substantial Compliance for the paragraph as a whole. Including the most recent designations of Substantial Compliance, the current status of the VIPD for the 53 operational paragraphs is as follows:

Table 1, Compliance, As of 08/28/14

Substantial Compliance

31

Not In Substantial Compliance

20

N/A

2

This constitutes the first time since the beginning of the Consent Decree that the VIPD was deemed by the monitors to have more paragraphs in Substantial Compliance than those Not In Substantial Compliance. The IMT Monitoring Team feels strongly, after the intense two days of the recent Summit, that the VIPD has begun to turn the corner and gain momentum while progressing toward overall compliance with the Consent Decree

While feeling comfortable with the above judgment call, we remain cognizant of the pending transition in Territorial leadership and its subsequent impact on the VIPD. Based on our information, it is entirely possible that much of the upper echelon of the department will retire or otherwise leave the police service. That said, we are heartened by the efforts of members of the various working groups who will in all likelihood remain in the department, as they have recently demonstrated a new found determination and expertise with seeking compliance. Their efforts during the Summit, specifically in coming prepared for the detail work and genuine dedication to the process should bode well for the future, provided some care is taken with the transition of senior leaders. We urge the Court to exercise its powers to support as seamless a transition as possible to protect the progress that has been made and the spirit recently.

Summit Evaluations
The IMT believes that the Summit process and products have energized both compliance programming and infused a new sense of spirit to the common effort. This judgment is based in part on participant evaluations of the Summit exercise. While only 13 of the 20 or so participants returned evaluations, we have no reason to dismiss the positive overall judgments.

A Post Summit Evaluation Instrument included scaled and open-ended items.

9


□ The average score on Question 1, Understanding of Compliance Status. was 4.3 (scale of 5.0).
□ The average score on Question 2, Understanding of Compliance Standards (Thresholds), was 4.5.
III. COMPLIANCE STATUS
Table 1 summarizes Paragraph Status at the end of the Third Quarter. Charts 1-4 display and add detail to the status of the VIPD compliance with Consent Decree requirements at the close of the Third Quarter. Chart 1 displays status overall, a simple count of paragraphs that are in compliance and those that are not. Chart 2, new to the Quarterlies, shows the movement of compliance effort. Chart 3 breaks down Chart 1, displaying status within Consent Decree paragraph classes. Chart 4 displays compliance by paragraph group and the policy-trainingpractice continuum.
Overall Status
The VIPD has achieved Substantial Compliance for 31 paragraphs. Twenty (20) are not yet in Substantial Compliance.
□ Paragraphs In Substantial Compliance At The End Of Quarter Three, 2014 are: 31, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 70, 75, 76, 78, 79 and 80. (Note: Bolded/underlined paragraphs have training evaluated under paragraph 75 and implementation under paragraph 100.)
□ Paragraphs That Attained Substantial Compliance At The End Of Quarter Three, 2014 are: 41, 46, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 61, 65, 75, 76, 78, and 80.
□ Paragraphs Not In Substantial Compliance At The End Of Quarter Three, 2014 are: 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 44, 58, 59, 60, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 81, 100 and 101.
□ Paragraphs For Which Compliance Is Not Applicable are: 31 and 39.
10


This is the first time in the history of the VIPD Consent Decree that more paragraphs have been in full compliance than have not (Charts 1 and 2). The work done at the Summit explains the surge in compliance.
Compliance/Non-Compliance patterns vary among Consent Decree paragraph groupings. Chart 3 shows that three groupings have a majority of paragraphs in Substantial Compliance: Citizen Complaints, 15 of 17; Management & Supervision, 7 of 12; and Training, 5 of 9. Despite numerical compliance majorities, much work remains to be done in Management & Supervision and Training. Measured by the Compliance/Non-Compliance ratio, the Use of Force group continues to lag. At the end of the Second Quarter, only 3 of 11 paragraphs were in Substantial Compliance. At the close of Quarter Three, the number stands at 4 of 11.
Appendix A, Third Quarter 2014 Compliance Snapshot, is a record of paragraphs that are not yet in Substantial Compliance.
The Compliance Continuum
Chart 4, Compliance Levels by Phase, adds considerable dimension to the compliance status profile. For the Use of Force group, policy requirements have been met for every paragraph. Training has been successfully achieved for nine all (9) paragraphs that are applicable. The challenge now is to meet Practice Compliance requirements and thereafter to sustain those achievements. Only two (2) of the nine (9) have been satisfied.
The Citizens Complaint compliance continuum surpasses the Use of Force pattern. All 17 policy requirements have been satisfied, as have all applicable training requirements. Practice compliance is advancing well, with only three (3) unsatisfied requirements. The Management & Supervision Group record mirrors Citizen Complaints in Policy and Training. Practice is more of a challenge. The continuum pattern for the Training paragraphs is characterized by some deviation. Phase 2, Training, shows three (3) paragraphs that are not yet in compliance and five (5) of nine (9) Practice paragraphs still to be satisfied.
11


CHART 1


Overall CD Compliance ‐ 3Q2014

35
 30
 25
 20
 15
 10

5
 0
Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance
NA

31 20
2
Paragraphs 31 20 2

CHART 2


Substantial Compliance Trend
60


50


40


30


20


10


0 1Q20 13
Substantial Compliance 0

Not in Substantial Compliance

52

NA

1

2Q20 13 5
46
2

3Q20 13 11
40
2

4Q20 13 12
39
2

1Q20 14 16
35
2

2Q20 14 19
32
2

3Q20 14 31
20
2

Paragraphs

12


Paragraphs

CHART 3


Overall Compliance for Group 1 (Para 31‐41) Use of Force 3Q2014

7

8 6

4

4 2

0

0

Substantial Not in

NA

Compliance Subtantial

Compliance

Substantial Compliance
Not in Subtantial Compliance NA

Overall Compliance for Group 2 (Para 42‐58)
Citizen Complaints 3Q2014

15

15

10

5

2

0

0

Substantial Not in

NA

Compliance Subtantial

Compliance

Substantial Compliance
Not in Subtantial Compliance NA

Paragraphs

13


Paragraphs

CHART 3 (Continued)

Overall Compliance for Group 3 (Para 59‐72)
Management & Supervision 3Q2014

7

8

5

6

4

2

2 0

Substantial Not in

NA

Compliance Subtantial

Compliance

Substantial Compliance
Not in Subtantial Compliance NA

Overall Compliance for Group 4 (Para 73‐81) Training 3Q2014

6

5

4

4

2

0

0

Substantial Not in

NA

Compliance Subtantial

Compliance

Substantial Compliance
Not in Subtantial Compliance NA

Paragraphss

14


CHART 3 (Continued)

Overall Compliance for Group 5 (Para 100‐101) Implementation 3Q2014

2

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

0

0

Substantial Not in

NA

ComplianceSubstantial

Compliance

Substantial Compliance
Not in Substantial Compliance NA

Paragraphss

CHART 4


Group 1 Use of Force (Para 31‐41)
CD Compliance Levels by Phase 3Q2014

12 10
8 6 4 2 0
Satisfied Not Satisfied NA

Phase 1 Policy
11

Phase 2 Training
9

Phase 3 Practice
2

7

2

2

Compliance Levels

Satisfied Not Satisfied NA

Paragraphs

15


Paragraphs

CHART 4 (Continued)

Group 2 Citizen Complaints (Para 42‐58)
CD Compliance Levels by Phase 3Q2014

20 15 10
5 0
Satisfied Not Satisfied NA

Phase 1 Policy
17

Phase 2 Training
12

Phase 3 Practice
9

3

5

5

Compliance Levels

Satisfied Not Satisfied NA

Group 3 Management & Supervision (Para 59‐72)
CD Compliance Levels by Phase 3Q2014

12 10
8 6 4 2 0
Satisfied Not Satisfied NA

Phase 1 Policy
12

Phase 2 Training
9

Phase 3 Practice
4

5

2

5

5

Compliance Levels

Satisfied Not Satisfied NA

Paragraphs

16


Paragraphs

CHART 4 (Continued)

Group 4 Training (Para 73‐81)
CD Compliance Levels by Phase 3Q2014

01234567
Satisfied Not Satisfied NA

Phase 1 Policy
2

Phase 2 Training
6

Phase 3 Practice
4

3

5

7

Compliance Levels

Satisfied Not Satisfied NA

Group 5 Implementation

(Para 100‐101)

CD Compliance Levels by Phase

3Q2014

2 1.5
1 0.5
0
Satisfied

2
Phase 1 Policy

2
Phase 2 Training

2
Phase 3 Practice

Not Satisfied

2

2

2

NA

Compliance Levels

Satisfied Not Satisfied NA

Paragraphs

17


Collectively, this Quarter’s compliance data profile parallels that of Quarter Two in several respects. The Policy Phase has been accomplished in full. Review and updates must be completed as conditions warrant and IMT monitoring will continue. Full compliance with the Training mandates is reachable. Practice execution and sustainability, arguably the most challenging phase has advanced. It will/must dominate compliance activity for the future.
IV. ON-GOING COMPLIANCE EFFORTS: REMOVING BARRIERS
Equaling in value the clarification of compliance status and thresholds at the Summit was definition and documentation of impediments and barriers to paragraph compliance. This work puts 30 impediments into play. The impediments are enumerated in several documents, including the 10-1-14 First Quarter Audit Response filing. Our Audit Report calls for VIPD progress reporting in subsequent quarters. The impediments are also documented in Appendix A of this report.
The compliance barriers are familiar, most being breakdowns that are cited every Quarter. The most common and continuously resistant Use of Force compliance issues are failure to report force, supervisor failures to investigate and evaluate force incidents, investigations content/completeness, failure to report force contemporaneously with incidents and in-car video purchase and installation delay, timely supervisory response to Use of Force scenes, failure of Zone Commanders to conduct thorough reviews and force analyses, and management oversight shortfalls for Commanders, including recognition of tactical and training failures.
Risk Management issues of paramount compliance concern include timely follow-up to action plans, documentation of remediation for noted shortfalls, and an array of discipline considerations, including a need to request and document extensions. For Citizen Complaint compliance, timeliness of investigations and discipline practices throughout the system remain as well.
The list of impediments to Training paragraphs compliance is lengthy and less subject to quick fixes, generally, than many in the other paragraph groupings. They differ, also, in relative need for specialized expertise to design remedies. Training impediments include: lack of
18


comprehensive and analytical review of outcomes – in the field, absence of coordinated training priorities and agendas among the chiefs and command officers, absence of a comprehensive plan for roll call training, under use of Power DMS – failure to load data and insufficient leadership and consistent command accountability training for supervisors.
The systematic exercise to identify and record impediments at the Summit is expected to yield compliance advancements. The potential of the achievement can be leveraged. The next step will be to fashion remedies for the identified weaknesses. This work will begin at the next minisummit, scheduled for November, 2014 and will be reported on in a report to be prepared by the IMT for submission to the DOJ immediately after the mini-summit.
V. USE OF FORCE CASE ANALYSIS
During this reporting period the IMT PPEs reviewed VIPD case files. The cases included Use of Force and Citizen Complaints allegations and Automobile Accidents involving VIPD personnel. Observations on needed improvement are noted below. Many of the observations repeat those provided in bi-weekly or monthly audits by the VIPD and the Audit Work Groups themselves. The observations indicate a further need for supervisors and command personnel to use checklists during review and processing of cases and to supply all of the attendant documentation required by the Consent Decree.
The PPEs found that reports display the following patterns of errors or omissions:
1. Case files did not contain supporting reports such as the 1A Form or in the case of arrests, the Arrest Report itself.
2. Both officer and supervisor reports contained patterned or cut and paste language rather than original wording to document both the event and the investigation.
3. Management of the review process by supervisors and command personnel was intermittent and spotty, and often ignored, with time limits for completion of reports more often exceeded than in compliance with policy, required items missing, and incomplete packages.
4. In many cases the investigations either failed to interview all witnesses, both VIPD personnel and civilians, or if interviewed, no recordings were available or noted as
19


required, depending on type of case. In one case the recording was not accomplished until a Deputy Chief ordered it.
5. Statements from the subject(s) were not obtained. No notations of why they were not obtained or not included in the report were given.
6. In several cases, the force used was either "Hand Control" or "Hard-hand Control." These cases were completed in a generally acceptable time frame and with most steps completed regarding the involved VIPD personnel. Inclusion of witness interviews, an evaluation of the incident or analysis of force use, and/or required statements from the supervisor and concurrence in the analysis and findings from commanders and management were generally absent. This may indicate a view that these uses of force are routine and do not require as much attention as more serious ones. The IMT recommends that VIPD give the same level of effort to these cases as all other Use of Force reviews.
7. In some cases, the reports identified tactical errors by the officers but contained no mention of reported training needs or follow-up with the Training Academy staff for either remedial training or updates to existing training courses. Documentation pertaining to resolution of training or tactical issues was not found in the files.
8. Many of the reports did not describe attempts by officers to deescalate the incident or to use verbal control techniques, such as “verbal judo,” to obtain voluntary compliance or behavior modification.
9. Several reports indicated additional officers were on the scene but did not contain any RRRs or witness statements from these officers.
10. Few cases indicated any effort to either follow-up with witnesses or obtain statements from them as part of the investigation.
One case, UOFT-2014-0017, was highlighted by the reviewer as insufficient from the officer level through to management. It was missing most of the associated reports (1A Forms, Arrest Report), did not include an RRR, had violations of time limits for review and completion (over 6 months), supervisory response to the scene, and justification for the arrest was questionable. The VIPD investigated this case, found it insufficient, and was determining what remedial actions should be taken. The IMT is tracking this case and will review and respond to whatever action the VIPD takes. We hope that the VIPD recognizes the significance of the absence of supervisory response, to this case in particular and force cases as a class. Many of these shortcomings have been the subject of previous reports by both the VIPD and IMT staffs. We have agreed with the VIPD to review this case and provide technical assistance at the mini-summit in November.
The IMT intends to increase attention to case review during the next quarter and to remedial
training and disciplinary results to determine if training and disciplinary actions are actually
20


being accomplished and what impact, if any, retraining and discipline have on future incidents with affected personnel.
VI. K-9 DEPLOYMENT REPORTING
During the Third Quarter the IMT received the results of the VIPD’s Inspection of Canine Reporting (July 29, 2014). The implications of the content of the Inspection memo for use of force reporting and use of force evaluations persuade us to comment.
The inspection was conducted to determine whether all canine deployments were reported as required and reported with "a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness." While the IMT is encouraged by the initiative of the Audit Unit, it is disappointing that the effort did not succeed in producing clear, definitive and valid findings. "In reviewing the 911 Call History Report Listing for any neglect or failure of any Canine Officers to report tactical deployments, there were several issues that were discovered that hindered the process. The issues discovered hinder the accuracy and completeness of the inspection report….For the Canine Inspection of the Second Quarter to be conducted with a reasonable level of accuracy and completeness all missing reports need to be prepared and submitted immediately." (Letter of July 29, 2014 from Lieutenant Colbourne to Director Griffin.) For the record, the missing reports total 30 of 87 required, 35%. (From this data we can speculate that the VIPD K-9 deployments approach 350 annually and that about 120 records cannot be reconciled.)
The findings failure notwithstanding, we can report a welcome and a tangible response to deployment reporting policy violations. In response to the IMT’s e-mail inquiry of July 30, Chief Darren Foy reported immediate remedial actions including a letter to officers who failed to file reports, administrative investigation of officers and supervisors violating the Chief’s Directive to file, and a pledge to institute a weekly report to correct the breakdown in internal checks and balances designed to permit accurate auditing.
The mixed bottom line of this K-9 Deployment Reporting Inspection is that the VIPD Consent Decree Compliance Team has initiated self-correction actions. Less positive is that until the policy violations and data issues are eliminated, force evaluation and force management
21


constraints remain present. The IMT expects that Chief Foy will keep us updated on progress and results of his well conceived fixes. Last, given the sizeable report reliability gap, the IMT has to wonder how accurate the K-9 Bite Ratio data is – an IAPro’s report out.
VII. COMPLIANCE KEYS PROGRESS
The IMTs Second Quarterly Report recommended seven (7) actions selected for predictably positive impact on Consent Decree compliance, constitutional policing, and best practices conditions in the VIPD, beyond Consent Decree specific considerations. Four (4) have what the IMT considers to be "…self-evident and direct linkage to CD compliance." These are: the Force Review Board; the Shooting Investigations Team; the Audit & Inspections Unit; Zero Tolerance for managerial and supervisory disregard for accountability obligations under the CD agreement. The report went on to state "Still direct, but more complicated in transformation requirements" are the following:
□ Ensure promotional preparation, readiness and a productive testing scheme.
□ Ensure and sustain an integrated academy, field and in-service training regimen that fosters the values and understanding of constitutional policing.
□ Engage community members in compliance activities. (pps. 17 & 18.)
A start-up level of the VIPD activity/progress is reportable for several of the actions recommended, all in the first direct-linkage set: Force Review Board, Force Investigation Team, and Audit & Inspections Unit.
The Force Review Board
The IMT provided technical assistance to Captain Duggan, the Force Work Group chairperson. The IMT forwarded carefully selected examples of policies and procedures to develop a Force Investigation Team (FIT) capable of completing detailed analysis of force incidents that would fall under its purview. Captain Duggan has taken this action under her personal review, with
22


several individuals selected from the VIPD supervisory staff, and will report on the committee’s progress during the October 29, 2014 monthly meeting.
The Force Investigation Team
The IMT provided technical assistance to Captain Duggan by providing examples of an Organizational Plan and Operations Manual to implement a Force Investigation Team. Captain Duggan has selected her team members to undertake a review and evaluation of those documents and will oversee the development of recommendations to VIPD executive leadership to implement the FIT Team. The IMT expects to have a review of the status at our monthly meeting on October 29, 2014. Note that shooting investigations will be conducted by the FIT. There will not be separate teams.
Audit & Inspection Unit
The Commissioner of the VIPD recently decided to implement the Audit & Inspection Unit (AIU), VIPD Policy 2.07. He established it with only one full-time member, the unit commander. A directive that remains unpublished at the time of this writing authorizes the temporary assignment of up to five personnel for up to six months to conduct the audit and inspections program. This plan is certainly not what the IMT expected when the Commission announced in the last court session that the unit would be implemented.
In the view of the IMT, single person staffing with temporary duty personnel is clearly deficient and does not recognize the importance of and relationship between a robust and comprehensive audit and inspection program and the department’s continued progress toward full compliance with the Consent Decree. Assignment of one full-time member, the commander, who is responsible for supervising and managing the function as well as actual conduct of audits does not ensure that the unit will be able to fulfill its assigned mission. Based on the extensive experience that the IMT members have with audit units and a review of other law enforcement agencies, we were expecting an initial staffing of at least a commander and two to three auditors. We acknowledge that the unit will require some stand-up organizational time. To do so, however, without full-time staffing levels jeopardizes the initiation of system-focused audits (discussed in our recent letter to the Commissioner), oversight and direct staffing assistance to
23


the on-going audit working groups, as well as beginning department-wide, bi-annual unit level inspections. None of this is possible with only one full-time member and a rotating, part-time staffing of individuals who have their own unit level responsibilities.
The IMT understands the Commissioner’s stated concerns with staffing shortages. We also feel that at least one full staffer can be assigned by transferring the Compliance Coordinator to the AIU. This should not diminish his responsibilities as the coordinator, inasmuch of that work is attributed to the transmittal of documentation between the VIPD and the IMT. If this is accomplished, initial planning and organization could be accomplished and then one or two additional personnel could be added at the beginning of the new year as the program transitions to operational activity.
The IMT urges the department to reconsider staffing of the AIU and to recognize that investment of resources now will enhance the department progress toward Consent Decree compliance in 2015. The IMT has already begun providing technical assistance to the AIU commander and is committed to continuing that assistance as the unit moves toward operational capabilities.
VIII. COMPLIANCE KEY AUGMENTATION
The IMT supplemented the Second Quarter Compliance Key package with a request to the VIPD to position itself to conduct a long-standing Consent Decree compliance program need for systems evaluations. The governing objective and principal value of this work is to find and remedy breakdowns in the VIPD Consent Decree critical systems and processes. To be examined and analyzed are:
□ Use of Force Reporting System □ Use of Force Investigation □ Citizen Complaint System □ Early Intervention Process □ Disciplinary Process □ Audit System □ Training Advisory Committee Functioning
Our rationale for calling for an augmented set of diagnostics is stated in our recent letter of October 15, 2014.
24


"(The) IMT believes that our current focus on individual paragraphs and sub-tasks will be enhanced by looking at such paragraphs and sub-tasks in the context of the management of the larger systems within which they operate. Specifically, by identifying all steps necessary for each of these systems (person responsible, action necessary, associated timeline) and any accompanying obstacles/solutions, VIPD will continue to move towards compliance and maintain current compliance status. By looking at the systems, it should be easier to identify obstacles which may impact multiple sub-tasks and paragraphs; and may cross over multiple systems. Thus, a proposed solution may impact multiple working groups and would be most effectively, and efficiently, addressed through an additional team of VIPD leaders/managers representing VIPD Consent Decree (CD)-wide concerns."
IX. VIPD AUDITING PERFORMANCE
Just prior to the close of the Second Quarter of 2014, the IMT filed a Review & Recommendations of and for the VIPD audit work conducted during the First Quarter of 2014. We were pleased to report that, overall, VIPD audit performance advanced noticeably. We anticipate that future audits will build on the success of the First Quarter improvements.
The IMTs Review noted at the outset:
The 2014 First Quarter Audit and the Audit Report is materially superior to the previous audit and report. In its diagnostic dimension, presentation, simplicity and clarity it exhibits greater understanding of audit processes and suggests growing confidence by Work Group members. It is unmistakably closer to what an Audit is supposed to be and do – identify CD accomplishments and isolate shortfalls, setting them out for attention, response and re-auditing.
Advancements notwithstanding, this Audit, primarily a collection of separate components, conducted by four less than full integrated Work Groups is observably uneven. The growth in the mechanics of auditing, analysts and presentation was not paralleled to nearly the same degree by CD outcomes – substantial compliance achievements during the First Quarter. However, the IMT finds the First Quarter effort highly encouraging. (Page 1.)
Realizing that further and continuing improvement is contingent upon stability of Work Group membership during election-inspired transition in the VIPD leadership and organization and staffing, the observable evolution of talent and experience in the VIPD Audit cadre must be preserved and nurtured. Anything less risks (perhaps guarantees) a setback to compliance progress.
25


X. A PERSPECTIVE ON VIPD COMPLIANCE WORKLOAD

The Court-ordered Quarterly Goals compliance schedule presents the VIPD with new and needed clarity regarding priorities and deadlines. It also mounts the pressure to perform – and perform well. Against this backdrop the IMT believes it to be useful to comment on VIPD’s compliance workload, which for several reasons, including Summit work, is becoming easier to focus more clearly. At the same time, several sets of actions and processes are in play or stand as commitments to pave the way for compliance. These include:
□ Over 40 VIPD self-selected action requirements, introduced as recommendations and documented in the last two VIPD Audit Reports.
□ About 30 Impediments defined and documented at the August Summit. □ Eight system/process workflow mapping and evaluation exercises. This list of actions totals seventy-eight (78). Although there is redundancy in the actions, the workload is sobering. The IMT has already declared a cautionary note regarding need for stability and retention of the VIPD compliance staff experience. This achievement alone would not be regarded as sufficient by the IMT. We urge the VIPD to supplement the current team – not just in number but in skill sets. The work flow analyses, for example, should be in the hands of management analysts. Some of the Training issues argue for acquisition of professional resources.
How well the VIPD Compliance Team is resourced dictates and will continue to dictate pace and quality of Consent Decree substantial compliance and constitutional policing throughout the Territory. The coming transition in gubernatorial and VIPD leadership is a uniquely opportune time to revisit resource considerations.
XI. VIPD STATUS REPORT #20
The IMT received Status Report #20 on October 7, 2014. Our comments and recommendations follow.
26


Training □ □
□

Paragraph 73
We are disappointed that movement toward a more engaged and active Training Advisory Committee has not taken place. There is no comprehensive review of the effects and outcomes of training within the department. We fully expected that during this Quarter, the Committee would have been organized to the point that there was an established plan, policy or agenda. The department has a responsibility to evaluate how effective academy, roll call, in service and remedial training, is in improving officer performance. This is critical when it involves employees whose performance is not improving despite discipline and additional training.
We cannot stress strongly enough that the establishment and operation of the Training Advisory Committee should be a priority.
Paragraph 74
The IMT has not seen an update to the initial activity involving roll call training. Following command officer orientation, we’ve not seen reports delineating what training has taken place, what training is planned nor the establishment of any criteria to evaluate the effect of roll call training.
The IMT believes that the kind of continuing shortcomings we see in administrative investigations as well as common mistakes that continue in use of force reporting would be high on the list of topics for upcoming roll call training.
We are monitoring Power DMS for the initiation of roll call training record keeping and have not seen any. We are disappointed that more effort has not been devoted to entering more data into Power DMS.
As part of quarterly goal setting, we suggest that specific Power DMS data entry be established. Other means of data entry should also be explored. The mandate of entering two previous years of departmental training information as well as current and ongoing training is a daunting one. We think that have a road map on how to get there would help. (This recommendation is equally applicable to Paragraph 76.)
Paragraph 77
The IMT is concerned that there appears to be no systematic recording of remedial training. This is extremely important for those cases where

27


remedial training is recommended in lieu of disciplinary action. Until recently, there was no record keeping. We don’t know if there are employees who, when remedial training was recommended, actually attended and successfully completed that remedial training.
The current method of tracking, while an improvement, involves a series of back and forth messages between the Police Chief and the Training Director to ensure that a record is created. We previously suggested that the Training Bureau establish a category of training dedicated to remedial training. The Police Commissioner instructed the Training Director at our most recent mini-summit to create a training category in Power DMS to track remedial training.
We continue to place an emphasis on the importance of remedial training record keeping for two primary reasons. When commanders are working with employees who have been identified in IAPro as requiring specific attention by their supervisors, it is important for them to know the training history of the subordinate when organizing a performance improvement plan.
The second primary reason is for Command Officers who are recommending discipline for violations of policy and procedure. It’s important to consider whether previous training and re-training has or has not been effective in improving performance. Any new decisions must include accurate, reliable information to make that decision relevant to the performance on the employee.
The IMT strongly encourages the establishment of a remedial training category and the entry of all available records for the past two years.
□ Paragraph 79
There are several issues in this paragraph that IMT believes should be of interest to the Training Advisory Committee. The Committee can help the department by considering all of the training implications as they review the effect of training throughout operations personnel. Certain of the items in this paragraph concern the Constitutional use of force, deescalation, dealing with emotionally disturbed persons and simulator training.
We believe that all of these issues should be a part of the ongoing agenda of the Training Advisory Committee and that the Committee add context to the discussion of how the training is received and carried out by operations personnel.
28


The IMT is particularly concerned about the VIPD’s deadly force class room and simulator training. We are in receipt of information concerning certain officers’ perceptions about when and under what circumstances they could resort to deadly force. This was borne out during simulator training.
We’ve asked the Commissioner to make inquiries about this but, to date, have received no report on his findings.
□ Paragraph 80
While the VIPD has achieved substantial compliance in this paragraph, there are continuing problems related to the timely and complete investigations into citizen complaints.
Training must play a role in the solution to this problem. The VIPD should be exploring ways to use training to improve the agency performance in this area. We have spoken about the need to look across Bureau lines as a way to bring more comprehensive solutions to implementation issues. This is a good example of how necessary this kind of coordination is.
The IMT recommends that the Consent Decree Administrator look at reducing force and citizen complaint related problems or poor performance through a more robust training effort.
□ Paragraph 81
While we encourage the continued efforts to provide leadership training to supervisors and command officers, we’ve not yet seen how the lessons learned are being applied to operations personnel. We know that participants attend training but we don’t see any coordination to ensure that the lessons learned make their way into the activities and behaviors of personnel in the field.
For some time, training conducted through the FBINAA has been discussed. We would urge making it among the highest of priorities of the department.
29


Citizen Complaint Process
□ Paragraph 44
The IMT also recognized that the VIPD has continued to reduce the number of outstanding/overdue cases. However, the final step of discipline for superiors/management personnel who continue to fail to address this issue has been threatened for a prolonged period of time. While the IMT has seen some limited discipline in this area, it continues to emphasize the fact that unless supervisors and management personnel are held accountable for their responsibilities, the VIPD will have a challenging time maintaining CD compliance.
□ Paragraph 49
While still considered in compliance, the VIPD must maintain vigilance, particularly in the area of Police Commissioner notification of excessive force and constitutional law violations.
□ Paragraph 58
We wish to reinforce the statement in our 08/29/14 filing with the District Court: "while the IMT has seen improvement in identifying the need for additional training and forwarding same, there continues to be very limited documentation that these issues are being properly addressed in a timely fashion and appropriately documented."
Management & Supervision
□ Paragraph 59
As mentioned in an earlier Citizen Complaint paragraph, the IMT continues to emphasize the fact that unless supervisors and management personnel are held accountable for their responsibilities, the VIPD will have a challenging time maintaining CD compliance. Regarding this particular paragraph, the IMT anticipated that by holding managers accountable, the VIPD will move closer to initial compliance.
Additionally, the IMT anticipates that resolving IT issues, considered a priority by the VIPD, will move initial compliance forward.
□ Paragraph 60
30


The IMT appreciates the VIPD efforts this Quarter to attempt to capture information on all prisoner injuries. The IMT also appreciates that this is a "work in progress" which we anticipate will be monitored by the VIPD through their quarterly audits.
The IMT hopes that the described directive/protocol for the Records Bureau regarding prisoner injuries will become operational during the Fourth Quarter of 2014. Additionally, we anticipate that we will receive the Training Bureau’s first report regarding the OC inventory effort and the K-9 report concerning deployment/utilization during this Quarter
Finally, the IMT is pleased that the Memorandum of Agreement was approved by the PC this Quarter and forwarded to the VI Attorney General. The IMT would encourage the VI Attorney General to finalize this process as soon as possible, so as to assist the VIPD to reach initial compliance with this paragraph. The IMT further encourages the VIPD to finalize a Memorandum of Agreement with VITEMA if deemed necessary to move this paragraph into initial compliance.
□ Paragraph 61
The IMT wishes to emphasize that the interest in off-site access to IAPro is to improve efficiency of monitoring activities, thus minimizing costs to the VIPD for the same activities.
The IMT acknowledges that the Citizen Complain Form has been modified to address paragraph concerns. The IMT encourages the VIPD to complete the distribution process so that the VIPD can receive full credit for its efforts.
□ Paragraph 64
The IMT recognizes the challenges associated with the introduction of an EIP system. However, we have also been very frustrated by the slow progress and apparent lack of attention by management personnel to such a process. At this time, the IMT believes that the VIPD management personnel have started to show progress. We believe that supervisors and managers will continue to need assistance to continue/complete this process. The IMT recognizes that this could include a number of one-on-one or small group meetings and we repeat our offer(s) to assist in this effort.
The IMT anticipates review and implementation of the RMS/EIP data review form this Quarter, The IMT applauds the on-going VIPD efforts to identify alternative interventions (such as the one described regarding the VIAG). As this
31


effort moves forward, the VIPD needs to build a process to assess the effectiveness of the various interventions utilized.
While a working relationship with UVI sounds positive, the IMT would caution the VIPD about the anticipated limitations of an intern in the area of EIP analysis. While an intern may be helpful with data input and other administrative functions, the VIPD still needs to move forward and fill the positions described. The discussion regarding the hiring of the requisite personnel have continued for a prolonged period of time. The VIPD will not be able to reach compliance in this are without these capabilities.
The IMT will continue to monitor the progress of the VIPD in the area of the arrest database (which has also been the subject of prolonged discussions and slow progress) and the arrest/use of force ratios, which appear to be moving forward.
While the IMT applauds the VIPD efforts to clearly identify which supervisors are completing timely investigations and which are not, we continue to be concerned and continue to emphasize the fact that unless supervisors and management personnel are held accountable for their responsibilities, the VIPD will have a challenging time maintaining CD compliance.
□ Paragraph 65
The IMT emphasizes that the interest in off-site access to IAPro is to improve efficiency of monitoring activities, thus minimizing costs to the VIPD for the same activities.
□ Paragraph 70
The IMT will continue to review the VIPD audits for adherence to the disciplinary matrix. We will also continue to review hearing files and, if considered an efficient/effective use of time, will selectively review hearings.
□ Paragraph 71(c)
The IMT cautions that extensions should only be granted for appropriate, documented reasons.
□ Paragraph 72
32


The IMT looks forward to reviewing Work Group monthly audits/inspections.
Use of Force
□ Executive Summary
During this quarter the IMT provided technical assistance to the VIPD Force Work Group chairperson on both the Organization and Procedures for implementing a Serious Use of Force investigation team.
The IMT is hopeful that the Force Work Group will start setting a plan and deadlines in addition to the selection of personnel to accomplish the tasks being assigned. The IMT envisions implementing a plan outlining the process for the implementation of the tasks: when the policy will be finished in its written form, dates for the process, i.e., completed by the policy committee, re-reviewed by the work group submitted to the AC then on to the commissioner for signing, dates for the curriculums development, selection of personnel, training schedules. Implementation can be active on many different fronts but dates for completion of the processes should be deliverable by the VIPD.
During this reporting period the Force Group chairperson undertook some additional requirements for the templates related to the work that was accomplished at the Summit. The changes have not yet been seen by the IMT but we are anxious to see the implementation of these templates as our review of force cases during this quarter had disclosed that the patterns identified in our previous audits of cases (as well as in the VIPD’s audits) have not shown improvement in previously identified deficiencies.
□ Paragraph 31
The VIPD revised and signed copies of the OC & Pursuit policies, drafts of which the IMT reviewed and commented on, had not been received by the end of the Third Quarter.
□ Paragraph 33
During this reporting period the IMT reviewed a sample of force cases for compliance with this paragraph. We found that the identification of "each and every use of force" was either not identified nor was each equally identified by the investigating supervisor nor evaluated by the supervisor or the department. We believe that there may be some confusion on the part of supervisors and officers on these requirements.
33


Officers are responsible for reporting each and every force use applied during a force event. As an example, if the officer uses a Taser during an incident the officer would be responsible for identifying each cycle applied during the event. The supervisor would be responsible to investigate each cycle for being appropriately applied consistent with applicable federal and territorial laws, as well as VIPD policy, training and tactics. UOF 2014-0017, UOF 2014-0022 & UOF 2014-0021. Video and audio taped statements are still not being provided to the IMT from force reviews conducted in the zones. They are provided when the review is conducted by the IAB. This is perhaps because the VIPD is still working on the implementation of the in car video cameras. We encourage them to work to accomplish the introduction of this valuable tool as soon as possible.
□ Paragraph 100
This paragraph calls for the Territory of the Virgin Islands and the VIPD to implement each and every provision of the Agreement as the term is defined in the Agreement (Paragraph 30).
For purposes of measuring implementation, certain paragraphs or paragraph sub-components have been moved to paragraph 100. Those paragraphs are 31, 39, 40, 47, 50, 52, 53, 62, 64 and 70. Regardless of where the paragraphs appear, the monitors and the VIPD remain focused on the evaluation and monitoring of these paragraphs and subparagraphs. (Mini-Report 082914 as filed with the court.)
XII. NEXT QUARTER
By request of Judge Gomez, a second summit (mini-summit) will be conducted, November, 2014. The agenda is only in the early discussion and design stage. Compliance status is certain to be revisited. Action to address compliance barriers is likely to receive greater emphasis. During the first summit the focus was on defining them. With this platform in place, more time would be available to focus on remedies.
Technical assistance to support the AIU will occur. During Quarter three we surveyed use-offorce analysis, and evaluation research and studied the VIPD’s IAPro capacity to supply data for analysis. We hope to begin to develop VIPD force and constitutional policing profiles and measurements.
34


VIPD compliance programming has proceeded with minimal public/community engagement. It is time to ramp-up this important dimension of organizational transformation. At least preliminary discussions are now timely to fashion a strategy. The IMT will use its networking capacity to solicit low-cost/no-cost federal resources for the VIPD to supplement compliance resources. Training opportunities will receive priorities, in subject matters such as procedural justice and police response to special populations, those with mental health and behavioral disorders in particular. Last, the IMT is planning a design event to focus on defining an initial and priority set of outcome measures and develop a start-up plan for the VIPD to supply required data and diagnostics.
35



In March 2004, the Department of Justice (DOJ) opened an investigation into the Virgin Islands Police Department's (VIPD) practices regarding use of excessive force, and on December 23, 2008, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands. On March 24, 2009, the parties signed a consent decree, detailing specific actions to be taken by VIPD. Enforcement of the consent decree is in progress.