RIPA
Ripa Board Annual Report 2019
Read the report at Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board ↗
RACIAL &
IDENTITY
P ROFILING
ANNUAL
REPORT
A DVISORY 20
19
BOARD
RACIAL AND IDENTITY PROFILING ADVISORY BOARD
ANDREA GUERRERO, (Co-Chair) Executive Director, Alliance San Diego; Appointed by the
Speaker of the Assembly (Term: July 2016-Present)
SHERIFF DAVID ROBINSON, (Co-Chair) Sheriff, Kings County Sheriffs Office; Designee oft he
President of the California State Sheriffs' Association (Term: July 2016-Present)
MICAH ALI, Vice President, Compton Unified School District Board of Trustees; Appointed by the
President Pro Tempore oft he Senate (Term: July 2016-Present)
OSCAR BOBROW, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Solano County; Designee oft he California Public
Defenders Association (Term: July 2016-Present)
SANDRA C. BROWN, Lieutenant (ret.), Palo Alto Police Department; Appointed by the President Pro
Tempore oft he Senate (Term: July 2018-Present)
PASTOR J. EDGAR BOYD, Pastor, First African Methodist Episcopal Church of Los Angeles
(FAME); Appointed by the Attorney General of California (Term: July 2016-present)
SAHAR DURALi, Plaintiff Attorney; Appointed by the Attorney General of California (Term: July
2016-Present)
DR. JENNIFER EBERHARDT, Professor of Psychology and Morris M. Doyle Centennial Professor
of Public Policy, Stanford University; Co-Director of Stanford SPARQ: Social Psychological
Answers to Real-World Questions Appointed by the Attorney General of California (Term: July
2016-July 2018)
ALEX JOHNSON, Managing Director, Californians for Safety and Justice; Appointed by the Governor
of California (Term: July 2016-June 2018)
HONORABLE ALICE LYTLE, Retired Judge, Sacramento County Superior Court; Appointed by the
Governor ofC alifornia (Term: July 2016-Present)
BRIAN R. MARVEL, President, Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC);
Designated by Assembly Bill 953 (Term: November 2017-December 2018)
MARIANA MARROQUIN, Program Manager, Los Angeles LGBT Center's Anti-Violence Project;
Appointed by the Attorney General ofC alifornia (Term: July 2016- Present)
REVEREND BEN MCBRIDE, Co-Director, PICO California; Founder, Empower Initiative;
Appointed by the Attorney General ofC alifornia (Term: July 2016-present; Board Co-Chair
through September 2018)
CHIEF EDWARD MEDRANO, President, California Police Chiefs Association; Chief, Gardena
Police Department, Designated by Assembly Bill 953 (Term : July 2016-March 2018; Board Co
Chair through March 2018)
DOUGLAS ODEN, Senior Litigation Attorney, Law Offices of Oden & Greene; Appointed by the
Speaker of the Assembly (Term: July 2016-Present)
ANGELA SIERRA, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Division of Public Rights, California
Department of Justice; Designee of the Attorney General of California (Term: July 2016-Present)
TIMOTHY P. SILARD, President, Rosenberg Foundation; Appointed by the Attorney General of
California (Term: July 2016-Present)
COMMISSIONER WARREN STANLEY, Commissioner, California Highway Patrol; Designated by
Assembly Bill 953 (Term: September 2017-Present)
CHIEF DAVID SWING, President, California Police Chiefs Association; Chief, Morgan Hill Police
Department, Designated by Assembly Bill 953 (Term: March 2018-Present)
TIMOTHY WALKER, Senior, San Francisco State University; Mentor, Community Coalition, Los
Angeles; Appointed by the Attorney General of California (Term: July 2016-Present)
11
The Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board would like to honor the memory of the
Honorable Alice Lytle, who faithfully served on this Board from its inception. We will miss her
wisdom and guidance, but her extraordinary contributions to the community and to eliminating
racial and identity profiling will live on.
The Board thanks the following staff from the California Department of Justice for their
assistance and contributions to this report:
Editors
California Department ofJ ustice, Civil Rights Enforcement Section (CRES)
Kelsey S. Geiser, Associate Governmental Program Analyst
Catherine Z. Ysrael, Deputy Attorney General
California Department ofJ ustice, California Justice Information Services Division (CJIS)
Dr. Jannie Scott, Research Analyst II, Research Center
Dr. Daniel Tapia-Jimenez, Research Associate, Research Center
Kevin Walker, Research Analyst II, Research Center
Project Supervisors
Nancy A. Beninati, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Civil Rights Enforcement Section
ens
Dr. Randie C. Chance, Director, Research Center,
ens
Jenny Reich, Director, Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigative Services,
Additional Editors and Contributors
Domonique C. Alcaraz, Honors Deputy Attorney General, Bureau of Children's Justice
ens
Erin Choi, Program Manager, Client Services Program,
Kelli Evans, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Executive Office
Shannon K. Hovis, Research Analyst II, CRES
ens
Charles Hwu, Data Processing Manager, Application Development Bureau,
Audra Opdyke, Assistant Director, Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigative
ens
Services,
ens
Evelyn Reynoso, Research Analyst I, Research Center,
The Board thanks Kelsey S. Geiser from the California Department of Justice for her
contributions and dedication to this initiative as the manager to the Board. The Board thanks
Alfred Palma from the California Department of Justice for his diligence and for serving as the
travel coordinator to the Board. The Board thanks the Commission on Peace Officer Standards
and Training (POST) for its partnership, and looks forward to continuing to build on this
collaboration in the coming years.
The Board also appreciates the participation of community members, members oflaw
enforcement, advocates, researchers, and other stakeholders. Public participation is essential to
this process, and the Board would like to thank all Californians who have attended meetings,
submitted letters, and otherwise engaged with the work of the Board. A special thank you to
Attorney General Xavier Becerra for his leadership and support of the mission and work of the
Board.
Ill
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ... ....................................................................................................................................... ......... 5
Stop Data ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
Racial and Identity Profiling Policies and Accountability ............................................................................. 27
Civilian Complaint Policies and Procedures ................................................................................................. 34
Training Related to Racial and Identity Profiling ......................................................................................... 45
Calls for Service and Bias by Proxy .............................................................................................................. 51
Use of Force ................................................................................................................................................5 5
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 63
Appendix A: Relevant Legislation Enacted in 2018 ..................................................................................... 64
Appendix B: Compiled Best Practice Recommendations .......................................... .................................. 66
Appendix C: RIPA Template Based on the Final Regulations ....................................................................... 75
Appendix D: Methods of Submitting Stop Data to the Department ........................................................... 79
Appendix E: URSUS Use of Force Tables ......................................................................................................8 2
IV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
California's Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015 (RIP A) is truly groundbreaking legislation
- the first of its kind and scale in the United States.1 This law requires nearly all California law
enforcement agencies to collect, maintain, and analyze demographic data on all detentions and
searches, thereby codifying the recommendation of the President's Task Force on 21st Century
Policing which aimed to improve understanding and create evidence based policies through this
data collection.2 The Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (Board) was created by the
Act to shepherd this data collection and provide public reports with the ultimate objective to
eliminate racial and identity profiling and improve and understand diversity in law enforcement
through training, education, and outreach.3 The Board's mission is enhanced by the diverse
perspectives and backgrounds of its 19 members, as well as by the vibrant discourse brought to
board meetings and subcommittees by members of the public and the law enforcement
community. Together, the Board and stakeholders share the goals of increasing public safety,
improving law enforcement-community relations, and bolstering trust through collaboration,
transparency, and accountability.
In its second annual report, the Board has built on the foundation established by its inaugural
report released January 1, 2018.4 Specifically, this report aims to enhance the transparency of the
stop data collection process by providing the public with detailed information on how the data is
collected and submitted and how the Department and law enforcement agencies ensure the
integrity of this data. This report also provides recommendations that can be incorporated by law
enforcement agencies to enhance their policies, procedures, and trainings on topics that intersect
with bias and racial and identity profiling.
In summary, this report:
1) Reviews the information that law enforcement agencies must collect and report on each
stop and how agencies and the Department are ensuring the integrity of this data.
2) Provides best practice recommendations for agencies in drafting policies and procedures,
and trainings regarding racial and identity profiling and civilian complaints.
3) Analyzes the civilian complaint data submitted to the Department in 2017.
4) Explores how to address the potential for bias when officers respond to calls for service.
5) Analyzes use of force data submitted to the Department in 2017. 5
6) Highlights methodologies that the Board may use to analyze the stop data once it is
submitted to the Department by April 1, 2019.
1 Pen. Code,§ 13519.4.
2 President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing. Final Report of the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing.
(2015).
3 Pen. Code, § 13519.4, subd. (j)(l).
4 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2018.
(2018). Available at https ://oag.ca.gov/s ites/all/fi les/agweb/pdfs/ripa/ripa-board-report-2018.pdf
5 The Board includes recommendations related to use of force because of its inherent relationship to police stop and
search practices. In addition, stop data reports are required to include information regarding actions taken during a stop, such as
the discharge or use of firearms, that also constitute a use of force that must be reported to the Department separately as a use of
force incident under AB 71.
1
Best Practices
The Board has drawn from a range of law enforcement, academic, governmental, and non-profit
organizations with relevant expertise in addressing racial and identity profiling in policing to
compile a set of best practices. These recommendations are provided for law enforcement
agencies to consider and implement, where appropriate, to help prevent and address profiling if
and when it occurs in policing. Specifically, the Board has highlighted best practice
recommendations on the topics of civilian complaint policies and procedures, bias-free policing
policies, and trainings related to racial and identity profiling. These recommendations do not
represent the full panoply ofrecommendations or best practices that an agency could and should
consider adopting; rather, they aim to provide a foundation on which the Board hopes and plans
to continue expanding upon in future reports. These best practices can be found throughout the
body of the report as well as compiled in their entirety within Appendix B, for ease ofreference.
It is the Board's hope that these best practices will assist law enforcement agencies,
policymakers, and community members in developing, assessing, and implementing policies,
procedures, and trainings geared toward the elimination of racial and identity profiling in
policing. The Board recognizes that there must be sufficient funding in order to implement these
recommendations, and further acknowledges that the amount of funding and resources available
to implement these recommendations varies depending on the agency. However, agencies are
encouraged to seek out grants and funding that will ensure that the stop data collection is utilized
to its fullest potential.
Even with a lack of resources, these are recommendations that can and should be adopted to
enhance the services that law enforcement agencies provide to the community. The Board
encourages cities, counties, and policymakers to work with law enforcement agencies under their
purview to ensure they are allocated the necessary funding and resources to implement the best
practices described in the report. The Board further recommends that the Legislature provide
sufficient funding to the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to assure
that all agencies receive recommended and necessary trainings, including training covering RIP A
data collection and analysis, de-escalation, mental health, and addiction, among other relevant
topics.
Stop Data
Stop data collection for the eight largest agencies in the state began on July 1, 2018. This data
must be reported to the Department of Justice (Department) by April 1, 2019. As of report
release, the agencies collecting data are the California Highway Patrol, Los Angeles Police
Department, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Riverside County Sheriff's Department,
San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, San Diego County Sheriff's Department, San
Diego Police Department, and the San Francisco Police Department. These agencies have
informally been termed the "Wave 1" agencies due to the rolling nature of the stop data
collection timeline. Starting next year, the Board's annual report will include a detailed analysis
of this data. Because the data is not due to the Department until April 1, 2019, the Stop Data
section of this report addresses the following: 1) the type of data that is collected; 2) methods of
2
submitting the data to the Department; 3) data integrity; and 4) potential methodologies to
analyze the stop data in the future.
In keeping with the spirit of the RIPA legislation, the Board encourages agencies to view the
data elements mandated by the statute and its implementing regulations as the floor, rather than
the ceiling. Agencies should not feel limited by the statue or regulations, rather they should
consider collecting any additional demographic or other data that would be relevant to identify
trends or disparities among the interactions of their officers with the public.
Furthermore, the Board encourages all law enforcement agencies to vigorously analyze their own
data to address any issues that may be identified at the local level. In doing so, the Board hopes
that both the analysis methodologies used and the findings of those analyses are transparent and
available to the public. Law enforcement agencies should also reach out to academics and other
stakeholders who can enrich and guide agencies in conducting meaningful analysis of this data.
Racial and Identity Profiling Policies and Accountability
The Board has compiled best practices that should be considered for inclusion by law
enforcement agencies to help prevent and identify racial and identity profiling if and where it
exists. This section of the report provides specific best practices regarding the following: 1) the
creation of a clear written policy and procedure devoted to the prevention of racial and identity
profiling; 2) policy accessibility and integration into an agency's culture; 3) definitions for
inclusion in the policy and consistent application of the policy's principles; 4) communication
with the community; 5) training; 6) data collection and analysis; 7) accountability and adherence
to policy; and 8) supervisory review.
Civilian Complaint Procedures and Policies
Having a robust process for handling civilian complaints is an important step toward building
trust between law enforcement and the community and ensuring that personnel and policies are
working as intended. This section of the report discusses the importance of effective complaint
procedures and includes the following: 1) a statewide analysis of the 2017 complaint data
submitted to the Department; 2) an agency-level snapshot of the 2017 complaint data submitted
to the Department; and 3) provides several recommendations and best practices for agencies to
consider in regards to their complaint procedures.
In addition, the civilian complaint section of the report provides best practices regarding 1) the
creation of a clear written policy and procedure devoted to civilian complaint procedures; 2)
accessibility and communication with the community; 3) details on complaint intake, filing, and
tracking process; and 4) details on the investigation process.
Training Related to Racial and Identity Profiling
To address differences in various trainings, the Board has compiled best practices or standards
that should be considered for inclusion by law enforcement agencies to help identify and prevent
racial and identity profiling if and where it exists. This section of the report provides specific
best practices regarding 1) basic training principles and topics; 2) training organization and
3
delivery; 3) communication and community relationships; 4) tenets of procedural justice; and 5)
implicit bias.
Calls for Service and Bias by Proxy
In June 2018, the Board formed a new subcommittee focused on calls for service, the formation
of which was sparked by a letter sent to the Board by two state senators expressing their concern
regarding racially biased calls for service and what is sometimes called "bias by proxy." In this
report, the Board has devoted a section to this issue, focusing on calls for service through the
lens of bias by proxy. The Board conducted a literature review on the issue of bias and calls for
service and plans to dive deeper into the various manners in which this data can be accurately
collected and analyzed, particularly assessing ways in which the data collected under RIP A can
be leveraged toward this goal.
Use of Force
Because of its inherent relationship to law enforcement stop and search practices, the Board has
included a review and discussion of use of force in policing in this year's report. This section
specifically addresses the following: 1) an overview of the Assembly Bill 71 (AB 71) data
submitted to the Department; 2) an analysis of AB 71 data submitted to the Department in 2017;
and 3) a brief overview of academic research on different aspects of law enforcement agencies
polices regarding use of force.
Conclusion
The Board has come a long way since its inception over the past two and a half years, but there is
still a great deal of work that lays ahead. The Board will continue to work on creating actionable
solutions to mitigate the harmful ramifications that racial and identity profiling has upon our
communities including law enforcement. The Board is hopeful that through persistent
collaboration, open and respectful dialogue, and continued engagement with law enforcement
and the community, strides will be made toward the identification and elimination of racial and
identity profiling in California. The Board will continue to use the responsibilities bestowed
upon it by the California Legislature to continually build improved relationships and mutual trust
and respect between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve.
To access a copy of the Board's 2018 report, please see
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/ripa/ripa-board-report-2018.pdf. The Board also
encourages those who have not seen the video explaining the work of the Board, to please view it
at https ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xffqC9Xb9Dw ).
4
INTRODUCTION
The Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015 (RIP A) is groundbreaking legislation - the first
of its kind in the United States. 6 This legislation proclaims that, "racial or identity profiling is a
practice that presents a great danger to the fundamental principles of our Constitution and a
democratic society. It is abhorrent and cannot be tolerated."7 The legislation included
requirements intended to help identify, address, and eliminate racial profiling. RIP A marks a
major step toward not only understanding the problem of racial and identity profiling in
California, but also toward formulating strategies to reduce the practice and its devastating
consequences for all involved.
The law requires, for the first time, nearly all state and local law enforcement agencies to report
data on all stops conducted by the agency's peace officers to the California Department of
Justice (Department). RIP A also established the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board
(Board), which is tasked with convening and working with the relevant stakeholders, consulting
on the data collection, and providing public reports with the ultimate objective to eliminate racial
and identity profiling and thus improve outcomes between individuals and law enforcement. The
Board, which meets at least three times a year, is enhanced by the diverse perspectives and
backgrounds of its 19 members who include law enforcement, attorneys, clergy, academics,
community organizations, and youth. The Board and its members are unwavering in their
dedication to the pursuit of increased public safety and improving law enforcement-community
relations and trust in California through collaboration, transparency, and accountability.
Since its inception in July of 2016, the Board has furthered its mission by 1) actively engaging
with the community at robust Board and subcommittee meetings; 2) consulting with the
Department during the development of the RIPA regulations; 3) continuing its direct engagement
with law enforcement agencies, community members, and other stakeholders on the
implementation of stop data collection and submission; and 4) working with the Commission on
Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) on its trainings pertaining to racial and identity
profiling, and by issuing its annual reports.
Each year, by January 1, the Board will produce a report that includes detailed findings on the
past and current status of racial and identity profiling in law enforcement as well as policy
recommendations for eliminating profiling. To view the Board's first report released January 1,
2018, please see https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/ripa/ripa-board-report-2018.pdf and
the accompanying video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xffqC9Xb9Dw).8 RIPA requires
each annual report to include the following: 9
• An analysis of law enforcement data regarding stops by its officers and civilian
complaints against officers.
6 Pen. Code,§ 13519.4.
7 Pen. Code,§ 13519.4, subd. (d)(2).
8 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2018.
(2018). Available at https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/ripa/ripa-board-report-2018.pdf
9 Pen. Code,§ 13519.4, subd. (j)(3)(A-E).
5
• An analysis of the law enforcement training on racial and cultural differences required by
Penal Code section 13519.4. 10
• A review and analysis of racial and identity profiling policies and practices across
geographic areas in California, working in partnership with state and local law
enforcement agencies.
• Evidence-based research on intentional and implicit biases, and law enforcement stop,
search, and seizure tactics. 11
RIP A also requires the Board to consult with POST regarding its trainings on racial and cultural
differences. Aside from the duties of the Board, RIPA makes the following changes to law
enforcement procedures and practices. 12
• Requires the majority of California's law enforcement agencies to collect information on
stops made by their officers, and report this information to the Department.
• Tasks the Department with writing the regulations to implement this data collection in
consultation with the Board and other stakeholders. 13
• Requires the stop data collected be available to the public and prohibits the personal
information of the person stopped and the unique identifying information of the officer
from disclosure.
• Makes several changes to the civilian complaint data that is required to be reported to and
published by the Department. 14
• Expands the definition of racial profiling to include "identity profiling" and specifically
provides that the consideration of a person's personal characteristics cannot be a basis for
deciding who to stop or how to treat a person who has been stopped, except when relying
on a specific suspect description. 15
• Makes several changes to law enforcement's racial and cultural diversity training
requirements. 16
As noted above, RIP A requires the majority of California's law enforcement agencies to collect
information on all stops by their officers, excluding stops by custodial officers and those that
take place in a custodial setting. A "stop" is defined as any detention or search, including
consensual searches. 17
Significantly, the eight largest agencies in the state (those with 1,000 or more officers) began
collecting data on July 1, 2018, and are required to submit this data to the Department by April 1,
2019. These agencies are the California Highway Patrol, Los Angeles Police Department, Los
Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Riverside County Sheriffs Department, San Bernardino
County Sheriffs Department, San Diego County Sheriffs Department, San Diego Police
Department, and the San Francisco Police Department.
10 Pen. Code,§ 13519.4, subd. (3)(B).
11 Pen. Code, § 13519.4, subd. U)(3).
12 Assem. Bill No. 1518 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) § 1-2.
13 Gov. Code,§ 12525.2, subds. (a), (e).
14 Pen. Code,§ 13012.
15 Pen. Code,§ 13519.4, subd. (e).
16 Pen. Code, § 13519.4, subd. (h).
17 Gov. Code, § 12525.5, subd. (g)(2).
6
This year's report builds on the discussion in the Board's 2018 report regarding a baseline
understanding of racial and identity profiling and what law enforcement agencies are doing to
prevent and address it. This report does not include data regarding stops, because, as noted
above, the first wave of agencies is not required to submit this data until April 1, 2019.
Specifically, this report aims to enhance the transparency of the stop data collection process by
providing the public with detailed information on how the data is collected and submitted and
how the Department and law enforcement agencies ensure the integrity of this data. This report
also provides recommendations that can be incorporated by law enforcement agencies to enhance
their policies, procedures, and trainings on topics that intersect with bias and racial and identity
profiling.
In summary, this report:
1) Reviews the information that law enforcement agencies must collect and report on each
stop, and how agencies and the Department are ensuring the integrity of this data.
2) Provides best practice recommendations for agencies in drafting policies, procedures, and
trainings regarding civilian complaints and racial and identity profiling.
3) Analyzes the civilian complaint data submitted to the Department in 2017.
4) Explores how to address the potential for bias when officers respond to calls for service;
5) Analyzes the use of force data submitted to the Department in 2017. 18
6) Highlights methodologies that the Board may wish to use in analyzing data once it is
submitted to the Department by April 1, 2019.
The report also presents a blueprint of the Board's vision for work it hopes to pursue in future
reports. 19
As all California law enforcement agencies begin collecting stop data over the next several years,
in keeping with the spirit of the RIP A legislation, the Board encourages agencies to view the data
elements mandated by the statute and its implementing regulations as the floor, rather than the
ceiling, as to what data an agency will collect. As the regulations state, "the data elements ... are
the minimum that a reporting agency shall collect and report. Nothing in this section prohibits a
reporting agency from voluntarily collecting additional data."20 In keeping with the spirit of the
legislation, the Board encourages agencies to consider collecting and disseminating any data it
deems necessary or important for identifying disparities in law enforcement interactions with the
public. Agencies should not feel limited by the requirements in the regulations, but rather view
these elements as a minimum requirement.
As the data is submitted to the Department, the Board, law enforcement, and other stakeholders
will have the opportunity to analyze stop and complaint data by agency, together with agencies'
policies, procedures, and trainings. It is the Board's hope that this analysis will help identify any
unjustified disparities in law enforcement interactions with the public, and encourage law
18 The Board includes recommendations related to use of force because of its inherent relationship to police stop and
search practices. In addition, stop data reports are required to include information regarding actions taken during a stop, such as
the discharge or use of firearms, that also constitute a use of force that must be reported to the Department separately as a use of
force incident under AB 71.
19 Appendix A of this report contains a summary of legislation enacted in 2018 related to police accountability.
°
2 Cal. Code, § 999.227 subd. (a)(2).
7
enforcement agencies, policy makers and community members alike to collaborate to develop
solutions.
Furthermore, the Board encourages all law enforcement agencies to vigorously analyze their own
data to address any issues that may be identified at the local level. And in doing so, the Board
hopes that both the analysis methodologies used and the findings of those analyses are
transparent and available to the public. Law enforcement agencies should also reach out to
academics and other stakeholders who can supplement and guide agencies in conducting
meaningful analysis of this rich data set.
Future Board reports will provide this analytical information as well as continue to provide
recommendations that may be helpful in preventing or reducing racial and identity profiling.
These recommendations are intended to be utilized by law enforcement and community members
in the continual improvement of their departments.
The Board understands that success will only truly occur if all stakeholders are engaged and
work collaboratively and constructively. It is in this context that the Board, comprised of
professionals of diverse backgrounds and perspectives, comes to the table and offers solutions to
move law enforcement-community relations forward . The Board continually welcomes and
values public input from community members and law enforcement whether in its public
meetings or through direct submission of comments or questions to the Department to be
disseminated to the members.21 It is the Board's hope that this relationship and engagement will
continue to grow and bloom.
Best Practice Recommendations
In its 2018 report, the Board surveyed law enforcement agencies throughout the State of
California regarding the policies, procedures, and trainings they utilize to address racial and
identity profiling.22 The results of that survey, which include information from only those
agencies that submitted a response, highlighted that agencies approach this topic in a highly
variable manner. To help address these differences, the Board has compiled and analyzed best
practices drawn from a range of law enforcement, academic, governmental, and non-profit
organizations with relevant expertise in addressing racial and identity profiling in policing. As a
result, the Board is providing these best practices for law enforcement agencies to consider and
implement, where appropriate, to help prevent and address profiling if and when it occurs in
policing.
Specifically, the Board has highlighted some best practices for civilian complaint policies and
procedures, bias-free policing policies, and trainings related to racial and identity profiling. It
cannot be emphasized enough that these recommendations do not represent the full panoply of
recommendations or best practices that an agency could and should consider adopting, rather,
they aim to provide a foundation on which the Board hopes and plans to continue expanding
21 Since its first meeting in July of 2016, the Board has met publicly 12 times and has held 21 subcommittee meetings,
all of which included constructive public comment and involvement. To submit questions or concerns to the Board, please visit
the Board's website at https://oag.ca.gov/ab953/board for contact information and subscribe to the Board's mailing list at
https:// oag.ca.gov/ab95 3/subscri be .
22 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2018.
(2018). Available at https ://oag.ca.gov/s ites/all/fi les/agweb/pdfs/ripa/ripa-board-report-2018.pdf.
8
upon in future reports. These best practices can be found throughout the body of the report as
well as compiled in Appendix B for ease of reference.
The Board began its research into best practices by reviewing the governing law on the
prohibitions related to racial and identity profiling. Penal Code section 13 519 .4, which RIP A
amended, expressly states "racial or identity profiling is a practice that presents a great danger to
the fundamental principles of our Constitution and a democratic society. It is abhorrent and
cannot be tolerated."23 The statute expressly prohibits racial and identity profiling, which is
defined as "the consideration of, or reliance on, to any degree, actual or perceived race, color,
ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or
mental or physical disability in deciding which persons to subject to a stop or in deciding upon
the scope or substance of law enforcement activities following a stop, except that an officer may
consider or rely on characteristics listed in a specific suspect description."24 Further, racial
profiling is unlawful under federal and state constitutional law, violating the fundamental right of
equal protection under the law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution25 and Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution. 26 Along with this right to
equal protection is the fundamental right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by
government agents as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.27
In conducting its literature review on best practices for bias-free policing and related policies, the
Board focused on identifying consistent standards across a range of relevant law enforcement,
academic, governmental, and non-profit organizations that have expertise in this area. Since
2009, the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice (U.S. DOJ) has
conducted investigations or reached reform agreements with 15 police departments and sheriffs
departments throughout the country (two of which are California agencies), aimed at improving
bias-free policing policies in law enforcement agencies and implementing procedural justice
reforms.28 Many of these investigation reports and consent decrees contain similar policy
recommendations, several of which have also been advocated by human and civi 1 rights
organizations and researchers who have analyzed policies relating to racial and identity profiling.
All of the best practice recommendations contained in this report represent an accumulation of
best practices identified by the U.S. DOJ and information sourced from other relevant empirical
research conducted by universally well-regarded organizations such as the Police Executive
Research Forum (PERF),29 the International Association of Chiefs of Police's (IACP),30 the Vera
Institute,31 Fair and Impartial Policing,32 Stanford Social Psychological Answers to Real World
Questions (SPARQ),33 and Center for Policing Equity (CPE),34 among others.
23 Pen. Code,§ 13519.4, subd. (d)(2).
24 Pen. Code,§ 13519.4, subd. (e).
25 U.S. Const., 14th Amend.
26 Cal. Const., art. I, § 7.
27 U.S. Const., 4th Amend.
28 U.S. Dept. of Justice Civ. Rights Div,. An Interactive Guide to the Civil Rights Division's Police Reforms (Jan 1,
2017), pp. 8.
29 Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). Information available at https://www.policeforum.org/
30 International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). Information available at https://www.theiacp.org/
31 The Vera Institute of Justice. Information available at https://www.vera.org/
32 Fair and Impartial Policing. Information available at https ://fipolicing.com/
33 Stanford Social Psychological Answers to Real World Questions (SP ARQ). Information available at
https://sparg .stanford.ed u/
34 Center for Policing Equity (CPE). Information available at http://policingeguity.org/
9
The Board advises that these best practices are general recommendations, created with an eye
towards achieving its goal of eliminating racial and identity profiling in policing, but are by no
means exhaustive. Rather, these recommendations represent best practices that have appeared in
numerous consent decrees and scholarly studies regarding policies on and related to bias-free
policing. Each individual law enforcement agency should review its current policies, procedures,
and trainings to determine which of the following recommendations fit best within its
organization.
It is the Board's hope that these best practice resources will assist law enforcement agencies,
policymakers, and community members in developing, assessing and implementing bias-free
policing policies, procedures, and trainings. The Board understands that there must be sufficient
funding in order to implement these recommendations, and further understands that the amount
of funding and resources available to implement these recommendations varies depending on the
agency; however, agencies are encouraged to seek out grants and funding that will ensure that
the stop data collection is utilized to its fullest potential.
Even without additional resources, there are recommendations that can and should be adopted to
enhance the services that law enforcement agencies provide to the community. The Board
encourages cities, counties, and policymakers to work with law enforcement agencies under their
purview to ensure they are allocated the necessary funding and resources to implement the best
practices described in the report. The Board further recommends that the Legislature provide
sufficient funding to POST to assure that all agencies receive recommended and necessary
trainings, including training covering RIP A data collection and analysis, de-escalation, mental
health, and addiction, among other relevant topics.
As the Board continues to carry out its mission, it applauds the efforts of law enforcement
agencies and stakeholders to improve law enforcement-community relationships and take steps
toward eliminating racial and identity profiling in California. The Board recognizes and
understands that real progress cannot be effectuated without both law enforcement and
community support. However, it is hopeful that real change can be achieved. California has been
a leader on many fronts and this is yet another opportunity to demonstrate to the country that real
progress is possible when people work together towards a shared goal, in this case, the
elimination of racial and identity profiling in California.
10
STOP DATA
RIP A requires the majority of California's law enforcement agencies to collect information on
all stops by their officers, excluding stops by custodial officers and those that take place in a
custodial setting. A "stop" is defined as any detention or search, including consensual searches. 35
As noted above, agencies with 1,000 or more officers began collecting data on July 1, 2018, and
are required to submit this data to the Department by April 1, 2019. These agencies, the eight
largest in the state, include the California Highway Patrol, Los Angeles Police Department, Los
Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Riverside County Sheriffs Department, San Bernardino
County Sheriffs Department, San Diego County Sheriffs Department, San Diego Police
Department, and the San Francisco Police Department. In future years, the Board's annual report
will include a detailed analysis of this data, once it has been submitted to the Department. As the
data will not be available to review and analyze until April of 2019, this section will address the
following:
• Data to be collected.
• Methods of submitting the data to the Department.
• Data integrity.
• Potential methodologies to analyze stop data.
Figure 1, below, provides an overview of the collection and submission process, from the time
the officer collects the data and submits it to their agency to the time the agency submits this data
to the Department.
35 Gov. Code, § 12525.5, subd. (g)(2).
11
Figure 1: Overview of Collection and Submission Process
1. The Reporting 2. The Stop 3. The Stop is
Officer Collects Record is Stored Submitted to DOJ
Time rame: Completed in Methads: Stop records are Tlme(rome: Submitted ot
the officer's shif t, except in entered either directly into least annually, and no later
exigent circumstances. the DOJ•hosted Web than March 31".
Application or into the
M ethods: Doto collection agency's focal database. M ethods: Agencies hove
methods vary by agency three options, see below.
and officer. Use may vory It is important to note that
bosed on assignment type, the dota standards for DOI-Hosted Web
location, and available each method are the same. Appl/cation
equipment. Each method must utilize • Agency can either have
standard fields and values. officers submit directly to
In general, the options are:
DOJ or require a
Terminal in the Officer's Car supervisory review prior to
s DOI-Hosted Web
Applicatian submission
• Entire record is locked
• Accessible via existing when user clicks "Submit to
Smartphone ar Tablet connection to the DOI DOJ"
□ Web Services & Secure File
Local Database Transfer Prataca/ (SFTP}
• Stops may be integrated
Computer at the Station • These options ore for
within an existing loco/
submissions from a loco/
system
~ database
• Agency can collect
• Specific error resolution
additional doto or
Paper Form process must be followed
customize
~ • Records are locked upon
-
successful submission
I. DATA COLLECTION
A. Data Collected
The data collected on each stop includes three types of information: 1) information about the
stop itself; 2) perceived information about the person stopped; and 3) information about the
officer making the stop. Table 1, below, details the information the officer must report.36
36 For more information on the specific data collected, including a data collection template with the data values, or
choices, to select from regarding each data element, please see Appendix C. This template is also available on the Department's
website at https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/tlles/agweb/pdfs/ripa/regs-template.pdf.
12
Table 1: Officer Reporting Requirements
Information Regarding Stop
1. Date, Time, and Duration
2. Location
3. Reason for Stop
4. Was Stop in Response to Call for Service?
5. Actions Taken During Stop
6. Contraband or Evidence Discovered
7. Property Seized
8. Result of Stop
Information Regarding Officer's Perception of Person Stopped
1. Perceived Race or Ethnicity
2. Perceived Age
3. Perceived Gender
4. Perceived to be LGBT
5. Limited or No English Fluency
6. Perceived or Known Disability
Information Regarding Officer
1. Officer's Identification Number
2. Years of Experience
3. Type of Assignment
When initially recording the information about each stop (the information that becomes the stop
data report) officers will select from a standardized list ofresponses for each of the categories of
information. These standardized lists will ensure that the data collected is uniform for all
agencies. As will be discussed later in the section of the report, ensuring the uniformity of the
data is a critical step in preserving its integrity. When providing the "reason for the stop" and
"basis for the search" (if one is conducted), officers are also required to complete an explanatory
field ( of no more than 250 characters), in which the officer explains in their own words why the
person was stopped and/or searched.
The purposed goal of this explanatory field is to obtain richer information about the reason for
the stop and/or search beyond what is contained in the standardized "check the box" lists. And,
as required by the RIP A regulations, the explanation provided by the officer in these open fields
must include additional detail beyond the general check boxes selected. However, in doing so,
law enforcement agencies must adhere to their statutory responsibility to protect the privacy of
the person stopped as well as the officer involved. Thus, to ensure that privacy is maintained, the
reporting officer should not include any personally identifying information of any individual
13
community member involved in the stop nor any unique identifying information that could
identify any officer involved in the stop. 37
As an additional safeguard to ensure privacy, it is critical that officers and supervisors review the
open explanatory fields to confirm that this privacy protected information is not submitted to the
Department. 38 It cannot be emphasized enough that the reporting law enforcement agency is
solely responsible for ensuring that personally identifying information of any individual and
unique identifying information of any officer is not submitted to the Department. 39
B. Deadlines for Submitting Stop Data to the Department
The size of an agency determines when it is required to begin collecting and submitting data to
the Department. Stop data collection for the eight largest agencies in the state began on July 1,
2018. These agencies have informally been termed the "Wave l" agencies due to the rolling
nature of the stop data collection time line. Accordingly, the next set of agencies to begin data
collection are thus termed "Wave 2" and so on until the final group, "Wave 4" begins collecting
the data. Table 2, below, details the collection and reporting deadlines for each "Wave."
Table 2: Collection and Reporting Deadlines
Reporting Size of Data Collection Data Must be Approx. #of
Wave Agency Begins Reported to DOJ Agencies
1 1,000+ July 1, 2018 April 1, 2019 8
2 667-999 Jan. 1, 2019 April 1, 2020 7
3 334-666 Jan. 1, 2021 April 1, 2022 10
4 1-333 Jan. 1, 2022 April 1, 2023 400+
As noted above, agencies in the first wave ofreporting began collecting data on July 1, 2018.
These eight agencies are the California Highway Patrol, Los Angeles Police Department, Los
Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Riverside County Sheriff's Department, San Bernardino
County Sheriff's Department, San Diego County Sheriff's Department, San Diego Police
Department, and the San Francisco Police Department. The staggered starting collection dates
allow the individual agencies and the Department to ramp up the systems to collect, store,
transmit, and process such a large amount of data. Once the agency begins collecting the data it
is statutorily due to the Department no later than April 1 of each year; however, agencies may
and are encouraged to submit the data on a more frequent basis, if practical.
37 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 11, div. 1, ch. 19 § 999.226, subds. (a)(lO)(B), (a)(12)(8)(2).
38 AB 1518 amended the stop data collection required by RIP A, to ensure that the badge number or other unique
identifying information of peace officers not be made available to the public, and provided that law enforcement agencies are
solely responsible for ensuring that personally identifying information of the individual stopped or any other information that is
exempt from disclosure are not transmitted to the Department in an open text field. (Gov. Code,§ 12525.2, subd. (d).
39 Cal. Gov. Code,§ 12525.2, subd. (d); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 11, div. 1, ch. 19 § 999.228, subd. (d).
14
As shown in the chart below, the number of officers required to submit stop data is expected to
grow significantly over time as more agencies begin collecting data under the deadlines set forth
in the statute and illustrated above. Already, in the first year of data collection, approximately
20,000 law enforcement officers across the state are subject to the new stop data requirements,
and every subsequent year the total number of officers required to report stop data increases as
more agencies begin reporting. Figure 2 visually displays this information.
Figure 2: Estimated Number of Officers Subject to Stop Data Reporting Requirements40
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
C. Outreach and Training
Law enforcement agencies and the Department's California Justice Information Services
Division (CJIS) have been closely collaborating to implement RIP A's stop data collection
requirements. Some of the key activities of CJIS working with reporting agencies over the last
several months are listed below.
• Multiple site visits to each agency in Wave 1 and Wave 2.
• Meetings with vendors that supply agencies with local record management systems.
• Publishing technical specifications, data dictionary, and other system documents.
• Regional meetings with Wave 1 and Wave 2 agencies to review and walk through
technical documents.
• Recurring conference calls with all Wave 1 and Wave 2 agencies.
• Webinars co-hosted with the Department's Civil Rights Enforcement Section.
• Processing test records submitted to the Department prior to launching data collection.
• Creating and testing user accounts for agencies to use prior to launching data collection.
• Conducting train-the-trainer sessions with Wave 1 and Wave 2 agencies on the Stop Data
Collection System.
40 These figures are derived by adding the total number of officers who are subject to the reporting requirements, for
each agency, as each tier of agencies begins to collect data. For example, the figure of 20,000 officers for 2018 represents the
total number of officers who are subject to the reporting requirements from the eight agencies that began reporting on July 1,
2018. For 2019, the total number ofofficers from Wave 1 and Wave 2 agencies (15 agencies in all) who will be reporting data is
25,000. These numbers include officers from the previous reporting year.
15
• Responding to individual questions posed by law enforcement agencies on a case-by-case
basis.
ens
Now that the largest eight agencies are actively collecting data, continues to work closely
with the administrators from each of these agencies and provides ongoing training as needed to
ens
support their agency's needs. also maintains a Help Desk to provide 24/7 phone support
and trouble shoot any technical issues agencies may experience as they submit their data to the
statewide repository. Typical support calls may involve assisting a user to reset their password or
explaining a system-generated message.
Finally, individual agencies have also taken a variety of steps to ensure the successful
implementation of the new stop data collection and reporting requirements. These activities
include, but are not limited to drafting and implementing agency policies regarding the data
collection, developing administrative bulletins, conducting in-person trainings, and online
tutorials.
II. DATA INTEGRITY
In order for the required collection of stop data to meet the goal of shedding light on the state of
racial and identity profiling in California, all stakeholders must be sure that the data is reliable
and has been collected with a high degree of integrity.
Data integrity means that:
• Required information is reported accurately (e.g., that stop data records mirror what
actually happens during the police-community interactions).
• Each record that is submitted is complete (e.g., there is no missing information about a
particular stop).
• All required data is collected systematically ( e.g., all stops that are subject to reporting
requirements is captured).
To protect the integrity of the stop data collected under RIP A, a number of steps have been
taken. Those safeguards are discussed in the following sections.
A. Data Integrity Protocols Maintained by the Department of Justice
All records submitted to the Department are stored in a statewide repository called the Stop Data
Collection System (SDCS). A series of rules and user permissions are used by the SDCS to
protect the quality and integrity of the data. Some of these rules are listed below.
• Reported data must be complete, and follow uniform standards.
• Access to stop records is restricted.
• A specified error resolution process must be followed.
• Once submitted, perception data is locked and cannot be changed by the officer or
agency.
• Transactions are stored in system audit logs.
16
Once an agency's records are submitted to the Department, the data can only be altered in two
circumstances: 1) error validation/correction; or 2) written requests by an agency to CJIS to
correct specific information on a case-by-case basis.
Automatic Error Validation/Correction
To ensure data conforms to the requirements of RIP A and its regulations, the system performs
validation on every record and every field. The system automatically flags data entries that do
not comply with the Department's technical specifications.
For data submitted via the Department-hosted Web Application, errors will be immediately
detected. Error messages will be displayed on the screen for correction. Any valid data will be
saved, but the record will be flagged with an incomplete status until any errors are resolved.
Agency supervisors can access online reports to help ensure incomplete records are resolved in a
timely manner.
For agencies submitting data via Web Services or SFTP, error messages are also used to identify
any missing or invalid data. All valid data is saved to the system, and the system will return error
messages to the submitting agency. A rigorous error resolution process dictates whether or not
update messages can be transmitted to correct errors. For example, any perception data fields are
locked and cannot be subsequently edited by the agency, even if a perception data field contains
an invalid code. If a correction is sent, the automated process will validate whether or not the
record or field can be edited. If a change is applied to a record, a detailed audit log captures the
original value and edited value.
Written Requests by Agencies to Correct Data After It Has Been Submitted to the Department
Once an agency successfully submits a record to the Department, the record is considered
"locked" and the agency can no longer edit the record. If assistance is needed for a correction
after the record is locked, requests must be submitted to the Department in writing. Approval is
not automatic and is reviewed by management on a case-by-case basis. Any records edited
through this exception case would be captured in a detailed audit log to indicate the original
value and edited value. As of November 1, 2018, the Department has not received any such
requests.
B. Data Integrity Protocols Maintained by Law Enforcement Agencies
As part of its collaborative outreach and work with law enforcement, the Board invited all of the
Wave 1 agencies to attend its November 2018 meeting to discuss the agencies various protocols
for collecting, submitting, and ensuring the integrity of the stop data they collect and submit to
the Department. While not all agencies were able to attend the Board meeting in person, written
responses on this topic were either addressed in person, by means of a written response, or a
combination of the two by all but one of the Wave 1 agencies.41 Highlights from their responses
and presentations, organized by question, are outlined below.
41 Riverside County Sheriff's Department did not respond to this request for information nor did they present at the
Board meeting.
17
How Do Officers Collect and Report Stop Data to Their Agency?
The agencies responded that officers have several methods by which to collect data, including 1)
mobile digital computers in patrol vehicles; 2) tablets, cell phones or other mobile devices; 3)
desktop computers at stations and, as a temporary measure, 3) paper forms that would then be
used to input the data electronically. The primary data collection method is electronic. Several
agencies noted the length of time officers devoted to collecting and submitting the data for each
stop. As more agencies begin to collect data, the Board may wish to explore and analyze this
metric as well as agency costs in future reports.
Do Agencies Have Policies and Training Courses to Implement the Stop Data Collection
Requirements Mandated by RIPA?
The agencies indicated that they have implemented policies, such as bulletins and orders, and
training for their officers and supervisors regarding the data collection required under RIP A.
These policies and training materials include bulletins and updates, videos, online training, and
ongoing training that occurs regularly during shift briefings by shift supervisors. Several
agencies also provided "Train the Trainer" programs and/or other training specifically for
supervisors.
The San Diego County Sheriff's Department also created a specific RIPA Implementation
Committee which is tasked with addressing issues related to the stop data collection program.
The implementation committee also answers questions regarding RIPA from supervisors, the
public, and deputies.
What Steps Are in Place to Ensure the Data Submitted Meets the Department's Data Standards?
Agencies utilize a variety of automatic validation checks to ensure their systems collect required
data and flag entries that contain incomplete or invalid codes. Examples are detailed below.
• An officer may not be able to navigate to the next data capture screen if required data
entry fields for the current screen are left blank.
• Data fields are hidden when they do not apply; for example, if the person was not
searched, the search-related fields are not shown to the user.
• If the person stopped was not a student, the check boxes that apply only to stops of
students in a K-12 setting do not appear in data entry screens. Users must select choices
from the reference tables identified in the Department's technical data dictionary.
• Use of the tables from the Department's technical data dictionary helps ensure that only
valid offense codes, cities and school names are entered.
What Happens to Data After an Officer Completes a Stop Data Record? If a Record is Submitted
to a Supervisor for Review, What Changes, ifA ny, can be Made to the Record?
California Highway Patrol
Supervisors review the record to ensure it complies with law and policy, including confirmation
that the open text fields do not contain personally identifiable information (PII) or unique
identifying information (UII) of any person. Supervisors also review for grammatical errors and
18
to confirm that the data complies with the technical specifications. Supervisors cannot edit the
record but, if necessary, will return the record to the officer to correct and re-submit.
Los Angeles Police Department
Once a record is placed in a supervisory queue, it is locked (i.e., the officer cannot access the
record). A supervisor can only edit the open text fields and will do so if the field contains PII or
UII or other grammatical or derogatory information. A supervisor that discovers such
information will either remove the PII or UII in question or notify the officer to correct the field.
Once a supervisor approves the record, it is flagged so it can be exported to the Department.
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
The deputy completes the stop report and submits it. The supervisor will review it, paying
particular attention to the open text fields to ensure there is no PII or UII included. If any
changes are required, including grammar, the supervisor will send the report back to the deputy
for correction. Once approved by the supervisor, the report is submitted to await transmission to
the Department. The agency's Data Systems Bureau conducts random audits and reviews of the
collected data.
San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department
Once a stop record is submitted, it is saved in the database but held in a review queue. The
review queue is used by authorized auditing personnel to ensure no PII, UII, or any other
prohibited or non-conforming data has been entered into any of the three open text fields.
The only data that is capable of being viewed and/or corrected is the information contained in the
open field narrative sections of the form. All of the other data elements and values are not part of
the audit process and are incapable of being changed by auditors. An authorized auditor can
remove any PII or UII and clarify text entries in order to ensure compliance with the regulations
and ensure any non-conforming information is corrected. The corrected form is then placed into
the database for ultimate submission to the Department in accordance with the regulations. The
original text and any subsequent corrections made during the auditing process are retained. The
complete audit trail is saved in the database to ensure data integrity at all levels.
San Diego Police Department
Once the data is submitted internally, it is maintained in a secured file. A supervisor does directly
review the data and an officer cannot make changes once it submits the data to that secured file.
Officers must verify, through the use of their daily journals and specific reports, that they have
submitted stop data. The supervisor is required to inspect unit history files and approve reports
related to data collection to ensure compliance.
San Diego County Sheriff's Department
Deputies cannot change any data once it has been submitted via the agency's application. A
sheriffs captain or the RIP A Implementation Committee reviews the database to ensure that it is
compliant with Department standards and does not include PII, UII, or errors. San Diego County
19
Sheriffs Department has an automated process to bulk check for known PII or UII patterns, such
as dates and names. Results are reviewed to identify positive PII or UII matches, and errors. If
PII, UII, or an error is found in the narrative text fields, only the portion of text that constitutes
PII, UII, or error is removed through a manual edit process only available to personnel with
administrative privileges.
The changes are captured in an audit log along with the original state of the stop, the time of
change, who made the change, and the reason it was necessary. If data errors are encountered as
part of the Department submission process, the same edit process is used to fix errors before
resubmitting.
San Francisco Police Department
Officers submit data directly to the Department's state repository of stop data, via the
Department's web-based application. Currently San Francisco Police Department is not utilizing
the supervisory review function of the Department's web-based application, but they informed
the Board that they are considering implementing that in the future.
Ill. METHODS OF DATA SUBMISSION TO THE DEPARTMENT
In the spirit of facilitating the ability of a large and diverse array of individual law enforcement
agencies to successfully comply with the stop data requirements, the regulations provide
agencies with three methods to submit data. These three methods of submitting data to the
statewide repository are: 1) a Department-hosted Web Application, 2) Web Services, and 3)
Secure File Transfer Protocol. The Department developed these three submission methods to
provide flexibility to meet the needs of an agency's local infrastructure. It is important to note
that the data standards for each of these methods are the same. Each method utilized standard
fields and validation checks, which will be discussed in the next section of this chapter. Table 3,
below, details the submission methods initial reporting agencies will be using.
20
Table 3: Wave 1 Agency Submission Methods
Agency Type of Data Submission
California Highway Patrol Web Services
Los Angeles Police Department Secure File Transfer Protocol
Los Angeles County Sheriffs
Web Services
Department
Riverside County Sheriffs
Secure File Transfer Protocol*
Department
San Bernardino County Sheriff's
Web Services*
Department
San Diego Police Department Web Services*
San Diego County Sheriffs
Web Services*
Department
San Francisco Police Department Department-hosted Web Application
*These agencies are using a locally installed copy ofa n application
developed by the San Diego County Sheriff's Departments.
For additional detail on the three submission methods, please see Appendix D.
IV. POSSIBLE METHODOLOGIES FOR ANALYZING STOP DATA
The 2018 Board report identified different methodologies that could be used to analyze the data
regarding stops that is being collected by law enforcement agencies in California, to identify if
and where there may be racial and identity profiling. 42
Any methodology that evaluates bias suffers from some weakness, so overreliance on one
method may lead to inaccurate conclusions. For this reason, the Board presents two possible
methodologies that could be used to analyze the data in future reports. Either of the two
methodologies, as explained in more detail below, could be applied to analyze the stop data for
future Board reports. The benefit of pursuing these proposed analyses is that they can evaluate
whether potential racial bias is present in pre-stop decisions and post-stop outcomes.
Pre-stop decisions refer to an officer's decision to stop a given individual. The pre-stop method
analyzes the number of stops, and potentially disparate numbers for various identity groups, i.e.,
42 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2018.
(2018) pp. 62-68. Available at https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/ripa/ripa-board-report-2018.pdf
21
"pre-stop" data, which is also called the "Veil of Darkness" methodology because it compares
the data under conditions where there is daylight and darkness.43
Post-stop outcomes refer to the outcomes of a stop and, for purposes of RIPA, would include
whether a search conducted during a stop was successful in yielding contraband or evidence.
This second "post-stop" method looks specifically at how often searches conducted during a stop
were successful across identity groups and the disparity between search and search success rates.
This method is referred to as the "outcome test" because it looks at the results of the stop. 44
The stop data collected under RIP A will contain additional information outside of what could be
used to perform the pre-stop and post-stop tests above. For this reason, the Board will also
include descriptive analyses to provide readers information that may not be provided using the
two methodologies below. These additional types of analyses may take the form of providing the
number of civilians of the various identity groups that were stopped. Additionally, these identity
groups may be broken down by the proportion of their members that have certain actions (such
as use of force, being handcuffed, or having property seized) taken on them, or have certain
outcomes ( such as being released with no action, being arrested without a warrant, or having a
parent or legal guarding contacted) to their stops. Providing these additional statistics and
analyses may provide readers with more context in which to view the results of the pre-stop and
post-stop analyses. They could also provide more insight into post-stop outcome measures that
the examinations of search hit rates do not include.
The below discussion on veil of darkness technique and outcome tests should not be interpreted
to be the only forms of analysis that the Board may decide to explore with respect to the stop
data analysis that will take place in future Board reports. Indeed, gaining an understanding of the
issues the Board is tasked with examining may require the use of additional or supplemental
analysis or alternative methods to be employed in the future.
The Board is considering these two analytical approaches for several reasons. First, these
methods are well-established in the research literature.45 As thoroughly employed, analyzed and
critiqued methods, their strengths and weaknesses are well known and will be kept in mind when
discussing the results and determining future directions. Second, as established methods, there
are also a number of modifications or adjustments that can be made if the need arises. Third,
their relatively simple approach makes their application and interpretation straightforward for
both the Board and for members of the public to understand. Moreover, the successful replication
of findings will build confidence in the findings.
43 Grogger and Ridgeway. Testing/or Racial Profiling in Traffic Stops from Behind a Veil ofD arkness. (2012) 109(1)
Journal of the American Statistical Association, pp. 878-887.
44 Knowles et al. Racial Bias in Motor Vehicle Searches: Theory and Evidence. (2001) 109(1) Journal of Political
Economy, pp. 203-229.
45 In an ongoing meta-analysis of 155 (at the time of this writing) police racial profiling studies, researchers found that
47 percent (n = 459) of the effect sizes of analyses examining racial profiling in stops were from studies using the VOD
technique. These researchers also found that 25 percent (n = 771) of the effect sizes from all the racial profiling studies they
examined were from hit rate analyses (Mitchell, Lawshe, and Morales. Racial Profiling: A Meta-Analytic Synthesis oft he
Research. (2018) Paper presented at the meeting of The American Society of Criminology, Atlanta, GA.
22
Finally, using these methodologies will make it feasible to apply these tests to all areas of
California because they will not require collecting benchmarks manually or pairing the data with
external data sources (i.e., creating a measurement by which to compare the data).
Benchmarks are important in the analysis of racial bias because they reflect what behavior would
be in an unbiased world. For example, if the benchmark data suggest that two racial or identity
groups are present at equal proportions, but one group constitutes the vast majority of stops, then
this could indicate racial bias. A typical approach to establishing benchmarks for traffic stops, for
example, would involve human observers standing at intersections and streets in order to record
the number and percentage of drivers from different racial or ethnic groups that pass through by
vehicle. These benchmarks would then be compared against the racial composition of individuals
detained during traffic stops in those same areas.
This approach to establishing benchmarks is time and resource intensive. Therefore, establishing
similar benchmarks for the entire state would be unrealistic and infeasible. Benchmark data
based on resident population is more readily available without manual collection. However, a
significant limitation of utilizing resident population data is that civilians are often stopped in
geographic areas where they do not live and, thus, are not accounted for in the population data
their stops are being compared against. Additionally, the Board has been tasked with examining
bias as it pertains not only to race and ethnicity, but also to other identity groups as well, some of
which may not be represented in datasets that some studies have used as benchmark data in the
past.
These limitations do not mean that rigorous studies cannot employ benchmarking comparison
data. They are merely stated as insight into why the two methods discussed in the sections that
follow are being considered. The following sections discuss each of the approaches in greater
detail.
A. Pre-Stop Analysis: Veil of Darkness Technique
As noted above, one way to analyze pre-stop decisions is by using the veil of darkness technique.
Two researchers, Grogger and Ridgeway, developed this approach and first applied it to stop
data from Oakland, CA in a RAND Corporation study published in 2006. 46 The veil of darkness
technique is less susceptible to issues surrounding external or manually-collected benchmarking
data because it takes advantage of daylight savings changes to establish a benchmark.
Changes in daylight theoretically affect visibility and the ability to perceive attributes of an
individual, such as their race or other identity information. The veil of darkness technique
examines stops that occur during the inter-twilight period. This period, roughly between 5 :00
p.m. and 9:00 p.m., is where it is light out during parts of the year where daylight savings are in
effect, but dark during standard time. The veil of darkness technique uses changes in day! ight
46 Grogger and Ridgeway. Testing/or Racial Pro.filing in Traffic Stops from Behind a Veil ofD arkness. (2012) 109(1)
Journal of the American Statistical Association, pp. 878-887.
23
savings and the coincident changes in visibility to evaluate bias against racial and other identity
groups.47
The core assumption of the veil of darkness method is, if law enforcement is targeting drivers of
a specific identity group, evidence of profiling would be most apparent during the daylight when
a driver's identity is presumably more visible than at night. The veil of darkness method
compares the proportion of stopped individuals that an identity group composes during daylight
to the group's proportion at night when law enforcement cannot observe their identity group
membership as easily. Since schedules do not often change immediately before or after the time
change, the populations that will be present during the same period are unlikely to change. If no
bias is demonstrated, then the proportions of identity groups stopped before and after the shift in
daylight shifts should be very similar. This test is intended to be a measure of bias in the
decisions that officers make to initiate stops of civilians.
For the veil of darkness test, establishing benchmarks is not necessary since the driving
population immediately before and after daylight savings is likely to be the same. 48 The
benchmark comes from the race-blinding effect of darkness, since it is more difficult to perceive
racial identities at night. Rates of nighttime stops will then be compared to those of daylight
stops, where race or identity group is more easily perceived and bias is more likely to be evident,
to determine if significant differences between who is stopped under the two conditions exists.
Application to RIPA Stop Data
To analyze the RIP A stop data, the analysis would consider stops made in the inter-twilight
period, typically sometime between 5:00 p.m. at the earliest and 9:00 p.m. at the latest. To apply
the simplest version of this test, the only information that is necessary is the location, time and
date of the stop, and the stopped individual's race, gender, or other identity grouping. The
statistical methods often used in the veil of darkness tests, like logistic regression, are available
to not only estimate the discrepancies between the two, but also report the statistical uncertainty
around those estimates.
Additional Considerations and Limitations
The change in daylight savings is intended to serve as a proxy for the visibility of a civilian's
race. Depending on ambient lighting, this may not be a completely faithful proxy in urban
areas.49 Researchers have considered ambient lighting, like proximity to streetlights, and
additional contextual information to help evaluate the relative risk ofbeing stopped.50 However,
a similar undertaking would be infeasible on a statewide scale. Additionally, this approach would
be limited to the inter-twilight period and is intended for analysis of vehicle stops. Further, while
the method is open to modifications to account for new considerations, in its proposed
47 Taniguchi et al., A Test of Racial Disproportionality in Traffic Stops Conducted by the Raleigh Police Department.
(2016) RTI International.; Worden et al. Testing/or Racial Profiling with the Veil-of-Darkness Method. (2012) 15(1) Police
Quarterly, pp. 92-111.
48 RIP A stop data will have unique considerations to bear in mind. The first is that pedestrian and vehicle stops are
reported as one in the data. However, it may be possible to identify some vehicle stops if the reason for the stop is a vehicle
related infraction.
49 I-Iorrace and Roblin, How Dark is Dark? Bright Lights, Big City, Racial Profiling (2016). 98(2) Review of
Economics and Statistics, pp. 226-232.
°
5 Kalinowski et al., Endogenous Driving Behavior in Veil of Darkness Tests for Racial Profiling (2017).
24
application other relevant features like tinted windows or make or model of car, which may serve
as proxy for race, cannot be accounted for because no data on these issues will be available with
RIPA stop data. If the Department becomes aware of methodologies that address these
limitations or better measure pre-stop decisions using these stop data, it may elect to include
analyses using those methods in the future.
B. Post-Stop Analysis: Outcome Tests
The outcome test, by contrast to the veil of darkness test, helps identify potential bias in
decisions made after the stop is made. Outcome tests compare the discrepancies between the
percentages of successful searches conducted on stopped individuals. These percentages are also
referred to as "hit rates." For discretionary searches based upon consent, reasonable suspicion, or
probable cause, equal hit rates across identity groups may signify a lack of bias, whereas
differences may imply differential standards in conducting a search.51
Like the veil of darkness approach, the outcome test does not require a benchmark in order to
work. This is because the comparisons being drawn are between hit rates of identity groups who
are searched. The method holds that, under unbiased conditions, the hit rates of individuals
would be more or less the same. If the hit rates are more or less the same, officers are using a
common threshold of suspicion for each racial and identity group. When the hit rates are
significantly different between identity groups, this may suggest that officers are not applying the
same standard to justify a search of one group compared others. For instance, a high hit rate
would suggest that officers require a large amount of information that suggests to them they will
find evidence or contraband, should they choose to conduct a search. Meanwhile, a low hit rate
would suggest that officers require less information to justify a search. Evidence for bias exists
when we can infer a low threshold to search some identity groups and higher ones for others.
This test requires researchers to identify all stops, as well as those that lead to searches, and of
those searches the number of those which lead to discoveries of contraband or evidence, and
their locations. With this information in hand, it is possible to use inferential statistics to
determine if these differences between hit rates are due to random chance or appear more
systematic, thus, evidencing possible biased practices.
Application to RIPA Stop Data
To analyze the RIP A data, comparisons between different racial and identity groups per location
could be evaluated. Conventionally, comparisons are made between the majority group and the
various minority groups, such as making comparisons between white and black civilians.
Comparisons of how often identity groups are searched and how often those searches result in
evidence or contraband being found can be made. The types of evidence and contraband that
successful searches yield may also be explored using the data that will be available. Inferential
statistical tests are available to estimate statistically significant differences.
51 Knowles et al., Racial Bias in Motor Vehicle Searches: Theory and Evidence (2001) 109(1) Journal of Political
Economy, pp. 203-229.; Persico and Todd, The Hit Rates Test for Racial Bias in Motor-Vehicle Searches (2008) 25(1) Justice
Quarterly, pp. 37-53.
25
Additional Considerations and limitations
One disadvantage of using outcome methodology is the "inframarginality," problem, which has
the potential to lead to the incorrect attribution of bias. This problem, as illustrated by Pierson,
Simoiu, and Overgoor, can be demonstrated by imagining two identity groups (Group One and
Group Two), each with two subgroups (A and B) that have different probabilities of carrying
contraband, either low (A) or high (B). 52 Imagine that Group One A has a 5% chance of holding
contraband and Group One B has a 50% chance of holding contraband. Group Two A has 5%
chance and Group Two B has a 75% chance of holding contraband. Suppose officers choose to
search individuals if they have at least a 10% chance of finding contraband. Even though officers
are applying a neutral baseline, they would end up having a lower success rate for Group One
than Group Two, which could provide evidence of bias even though they are applying a search
threshold without bias. For this reason, it is important to integrate enough information, such as
location to hedge against this, where possible. 53 Department research staff will make use of the
location data, to the extent possible, in order to counter this limitation. Additional tests can be
pursued, as needed, in future reports.
52 Pierson et al., A Large-Scale Analysis of Racial Disparities in Police Stops Across the United States (2017).
53 Anwar and I-Ianming, An Alternative Test of Racial Prejudice in Motor Vehicle
Searches: Theory and Evidence. (2006) 96(1) American Economic Review, pp. 127-151.; Engel, A Critique of the
"Outcome Test" in Racial Profiling Research (2008) 25(1) Justice Quarterly, pp. 1-36.
26
RACIAL AND IDENTITY PROFILING POLICIES AND ACCOUNTABILITY
One of the Board's most significant duties is to review and analyze "racial and identity profiling
policies and practices across geographic areas in California, working in partnership with state
and local law enforcement agencies."54 With this goal in mind, last year the Board surveyed all
California law enforcement agencies subject to stop data reporting. The survey sought
information on their current policies and practices relevant to racial and identity profiling, efforts
to enhance law enforcement-community relations and reduce biases in policing, and policies and
methods for receiving civilian complaints. Based on the survey responses, the Board observed
that while most agencies did have a specific policy or portion of a policy that addressed racial
and identity profiling, there was little consistency in what was included in those policies across
those 114 responding agencies out of 425 total agencies.55
In an effort to address the observed inconsistencies, the Board has researched existing evidence
based best practices for policies devoted to preventing racial and identity profiling in policing,
and compiled best practices or standards that all California law enforcement agencies should
review and, if appropriate, adopt in order to help prevent and identify racial and identity profiling
if and where it exists. The Board acknowledges that to understand how a law enforcement
agency is working to identify and prevent bias and profiling, it will need to examine policies that
specifically aim to prevent profiling and biased policing as well as policies that govern prompt
and appropriate remediation if potential problems are identified. It is also necessary to analyze
the degree to which principles of equitable treatment in the provision of policing services are
integrated throughout an agency's policies, culture, and practices more broadly.
Below, the Board provides best practice recommendations for some of the many policies that are
related to the prevention of racial and identity profiling. These recommendations do not represent
the full panoply ofrecommendations or best practices that an agency could and should consider
adopting; rather, they aim to provide a foundation the Board hopes and plans to continue
expanding upon in future reports. The Board again wishes to emphasize that law enforcement
agencies should feel free to adopt additional best practices beyond what are listed here.
I. BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS
The following best practice recommendations are drawn from a range of relevant law
enforcement, academic, governmental, and non-profit organizations that have expertise in this
area. For additional information on the Board's approach to identifying best practices, please see
the introduction.
54 Pen. Code §13519.4, subds. U)(3) & (A)-(E).
55 Please note that of the 425 law enforcement agencies in the State that were sent the survey, 114 agencies participated,
and thus the responses may not be representative of all agencies in the State.
27
A. Agencies Should Have a Clear Policy Devoted to the Prevention of Racial and Identity Profiling
Foundational to any bias-free policing policy should be the inclusion of a clear written policy
and procedure regarding an agency's commitment to identifying and eliminating racial and
identity profiling if and where it exists. Agencies should consider partnering with various
stakeholders and representatives of the community in developing this policy. Some of the
principles that agencies may wish to include in the policy are listed below.
• Agencies should create a separate policy dedicated to bias-free policing that expressly
prohibits racial and identity profiling. The policy should explicitly and strongly express
the agency's core values and expectations when it comes to bias-free policing.56
• Sworn and non-sworn personnel should be directed to interact with all members of the
public in a professional, impartial, fair, respectful, and nondiscriminatory manner. 57
• All persons (i.e., both members of the public and agency personnel) should be treated
equally without regard to protected characteristics. California state civil rights laws
should be used as a guide for the characteristics that should be included within the policy.
These characteristics include, but are not limited to, race, color, ancestry, ethnicity,
national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, mental
disability, and physical disability. 58
• Officers should be prohibited from using proxies for protected characteristics, including
language ability, geographic location, mode of transportation, or manner of dress, among
others.59
• The policy should clearly articulate when the consideration of race, ethnicity, disability
and other protected characteristics is inappropriate in carrying out duties and when it is
legitimate policing to consider them ( e.g., when a specific suspect description includes
race or other protected characteristics). 60
56 IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center, Unbiased Policing.; PERF, Operational Strategies to Build Police
Community Trust and Reduce Crime in Minority Communities (2018).; US. v. Alamance County SheriffTenyJohnson (2016) 2:
16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.; US. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) 1: l 7-cv-00099-JKB.
57 IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center, Standards of Conduct.; US. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al.
(2017) l :l 7-cv-00099-JKB.; U.S. v. City ofN ewark (2016) 2: 16-cv-0 l 731-MCA-MAH.
58 IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center, Police-Citizen Contacts.; PERF, Strengthening Relationships Between Police
and Immigration Communities in a Complex Political Environment (2018). US. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al.
(2017) l:17-cv-00099-JKB.; U.S. v. CityofSeattle(2012) 12-CV-1282.
59 IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center, Unbiased Policing.; US. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al.
(2017) l :l 7-cv-00099-JKB.
60 IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center, Unbiased Policing.; Pen. Code, § 13519.4, subd. (e); PERF, Constitutional
Policing as A Cornerstone of Community Policing (2015).; U.S. v. City ofC leveland (2015).
28
B. Policies Covering the Prevention of Racial and Identity Profiling Should Be Easily Accessible and
Well-Integrated into the Agency's Culture
• The policy should be accessible in many formats such as online, in person at the agency,
at other governmental and non-governmental locations, and from an agency personnel, if
requested.61
• Agencies should develop and use a language assistance plan and policy that includes
protocols for interpretation (including Braille and American Sign Language) that is
tailored to particular settings ( e.g., interviews in jails or where person is otherwise in
custody, interactions at police stations, interactions with officers at stops, etc.).62
• Bias-free policing principles should be integrated into management, policies and
procedures, job descriptions, recruitment, training, personnel evaluations, resource
deployment, tactics, and accountability systems.63
• The policy should include cross references to other relevant policies from the agency
(such as civilian complaints, stops, use of force, training, etc.) and, where possible,
provide links to the text of those policies. 64
C. Policies Covering the Prevention of Racial and Identity Profiling Should Have Concrete Definitions to
Ensure Its Principles Are Consistently Applied
• The policy should include a robust list of definitions of key terms, protected classes and
characteristics, including but not limited to: 65
o racial or identity profiling o age
o bias-free policing o religion
o race o gender identity or expression
o color o sexual orientation
o ethnicity o mental disability
o national origin o physical disability
o ancestry
61 US. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) 1 :17-cv-00099-JKB.
62 US. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) l:l 7-cv-00099-JKB; US. v. City ofN ewark (2016) 2: 16-
cv-01731-MCA-MAH.
63 IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center, Unbiased Policing.; US. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al.
(2017) 1 :17-cv-00099-JKB.; U S. v. City ofN ewark (2016) 2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.; U S. v. City ofN ew Orleans (2013) 2:
12-cv-0 1924-SM-JCW.
64 US. v. City ofS eattle (2012) 12-CV-1282.
65 Pen. Code, § 13519.4, subd. (e ); The protected classes and characteristics identified here are derived from various
California civil rights laws. These include the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 51 et seq., the Ralph Act, Civil Code
section 51. 7, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12920 et seq., Penal Code section
13519.4, and Government Code sections 12525.5 and 11135, among others.
29
• "Racial or identity profiling" should be defined in the policy in accordance with California
Penal Code 13519.4, subdivision (e), as follows:
o "the consideration of, or reliance on, to any degree, actual or perceived race,
color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression,
sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability in deciding which persons to
subject to a stop or in deciding upon the scope or substance ofl aw enforcement
activities following a stop, except that an officer may consider or rely on
characteristics listed in a specific suspect description. The activities include, but
are not limited to, traffic or pedestrian stops, or actions during a stop, such as
asking questions, frisks, consensual and non-consensual searches ofa person or
any property, seizing any property, removing vehicle occupants during a traffic
stop, issuing a citation, and making an arrest. " 66
D. Policies Covering the Prevention of Racial and Identity Profiling Should Include a Component on the
Limited Circumstances in Which Characteristics of an Individual may be Considered
The policy should state that:
• Officers may take into account protected characteristics of an individual in establishing
reasonable suspicion or probable cause, only when the characteristic is part of a specific
suspect description based on trustworthy and relevant information that links a specific
person to a particular unlawful incident. 67
• Officers must be able to articulate specific facts that support their use of personal
characteristics in establishing reasonable suspicion or probable cause. 68
• Officers may consider relevant personal characteristics of an individual when
determining whether to identify services designed for individuals with those
characteristics (e.g., behavioral crisis, homelessness, drug use, etc.).69
E. Policies Covering the Prevention of Racial and Identity Profiling Should Include a Component on
Communication with the Community
The policy should state that:
• All personnel should treat all members of the public with courtesy, professionalism, and
respect. Personnel should not use harassing, intimidating, derogatory, or prejudiced
66 Again, the list of protected characteristics included in this provision should serve as the floor not the ceiling, and
agencies should always feel free to include additional protected or personal characteristics to include.
67 IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center, Unbiased Policing.; PERF, Operational Strategies to Build Police
Community Trust and Reduce Crime in Minority Communities (2018).; US. v. City ofN ewark (2016) 2: 16-cv-01731-MCA
MAH.; Pen. Code,§ 13519.4, subd. (e).
68 IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center, Executing Search Warrants.; US. v. The City ofF erguson (2016) 4:16-cv-
000180-CP.; US. v. City ofN ewark (2016) 2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.
69 US. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) l :l 7-cv-00099-JKB.; U.S. v. The City ofF erguson (2016)
4:l 6-cv-000180-CP.
30
language, particularly when related to an individual's actual or perceived protected
characteristics. 70
• Officers should listen to the member of the public's questions or concerns without
interruption and directly address the questions the person may have regarding the stop,
including an explanation of options for traffic citation disposition if relevant. 71
• When conducting stops, officers should introduce themselves to the person being stopped
and provide an explanation for the stop as soon as soon as reasonable and practicable
(ideally before asking the driver for his or her license and registration). 72
F. Policies Covering the Prevention of Racial and Identity Profiling Should Include a Component on
Training
• All agency personnel, including dispatchers and non-sworn personnel, should be
educated on biases (both implicit and overt) and expected to manage them.73
• All officers should be provided with training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope,
and type on investigatory stops, searches, and arrests. 74
• The training should be created in consultation with law enforcement experts and various
stakeholders, provided on a regular basis, and consistently evaluated and updated. 75
G. Policies Covering the Prevention of Racial and Identity Profiling Should Include a Component on
Data Collection and Analysis
• Agencies should consider analyzing the data they have collected, including data collected
and reported to the Department regarding stops and civilian complaints.76
• Data should be reviewed to identify exceptional and deficient conduct, trends,
unexplained disparities, compliance with policy, and training needs and opportunities. 77
• Data should be reviewed when relevant for investigating complaints of bias. 78
70IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center, Police-Citizen Contacts.; PERF, Promising Practices for Using Community
Policing to Prevent Violent Extremism (2016).; U.S. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) 1: l 7-cv-00099-JKB.
71 IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center, Police-Citizen Contacts.; PERF, Advice from Police Chiefs and Community
Leaders On Building Trust (2016).; U.S. v. City ofN ewark (2016) 2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.
72 U.S. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) 1 :l 7-cv-00099-JKB.
73 U.S. v. City ofN ewark (2016) 2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.
74 U.S. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) 1 :l 7-cv-00099-JKB.; U.S. v. City ofN ewark (2016) 2: l 6-
cv-01731-MCA-MAH.
75 PERF, Promising Practices for Using Community Policing to Prevent Violent Extremism (2016).; U.S. v. Alamance
County Sheriff Terry Johnson (2016) 2: 16-cv-0173 l -MCA-MAH.
76 U.S. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) l :l 7-cv-00099-JKB.
77 IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center, Early Warning System.; U.S. v. City a/Newark (2016) 2: 16-cv-01731-MCA
MAH.
78 U.S. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) l :l 7-cv-00099-JKB.; U.S. v. City ofN ewark (2016) 2: l 6-
cv-01731-MCA-MAH.
31
H. Policies Covering the Prevention of Racial and Identity Profiling Should Include a Component That
Requires Accountability and Adherence to the Policy
• All agency personnel, including dispatchers and non-sworn personnel, are responsible for
knowing and complying with the policy. Personnel who engage in, ignore, or condone
bias-based policing should be subject to discipline. 79
• The policy should include information on the procedure for making a complaint against
agency personnel and handling a bias-based policing allegation. 80
• Officers must report instances of biased policing that they witness or are otherwise aware
of. The policy should emphasize that all personnel share the responsibility of preventing
bias-based policing in the agency. 81
• The policy should prohibit retaliation against any person, law enforcement or civilian,
who alleges biased policing. 82
Supervisory Review
Supervising, directing, overseeing, and reviewing the daily activities of police officers, is
essential in ensuring that the tenets of bias-free policing are integrated fully into the law
enforcement agency and its culture. Below are some recommended best practices for inclusion in
policies regarding supervisory review, as well as some systems and technologies that can serve
as necessary tools in the supervision and accountability process:
Supervisors should:
• Establish and enforce the expectation that officers will police in a manner that is
consistent with the U.S. and California Constitutions and federal and state laws, as well
as internal policies. 83
• Provide leadership, counseling, direction, and support to officers as needed. 84
• Lead efforts to engage individuals and groups and ensure that officers are working
actively to engage the community and increase public trust.85
• Review documentation, including video from body-worn cameras as appropriate, of
investigatory stops, detentions, searches, and arrests for completeness, accuracy, and
adherence to law and department policy. 86
79 U. S. v. City a/Newark (2016) 2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.
80 U.S. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) 1 :17-cv-00099-JKB.; U. S. v. The County ofL os Angeles
and The Los Angeles County Sherif.f's Department (2015).
81 IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center, Unbiased Policing.; U. S. v. The County ofL os Angeles and The Los Angeles
County Sherif.f's Department (2015).
82 IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center, Retaliatory Conduct by Employees. ; U. S. v. Police Department ofB altimore
City, et. al. (2017) l:17-cv-00099-JKB.; U. S. v. Cityo/Newark(2016) 2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.
83 PERF, Constitutional Policing as A Cornerstone of Community Policing (2015).; U.S. v. Police Department of
Baltimore City, et. al. (2017) 1:17-cv-00099-JKB.; U.S. v. The City ofF erguson (2016) 4:l 6-cv-000180-CP.
84 IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center, Employee Mental Health. ; U.S. v. City a/Newark (2016) 2: 16-cv-01731-
MCA-MAH.
85 PERF, Advice from Police Chiefs and Community Leaders On Building Trust (2016).; U.S. v. Police Department of
Baltimore City, et. al. (2017) 1: l 7-cv-00099-JKB.
86 PERF, Police Accountability - Findings and National Implications ofan Assessment of the San Diego Police
Department (2015).; U.S. v. City ofN ew Orleans (2013) 2: 12-cv-01924-SM-JCW.
32
• Take corrective action, require training, or refer for discipline where appropriate. 87
• Identify training and professional development needs and opportunities. 88
• Highlight areas where officers are engaging appropriately and effectively and use those
examples during roll call and other training opportunities.89
• Consider the use of early identification, warning, or risk management systems to
contribute to effective and efficient supervisory review.90
87 US. v. City ofN ew Orleans (2013) 2: 12-cv-01924-SM-JCW.; US. v. The City ofF erguson (2016) 4:16-cv-000180-
CP.
88 US. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) l :17-cv-00099-JKB.; US. v. City ofN ewark (2016) 2: 16-
cv-0 1731-MCA-MAH.
89 IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center, Early Warning System.; US. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al.
(2017) l :l 7-cv-00099-JKB.; US. v. The City of Ferguson (2016) 4:16-cv-000180-CP.
90 IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center, Early Warning System; US. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al.
(2017) l :l 7-cv-00099-JKB.; Early identification, warning, or risk management systems are flexible management tools that
promote supervisory awareness and proactive identification of potentially problematic behavior among officers, and facilitate the
delivery of individualized interventions to correct identified problematic or potentially problematic officer behavior and to
prevent patterns of misconduct from emerging.
33
CIVILIAN COMPLAINT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
California recognizes that having a robust process for handling civilian complaints is an
important step toward building trust between law enforcement and the community. 91
Specifically, California law requires that "[ e] ach department or agency in this state that employs
peace officers shall establish a procedure to investigate complaints by members of the public
against the personnel of these departments or agencies, and shall make a written description of
the procedure available to the public."92 Analysis of civilian complaint policies and procedures,
especially with regard to racial and identity profiling, is an integral piece of the Board's annual
report.
To comply with this mandate, it is important that every law enforcement agency in the state
review its civilian complaint policies to ensure that it has accessible and well-formulated
contemporary complaint policies and procedures. In order to assure the public that an agency is
effectively addressing the concerns of community members, law enforcement agencies should
have reliable, transparent mechanisms by which to receive, investigate, and resolve complaints
about alleged peace officer misconduct, particularly those involving racial or identity profiling.
Both anecdotal and quantitative data received through civilian complaints will help law
enforcement agencies identify and redress areas needing improvement.
Written and thorough civilian complaint procedures can provide a myriad of benefits to a law
enforcement agency and the community at large. First, communities that feel they have been
subjected to racial or identity profiling need to feel there is a fair, accessible mechanism by
which their grievances can be addressed. By creating robust civilian complaint procedures, law
enforcement agencies can help fortify trust with their communities.
Second, having civilian complaint procedures that are easily accessed by the community will
also provide law enforcement with the opportunity to receive feedback and help root out and
address potentially problematic practices within their ranks. If analysis of the complaints shows
that there is an officer who is the subject of multiple sustained complaints, then they can be
identified for training and intervention. Trends in complaints can be tracked to help shape policy
within an agency. Indeed, law enforcement agencies across the country have found that civilian
complaint data is important management information. Even when complaints are not sustained,
they can provide extremely useful information about performance that can be utilized to examine
agency and individual officer performance, as well as to obtain an understanding about the
perceptions and concerns of the community.
Third, being receptive to civilian complaints allows law enforcement to strengthen their
relationship with their communities. Distrust and resentment can evolve among communities that
feel marginalized or targeted by law enforcement. To heal these divides, it is imperative that law
enforcement agencies demonstrate from investigation to resolution that civilian complaints are
heard, taken seriously, and pursued with professionalism and thoroughness.
91 Pen. Code,§ 13012, subd. (c).
92 Pen. Code,§ 832.5, subd. (a)(l).
34
This section of the report discusses the importance of effective comp la int procedures in
cultivating community trust, and includes: 1) a statewide analysis of the 2017 complaint data
submitted to the Department; 2) an agency-level snapshot of the 2017 complaint data submitted
to the Department; and 3) provides several recommendations and best practices for agencies to
consider in regards to their complaint procedures.
I. OVERVIEW OF CIVILIAN COMPLAINT DATA REPORTED TO THE DEPARTMENT
Since 1981, state and local law enforcement agencies that employ peace officers have been
submitted the number of non-criminal complaints and complaints alleging criminal conduct of
either a felony or misdemeanor, and the number sustained in each category to the Department on
an annual basis.
RIP A expanded the type of information regarding civilian complaints that is submitted to the
Department. Starting on January 1, 2016, complaint information collected pursuant to Penal
Code section 13012 must include the numbers of complaints alleging racial or identity profiling,
including the specific type(s) of profiling alleged: based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin,
religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability. 93 It
should be noted that civilians may file a complaint alleging profiling based on more than one
identity type.
Additionally, agencies must include the numbers of complaints that reached the dispositions of
"sustained," "exonerated," "not sustained," and "unfounded." RIP A also requires the Department
to disaggregate the data by individual law enforcement agency.94
In December 2015, the Department released an information bulletin encouraging departments to
" ... explicitly inquire on their civilian complaint forms whether the complainant alleges racial or
identity profiling and if so, the specific types(s) of racial or identity profiling alleged."95
However, law enforcement agencies may use their own discretion when developing policies and
procedures for collecting information regarding complaints made against peace officers.96
93 Pen. Code, § 13012, subd. (a)(5)(C).
94 Pen. Code, § 13012, subd. (a)(5)(C).
95 Cal. Dept. of Justice, "Information Bulletin No. DLE-2015-06" (2015) Available at:
https://www.google.com/url?g=https ://oag.ca.go v/sites/a 11/fi les/agwe b/ pdfs/law enforcement/d le-20 l 5-
06. pdf&sa=U& ved=0ah UKEw j84rrL wo 7fAhXJHzOII-IROaBeMOF ggEMAA&c l ient=interna l-uds
cse&cx=00 l 7792252453 727 4 7843 :drcxy6yordo&usg=AOvVaw2B2XMA l uTLypx5NtRUpkOR
96 See e.g., Pen. Code, § 832.5.
35
Due to the discretion law enforcement agencies are given
Key Terms
when implementing civilian complaint programs,
differences in approaches between agencies could affect
Reported: the number of civilian
the number of complaints observed in the data. Therefore,
complaints reported for the
care should be taken when attempting to make
statistical year
comparisons across agencies. For example, observed
differences could be due to a latent difference in the way Sustained: the investigation
the officers of the departments interact with civilians as
disclosed sufficient evidence to
well as other factors If Agency One makes its comp la int
prove the truth of allegation in the
forms available in English, Spanish, and Chinese but
complaint by preponderance of
Agency Two's form is available only in English, then
evidence
Agency One's complaint form may open up the complaint
process to a wider population than Agency Two's form Exonerated: the investigation
does. In this case, differences in the number of complaints
clearly established that the actions
may be partially explained by the presence of a language
of the personnel that formed the
barrier at Agency Two, but not Agency One.
basis of the complaint are not a
violation of law or agency policy
Other factors, such as agency policies or staffing resources
within the units assigned to processing and investigating Not sustained: the investigation
complaints, may also affect the disposition of complaints failed to disclose sufficient
after they are reported. The Board hopes that agencies will
evidence to clearly prove or
work to implement the Board's best practice
disprove the allegation in the
recommendations for handling civilian complaints to
complaint
increase the ability to compare complaints and complaint
systems across the state. Unfounded: the investigation
clearly established that the
A. Future Civilian Complaint Data Collection Changes
allegation is not true
The Board made a series of recommendations in the 2018 Pending: the number of
report, including:
complaints reported in the current
year that are still pending
Further changes to the data collection ofc ivilian
complaints may be necessary in the future to unlock the full potential ofc ollecting this type of
data ... One possibility is that data reporting could be altered to address the issue ofc omplaints
reaching disposition in different years than the year in which they are first reported. As the data
is currently collected, complaints that reach a disposition (sustained, exonerated, not sustained,
unfounded) during a reporting year are not always complaints that were originally reported
during that reporting year ... Being able to differentiate complaints that stem from the reporting
year from complaints that stem from previous years is preferable because these data will likely
be presented with year-specific contextual and comparison data. Therefore, it may be useful to
collect the data in a way that separates dispositions into two categories; number ofc omplaints
reported during the current reporting year, and number ofc omplaints reported during a
previous reporting year. 97
97 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2018.
(2018) pp. 34-35. Available at https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/ripa/ripa-board-report-2018.pdf
36
The Department took the recommendations made by the Board into consideration and revised the
data collection form used to collect civilian complaint information from agencies across the state.
All reporting agencies will begin using this new data collection form to submit civilian complaint
information to the Department for the calendar year 2019, to be reported to the Department in
2020.
The Department will release an information bulletin to law enforcement agencies to notify them
of the new data collection requirements and will provide a copy of the revised data collection
form to assist agencies in their collection of this data.
The civilian complaint data collection form that will be used to collect data, starting on January
1, 2019, has three significant revisions from the existing form. First, there will now be specific
counts of dispositions of complaints that were initially reported during the statistical year (i.e.,
complaints that were reported and resolved in the same calendar year will be counted separately
from complaints that have not been reported and resolved in the same calendar year). Likewise,
complaints that were originally reported in years prior to the statistical year in which they
reached dispositions will have separate counts so that they can be distinguished from the more
recent complaints.
Second, the Department will report complaints made in local detention facilities separately from
other complaints. By doing this, it will be possible to analyze complaints stemming from
custodial settings separately from those stemming from non-custodial settings. This will not
impact the ability to analyze all complaints as a whole, regardless of setting.
Finally, non-criminal, misdemeanor and felony categories will be further disaggregated by
offense level for disposition and profiling category totals. By doing this, it will be possible to see
the distribution of different offense levels for not only total complaints and complaints made in
local detention facilities, but also specifically for complaints alleging profiling based on
race/color/ethnicity/national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual
orientation, mental disability, and physical disability. This will allow the Board and members of
the public to explore potential differences in the number of profiling complaints within each of
the three offense levels amongst different identity types.
These three changes in data collection are designed to make the civilian complaint information
more user-friendly and more accessible to the public. The changes do not alter any of the
categories of information on previous collection forms. No data that was previously available on
the previous data collection form has been omitted or sacrificed for any of these changes.
Additionally, these changes do not require additional information to be collected by the reporting
agencies. Rather, they just require a greater level of detail when reporting the data to the
Department moving forward.
B. Overview of Data Examined
The civilian complaint data discussed in this section is limited to only data reported to the
Department by agencies that are also subject to the stop data reporting requirements under
37
RIP A. 98 This includes all city and county law enforcement agencies that employ peace officers,
except those in a custodial setting, the California Highway Patrol, and the law enforcement
agencies of the University of California, California State Universities, California Community
Colleges, and K-12 school districts. In total, 453 agencies subject to RIPA's stop data reporting
submitted information regarding the civilian complaints they received for the calendar year 2017.
Data for the full set of agencies that reported civilian comp la int information in 2017, including
agencies not subject to RIP A's stop data collection requirements ( e.g., District Attorney's
Offices, Probation Departments, Coroner's Offices, and the California Employee Development
Department) is available on the Department's OpenJustice Data Portal.99
Civilian Complaints for Stop Data Reporters Statewide
The 453 agencies subject to RIP A reported 9,459 civilian complaints in 2017. The most common
complaints alleged conduct that was noncriminal in nature (n = 8,682, 91.8%)100, followed by
complaints for conduct that constitutes a misdemeanor offense (n = 513, 8.4%); felony
complaints were the least common (n = 264, 2.8%). Of the complaints that reached a disposition
in the 2017 calendar year, 807 (10.2%) were sustained, 1,701 (21.4%) were not sustained, 1,897
(23.9%) were exonerated, and 3,537 (44.5%) were determined to be unfounded. As was noted in
the above, not all complaints reach a disposition during the same year in which they were first
reported. Therefore, it is likely that some of the complaints that reached disposition in 2017 were
originally lodged in 2016 or years prior.
Seventy-nine (17.4%) agencies indicated they did not have any civilian complaints to report
during the year of 2017. By contrast, 374 agencies did report that they received one or more
civilian complaints. Of those 374 agencies that reported civilian complaints, 141 agencies
reported one or more civilian complaints alleging racial or identity profiling. Specifically, those
141 agencies received 865 complaints alleging racial or identity profiling.
Of the racial and identity complaints that reached a disposition in 2017, 10 (1.5%) were
sustained, 77 (11.7%) were not sustained, 96 (14.6%) were exonerated, and 476 (72.2%) were
determined to be unfounded.
Figure 3 breaks down profiling complaints by specific type of profiling, including race or
ethnicity, nationality, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or
expression, religion, age, and gender. It should be noted that civilians may file a complaint
alleging profiling based on more than one identity type. This means that one complaint alleging
multiple types of profiling may be counted multiple times across identity groups. For example, a
person may file a complaint stating that they believe that they were profiled based on their
nationality and religion. Therefore, numbers in Figure 3 should not be interpreted to mean the
discrete number of complaints, because this would serve to over-count the number of individual
complaints received by the reporting agencies.
98 As noted above, only eight of these 453 agencies have begun collecting stop data as of July 1, 2018. The remainder
will begin collecting stop data on a staggered schedule, based upon number of sworn-personnel. Please see the report section on
stop data for detailed information regarding RIP A's stop data collection program.
99 Cal. Dept. of Justice, OpenJ ustice Data Portal. Available at: https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/data
100 "n" refers to the sample size.
38
Figure 3: Profiling Complaints Reported by Type, 2017
Mental Disability, 27, Physical Disability,
Sexual Orientation, 2.8% __.- 23, 2.4%
20, 2.1% ---........J ~-~
Gender
Identity/Expression,
15, 1.6%
Religion, 22, 2.3%
Age, 26, 2.7%
Race/Ethnicity, 721,
I 76.0%
Nationality, 24, 2.5%
Agency-Level Data Snapshot
California's largest agencies (Wave 1), which employ more than 999 peace officers (excluding
custodial officers) reported the information provided in Table 4 below, including the total
number of complaints reported as well as the number of complaints reported alleging racial or
identity profiling. The number of sworn personnel each agency employed in 2017 is also
provided as additional information by which readers may better understand the size of each
agency. Number of calls for service, which the Board collected in a survey for its 2018 report,
are not available101 for this year's report since the Board did not issue another survey. For the
previous statistical year, 2016, agencies covered in Tables 4 through 6 reported receiving
between 310,000 to 2,400,000 calls for service.
101 As reported to the Department, California Highway Patrol officers made 3,800,000 "public contacts" in 2017.
However, this information was not requested from, nor provided by, any other department for context. "Public contacts" is also a
different and more expansive metric than "calls for service", which was provided in the Board's 2018 report (Available at
https:// oag.ca.gov/sites/a Il /fi les/agwe b/pdfs/ripa/ripa-board-report-2018. pdf.)
39
Table 4: Wave 1 Agency Complaints and Sworn Personnel
Agency Complaints Profiling Complaints Sworn Personnel
Reported Reported
California Highway Patrol 308 24 7,401
Los Angeles County Sheriffs 828 31 9,413
Department
Los Angeles Police 1,729 215 9,988
Department
Riverside County Sheriffs 78 7 1,831
Department
San Bernardino County 106 39 1,957
Sheriffs Department
San Diego County Sheriffs 6 1 2,601
Department
San Diego Police Department 97 13 1,752
San Francisco Police 527 41 2,332
Department
Table 5 displays the same information as Table 4 for California's medium-large agencies, with
between 334 and 999 non-custodial sworn personnel. These agencies begin collecting stop data
January 1, 2019, and are referred to as Wave 2.
Table 5: Wave 2 Agency Complaints and Sworn Personnel
Agency Complaints Profiling Complaints Sworn Personnel
Reported Reported
Fresno Police Department 188 7 786
Long Beach Police Department 168 12 799
Oakland Police Department 1,248 54 744
Orange County Sheriffs 116 9 1,843
Department
Sacramento County Sheriffs 325 10 1,279
Department
San Jose Police Department 208 33 940
Agencies with 333 non-custodial sworn personnel belong to Wave 3. This wave ofreporters
begins stop data collection on January 1, 2021. Complaint and sworn personnel information for
these agencies can be found in Table 6 below.
40
Table 6: Ave 3 Agency Complaints and Sworn Personnel
Agency Complaints Profiling Complaints Sworn Personnel
Re2orted Re2orted
Alameda County Sheriffs 42 3 998
Department
Anaheim Police Department 70 16 419
Bakersfield Police Department 62 3 364
Fresno County Sheriffs 21 2 412
Department
Kem County Sheriffs 100 9 812
Department
Riverside Police Department 36 3 350
Sacramento Police Department 18 0 644
Santa Clara County Sheriffs 73 6 1,264
Department
Stockton Police Department 10 0 441
Ventura County Sheriffs 123 11 767
De2artment
Tables 4 through 6 are intended to provide a high-level glimpse at some information available
for the larger agencies who employ 333 or more non-custodial sworn personnel, which will all
begin collecting stop data by 2021. For a complete look at the data, the dataset containing
agencies of all sizes and an extended catalogue of data elements beyond what is available in the
tables above can be found at https://oag.ca.gov/ab953/ Board.
II. BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS
The following best practice recommendations are drawn from a range of relevant law
enforcement, academic, governmental, and non-profit organizations that have expertise in this
area. For additional information on the Board's approach to identifying best practices, please see
the section devoted to best practices in the introduction.
A. Agencies Should Have Civilian Complaint Policies and Procedures That Contain Basic Principles
• Agencies should have an accessible, fair, and transparent complaint process. The process
should be set forth in writing and made widely and permanently available within the
agency and to the public. 102
• All complaints should be accepted, whether in person, in writing, over the telephone,
anonymously, or on behalf of another individual. 103
102 PERF, Police Accountability - Findings and National Implications of an Assessment of the San Diego Police
Department (2015).; U.S. v. Police Department ofB altimore City. et. al. (2017) l :l 7-cv-00099-JKB.
103 PERF, Police Accountability - Findings and National Implications of an Assessment of the San Diego Police
Department (2015).; U.S. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) 1: 17-cv-00099-JKB.
41
• Agencies should develop an easily understandable and usable complaint form that
individuals may use when filing a complaint regarding alleged personnel misconduct.
This form should be available online as well as in writing at a variety of governmental
and community-centered locations and should be made available in multiple languages.
The form should not contain any language that could reasonably be construed as
discouraging the filing of a complaint. 104
• Agencies should document and investigate all complaints of alleged personnel
misconduct, in a thorough, unbiased, timely manner. The standards for review should be
clearly delineated in policies, trainings, and procedures featuring detailed examples to
ensure proper application. 105
• All complainants, subject personnel, and witnesses should be treated objectively and
fairly.
106
• The complaint policy should encourage individuals to come forward rather than
discourage or intimidate complainants. Retaliation against any person who reports
alleged misconduct or cooperates with an investigation should be expressly prohibited. 107
• All sworn and non-sworn law enforcement personnel should be sufficiently trained on the
complaint policy, procedure, and requirements. 108
B. Policies on Civilian Complaints Should Be Easily Accessible and Well Communicated to the
Community
• Complaint procedures and forms should be made available in multiple languages and at a
location within the agency's office that is easily accessible to the public. 109 In addition,
the procedures and complaint forms should be available online and in writing at a variety
of governmental and community-centered public locations. 110
• Agency personnel should have complaint forms in their patrol vehicles so that complaints
can be addressed immediately in the field. Agencies may consider distributing business
cards with the personnel's name, rank, and contact information to assist the public in
104IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center, Investigation of Employee Misconduct.; U.S. v. Police Department of
Baltimore City, et. al. (2017) 1: l 7-cv-00099-JKB.; U.S. v. Alamance County Sheriff Terry Johnson (2016) 2: 16-cv-0 1731-MCA
MAH.
105 IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center, Investigation of Employee Misconduct.; U.S. v. Alamance County Sheriff
Terry Johnson (2016) 2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.; U.S. v. The City ofF erguson (2016) 4:16-cv-000180-CP.
106 U.S. v. City ofN ewark (2016) 2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.
107 IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center, Retaliatory Conduct by Employees.; U.S. v. Alamance County Sheriff Terry
Johnson (2016) 2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.; U.S. v. City a/Newark (2016) 2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.
108 U.S. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) l :l 7-cv-00099-JKB.; U.S. v. The City of Ferguson (2016)
4:16-cv-000180-CP.
109 California state law requires local agencies that receive state funding to provide language access service to limited
English proficient (LEP) populations. Agencies should assess which languages are most appropriate for their community and
create a translation plan to ensure the forms are available in multiple languages including those for individuals with disabilities
(e.g., Braille or American Sign Language). For additional information on the legal requirements for language access, please see
the recommendations around translation and interpretation services made in the "civilian complaint policies and procedures"
section of the Board's 2018 report available at https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/ripa/ripa-board-report-2018.pdf.
110 U.S. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) l: I 7-cv-00099-JKB.; U.S. v. City ofN ewark (2016) 2:
16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.
42
lodging complaints. They may also consider requiring supervisors to respond to the field
to take complaints. 111
• The agency should contact the complainant as soon as possible with a verification that the
complaint has been received and that it is being reviewed. 112
• Reports of complaint statistics should be made available to the public on a regular basis.
113
C. Any Policy on Civilian Complaints Should Contain Details on the Intake, Filing, and Tracking Process
• Agencies should establish written policies and procedures for accepting, processing and
investigating complaints, ensuring fairness to the subject personnel and complainants. 114
• All complaints and their dispositions should be appropriately documented and tracked,
preferably electronically. 115
• All agency personnel, including dispatcher and non-sworn personnel, should be trained to
properly handle complaint intake, including how to provide complaint material and
information, the consequences for failing to properly take complaints, and strategies for
turning the complaint process into positive police-civilian interaction.116
• An agency's complaint procedures should be explained to the complainant and the
complainant should be advised where and with whom the complaint may be filed.117
• All complaints should be given a unique number for tracking purposes. 118
D. Policies on Civilian Complaints Should Contain Details on the Investigation Process
• Agencies should clearly detail the investigation procedure for complaints to ensure all
complaints are appropriately and objectively reviewed.119
• Any investigation should be completed by someone of higher rank than the person who is
the subject of the investigation. 120
• All investigations should adhere to written timelines from the date the complaint was
filed.121
111 US. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) l :l 7-cv-00099-JKB.; U.S. v. City ofN ewark (2016) 2:
16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.
11 2 U S. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) l: l 7-cv-00099-JKB.
11 3 U S. v. CityofNewark(2016)2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.
114 IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center, Investigation of Employee Misconduct.; U S. v. Police Department of
Baltimore City, et. al. (2017) l :l 7-cv-00099-JKB at 87-95. U.S. v. The City ofF erguson (2016) 4:16-cv-000180-CP.
11 5 U S. v. Alamance County Sheriff Terry Johnson (2016) 2: 16-cv-0 1731-MCA-MAH.; U. S. v. Police Department of
Baltimore City, et. al. (2017) 1: l 7-cv-00099-JKB.
116 U S. v. The City ofF erguson (2016) 4:16-cv-000180-CP.
117 IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center, Investigation of Employee Misconduct.; U S. v. Alamance County Sheriff
Terry Johnson (2016) 2: l 6-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.
11 8 US. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) l:l 7-cv-00099-JKB.
119 US. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) 1 :l 7-cv-00099-JKB.; US. v. The City ofF erguson (2016)
4:16-cv-000180-CP.
120 US. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) 1: l 7-cv-00099-JKB.; U.S. v. The City ofF erguson (2016)
4:l 6-cv-000180-CP.
121 IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center, Investigation of Employee Misconduct. ; US. v. The City ofF erguson (2016)
4:l 6-cv-000180-CP.
43
• Agencies should promptly identify, collect, and consider all relevant evidence, including
audio or video recordings. 122
• Agencies should not seek personal information that is not necessary to process the
complaint, and which may discourage submission (e.g., social security number, driver's
license information, etc.). 123
• Agencies should take all reasonable steps to locate and interview all witnesses, including
civilian witnesses. Interviews should be conducted in a timely, respectful, and unbiased
manner. All agent and witness statements should be objectively evaluated.124
• If the complainant cannot identify the subject officer's name, all reasonable efforts to
identify the officer should be made. 125
• Agencies should accept all complaints regardless of when the alleged incident occurred.
Depending upon the age and severity of the allegations, the agency may or may not need
to take action, but should at minimum accept the complaint and conduct an initial
review. 126
• Agencies should adhere to a stated time limit on how quickly the investigation process is
commenced after receiving a complaint and deadlines to ensure timely resolution. 127
• Agencies should clearly define investigation disposition categories and make this
information available to the public. 128
• The agency should regularly assess the effectiveness of the complaint process and
determine if there is a need for a re-evaluation of existing policies, procedures, or
trainings. 129
• Agencies should consider the appropriateness of independent oversight models such as a
civilian review Board or independent auditor. 130
• Agencies should document all investigation findings and keep all complaints available
for internal analysis and audits for at least five years. 131
• Agencies should consider conducting regular, targeted, and random integrity audits .132
122 IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center, Investigation of Employee Misconduct.; U.S. v. Police Department of
Baltimore City, et. al. (2017) 1: 17-cv-00099-JKB.
123 IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center, Investigation of Employee Misconduct.; U.S. v. Police Department of
Baltimore City, et. al. (2017) 1:17-cv-00099-JKB.
124IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center, Investigation of Employee Misconduct.; U.S. v. Alamance County Sheriff
Terry Johnson (2016) 2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.; U.S. v. City a/New Orleans (2013) 2: 12-cv-01924-SM-JCW.
125 U.S. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) 1:17-cv-00099-JKB.; U.S. v. City a/New Orleans (2013)
2: 12-cv-01924-SM-JCW.
126 U.S. v. Alamance County SheriffTenyJohnson (2016) 2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.; U.S. v. City ofN ewark (2016)
2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.
127 U.S. v. Alamance County Sheriff Teny Johnson (2016) 2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.; U.S. v. Police Department of
Baltimore City, et. al. (2017) 1: 17-cv-00099-JKB.
128 U. S. v. Alamance County Sheriff Terry Johnson (2016) 2: 16-cv-0 1731-MCA-MAH.
129 U. S. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) l: 17-cv-00099-JKB.; U.S. v. City ofN ewark (2016) 2:
16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.
130 U. S. v. Alamance County Sheriff Terry Johnson (2016) 2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.; U.S. v. City ofN ew Orleans
(2013) 2: 12-cv-01924-SM-JCW.
131 IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center, Resource Investigation of Employee Misconduct.; U.S. v. Police
Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) 1: 17-cv-00099-JKB.
132 U. S. v. Alamance County Sheriff Terry Johnson (2016) 2: 16-cv-0173 l-MCA-MAH.; U.S. v. City ofN ewark (2016)
2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.
44
TRAINING RELATED TO RACIAL AND IDENTITY PROFILING
The Board is charged with working on training related to racial and identity profiling, including
analyzing trainings developed by POST. POST courses include training designed to meet the
requirements of the racial and cultural differences training outlined in Penal Code section
13519.4. 133 POST is a state agency established to provide minimum testing, hiring, and training
standards for peace officers in California. 134 While participation in POST is voluntary, the vast
majority of California law enforcement agencies participate in the POST program, and are
therefore eligible to receive the services that POST offers. Across California, there are 39 POST
certified basic law enforcement training academies that present the Regular Basic Course
training to officers. 135
In its 2018 report, the Board analyzed POST's training and provided recommendations for the
expanded training that officers must take every five years. Specifically, the Board analyzed the
POST courses, Racial and Cultural Differences, Bias-Based Policing: Remaining Fair and
Impartial, and Principled Policing: Implicit Bias and Procedural Justice. The Board found that
several of the trainings did not meet all of the curriculum requirements under Penal Code section
13519.4. 136 The Bias-Based Policing training has since been removed for this reason and POST
is in the process of being replaced with a training that does meet the requirements. The Board
will work closely with POST on the creation and implementation of this new training.
The Board has conducted research on existing evidence-based best practices for trainings
devoted to preventing racial and identity profiling in policing and compiled a list of
recommendations. The Board recommends that POST consider including these practices in
POST's "expanded training/refresher course" under Section 13519.4. 137 These training
recommendations apply, but are not limited to, POST trainings. They are intended to promote the
standardization of the practices for how law enforcement can properly and proactively address
racial and identity profiling in policing and build and maintain community trust and confidence.
I. OVERVIEW OF THE BOARD'S COLLABORATION WITH POST IN 2019
The Board and POST have maintained their collaborative relationship in an effort to fulfill the
important requirements set forth in Penal Code section 13519.4. 138 The Board and POST met and
the Board provided initial feedback on POST's ongoing assessment and improvement of its
procedural justice/principled policing training for law enforcement. The Board and a POST
representative have discussed the following projects and ideas: 1) an 8-hour principled policing
basic course to be piloted in January 2019; 2) an update and review of the existing 8-hour
Principled Policing Course; 3) exploring the potential of including in trainings the Curriculum
Augmentation Videos (CAV) created by nationally recognized experts; 4) exploring the potential
to use virtual reality or augmented reality as a training tool; 5) the potential of auditing courses to
133 Pen. Code,§ 13519.4.
134 Pen. Code,§ 13500-13553.
135 Cal. POST, Course Catalogue (2018). Available at: https://catalog.post.ca.gov/Default.aspx
136 Pen. Code,§ 13519.4.
137 Pen. Code,§ 13519.4, subds. (a)-(h).
138 US. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) l: l 7-cv-00099-JKB.
45
ensure curriculum and facilitation continuity statewide; and 6) researching online learning
platforms to deliver the principled policing training in a cost-effective manner.
Several members of the Board attended and participated in Principled Policing trainings and one
member attended a three-day POST training development workshop.
II. BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS
The following best practice recommendations are drawn from a range of relevant academic,
governmental, and non-profit organizations that have expertise in this area. For additional
information on the Board's approach to identifying best practices, please see the introduction.
A. Trainings on Racial and Identity Profiling Should Incorporate Basic Principles
The training should:
• Begin with providing all trainees with relevant definitions and scientific research,
including a sufficient understanding and definitions of implicit and explicit bias and
stereotyping. The training should also emphasize that a great deal of human behavior and
brain processing occurs without conscious perception and that all members of society
frequently act on their biases. The training should present scientific peer-reviewed
research on bias and how it can influence on behavior. 139
• Be developed in partnership with academic institutions or consultants with the requisite
expertise to assist in developing and implementing trainings. These institutions or
consultants should have documented experience conducting such racial and identity
profiling trainings for institutional actors (and, ideally, helping design successful
interventions ). 140
• Provide all agency personnel with the knowledge and skills to identify bias and minimize
its impact upon law enforcement activities and interactions with members of the
public. 141
• Reflect the agency's commitment to procedural justice, bias-free policing, and
community policing. 142
• Instill in all officers the expectation they will police diligently and have an understanding
of and commitment to the rights of all individuals they encounter. This includes
reinforcing that protecting civil rights is a central part of the police mission and is
essential to effective policing. All personnel should be made aware of the requirements of
139 Hart, Subjective Decisionmaking and Unconscious Discrimination (2005) 56 Ala. L. Rev., p. 741.; Greenwald and
Krieger, Implicit Bias: Scientific Foundations (2006) 94 Calif. L. Rev. 945-946; Greenwald and Mahzarin, Implicit Social
Cognition: Attitudes, Self-Esteem, and Stereotypes (1995), 102(1) Psych. Review, p. 4-6.; SPARQ (2016) Principled Policing:
Training to Build Police-Community Relations.
140 US. v. Alamance County Sheriff Terry Johnson (2016) 2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.; US. v. City ofN ewark (2016)
2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.
141 US. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) l :l 7-cv-00099-JKB.; U.S. v. The City ofF erguson (2016)
4:l 6-cv-000180-CP.
142 US. v. Alamance County SheriffTenyJohnson (2016) 2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH at 1-2; US. v. City ofN ewark
(2016) 2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.
46
the United States and California Constitutions and relevant federal, state, and local laws
related to equal protection and unlawful discrimination. 143
• Provide all trainees with a sufficient understanding and definition of implicit and explicit
bias and stereotyping emphasizing that all members of society frequently act on their
biases. The training should present scientific peer-reviewed research on bias and its
influence on behavior. 144
• Provide officers with information regarding the existence of and how to access all health
and wellness programs, physical fitness programs, stress management tools, confidential
crisis counseling, or other support services available to address the heavy burdens placed
on today's police officers. Research suggests that stress and having to make quick
decisions under pressure can often lead to people relying on stereotypes.145 In addition,
training should discuss methods, strategies, and techniques to reduce a reliance on
unguided discretion in making stops. 146
• Utilize adult learning approaches, including experimental learning and realistic scenario
based training to provide officers with opportunities to develop skills in realistic settings;
this includes learning by doing, and refining their understanding of policies, expectations,
or concepts by applying them to the types of situations they may come across in their
day-to-day work. 147
• Include an assessment of whether officers comprehend the material taught. 148
• Complete and consistent training records for all trainings should be maintained for all
agency personnel. Agency-wide training analysis should be regularly completed and
trainings should be consistently reviewed and updated. 149
• Agencies should consider integrating a feedback loop or "check-ins" among trainees in
between trainings to allow officers to reflect on and apply what they learned in the
trainings to their daily lives.150
B. Training on Racial and Identity Profiling Should Be Well Organized and Delivered Regularly
• Training should be relatively short and frequently provided (for example, agencies should
consider offering a series of two-hour trainings several times a year rather than an eight
hour training every four or five years). 151
143 U.S. v. Alamance County Sheriff Terry Johnson (2016) 2: 16-cv-O 1731-MCA-MAH.; U.S. v. Police Department of
Baltimore City, et. al. (2017) 1: l 7-cv-00099-JKB.
144 Fridell, A Comprehensive Program to Produce Fair and Impartial Policing (2017).; U.S. v. The City ofF erguson
(2016) 4:16-cv-000180-CP.
145 U. S. v. Alamance County Sheriff Terry Johnson (2016) 2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.; Dovidio and Gaertner
Aversive Racism and Selection Decisions: 1989 and 1999 (2000) 11 Psych. Science, p. 319-323.; Levinson and Young, Different
Shades of Bias: Skin Tone, Implicit Racial Bias, and Judgments of Ambiguous Evidence (2010) 112,307 West Virg. L.Rev.,
326-231.
146 U.S. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) 1 :l 7-cv-00099-JKB; Fridell, A Comprehensive Program
to Produce Fair and Impartial Policing (2017).; Kang et al., Implicit Bias in the Courtroom, (2012) 59 UCLA L. rev. 1124, 1142.
147 U.S. v. The City ofF erguson (2016) 4:16-cv-000180-CP.
148 U.S. v. CityofNewark(2016)2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.
149 U.S. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) l: l 7-cv-00099-JKB; U.S. v. The City ofF erguson (2016)
4:l 6-cv-000180-CP.
150 U.S. v. City ofN ewark (2016) 2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.
151 U.S. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) l :l 7-cv-00099-JKB.
47
• Training should include members of the community who are knowledgeable about
various communities and local issues, including representatives knowledgeable on issues
of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, gender
identity, and disability. 152
• Consider expanding training options to include courses on topics such as power
imbalance, statistics, and methods for effective supervision. 153
• Trainings should be evaluated for their impact on police-community relations. 154
C. Training on Racial and Identity Profiling Should Address Communication and Community
Relationships
The training should:
• Address the benefits of and means to achieve effective community engagement, including
how to establish formal partnerships and actively engage community organizations and
diverse groups within the community to form positive relationships. This could include
examples of successful partnerships and engagement. 155
• Cover cultural competency, cultural awareness, and sensitivity, including the impact of
historical trauma on police-community interactions and locally relevant incidents and
history. 156
• Include effective communications skills, including how to recognize and overcome
communication obstacles.157
D. Training on Racial and Identity Profiling Should Include the Tenets of Procedural Justice
The training should:
• Emphasize the core tenets of procedural justice ( an approach to policing that emphasizes
the importance of treating everyone equally and with respect). 158
o Community members should be given a voice and be allowed to tell their story
and respectfully interact.
o The law must be applied equally to all members of the community.
o Officers must show respect and demonstrate trustworthiness.
• Emphasize the importance of how people are treated during the course of an interaction
as well as the outcome of that interaction. 159
152 U.S. v. TheCiryofFerguson(2016)4:16-cv-000180-CP.; U.S. v. CiryofNewark(2016)2: 16-cv-01731-MCA
MAH.
153 U.S. v. Police Department ofB altimore Ciry, et. al. (2017) l: l 7-cv-00099-JKB.; U.S. v. The Ciry ofF erguson (2016)
4: l 6-cv-000180-CP.; Fridell, A Comprehensive Program to Produce Fair and Impartial Policing (2017).
154 U.S. v. Police Department ofB altimore Ciry, et. al. (2017) l: l 7-cv-00099-JKB. ; Fridell, Lorie. A Comprehensive
Program to Produce Fair and Impartial Policing (2017); U.S. v. Ciry ofN ewark (2016) 2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.
155 Fridell, A Comprehensive Program to Produce Fair and Impartial Policing (2017).
156 U. S. v. Police Department ofB altimore Ciry, et. al. (2017) l: l 7-cv-00099-JKB.; Fridell, A Comprehensive Program
to Produce Fair and Impartial Policing (2017).
157 U.S. v. Police Department ofB altimore Ciry, et. al. (2017) l:17-cv-00099-JKB.
158 Fridell, A Comprehensive Program to Produce Fair and Impartial Policing (2017).; PERF, Legitimacy and
Procedural Justice: A New Element of Police Leadership (2014).; SP ARQ, Principled Policing: Training to Build Police
Community Relations (2016).
159 U.S. v. Police Department ofB altimore Ciry, et. al. (2017) l :l 7-cv-00099-JKB.
48
• Cover various threats to procedural justice, including officer stress, time pressure, and
poor health, as well as poor historical relations between police and communities. 160
• Cover various procedural, behavioral, and psychological strategies to reduce threats to
procedural justice and improve police-community relations. 161
• Feature police and community perspectives.162
E. Training on Racial and Identity Profiling Should Cover Implicit Bias
The training should:
• Define implicit bias as "thoughts or feelings about people that we are unaware of and can
influence our own and others' actions."163
• Define stereotyping. 164
• Discuss how bias manifests in everyone, even well-intentioned people. 165
• Cover the varied sources of implicit bias.166
• Present a series of empirical studies on bias in an easily understandable manner. 167
• Discuss how bias might manifest in work and decision-making. 168
• Highlight positive strategies for mitigating bias and improving police-community
relations. 169
• Discuss how to identify officers who may be manifesting bias and how to respond.
Include self-evaluation strategies for identifying bias in oneself. 170
• Discuss how to talk openly about bias with individuals and groups. 171
160 U. S. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) 1: l 7-cv-00099-JKB; U.S. v. The City ofF erguson (2016)
4: l 6-cv-000180-CP; SP ARQ, Principled Policing: Training to Build Police-Community Relations (2016).
161 U.S. v. Alamance County Sheriff Terry Johnson (2016) 2: 16-cv-0 173 l-MCA-MAH.; Fridell, A Comprehensive
Program to Produce Fair and Impartial Policing (2017).; SP ARQ. (2016) Principled Policing: Training to build Police
Community Relations.;
162 U.S. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) l :l 7-cv-00099-JKB; SPARQ, Principled Policing:
Training to Build Police-Community Relations (2016).
163 Dovidio et al., Why Can't We Just Get Along, Interpersonal Biases and Interracial Distrust (2002) 8 Cultural
Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psycho!. p. 88, 94. Greenwald and Krieger, Implicit Bias: Scientific Foundations, (2006) 94 Calif. L.
Rev. 945,946, 951.; Greenwald and Mahzarin, Implicit Social Cognition: Attitudes, Self-Esteem, and Stereotypes (1995) 102(1),
Psych. Rev. p. 4-6; Hart, Subjective Decisionmaking and Unconscious Discrimination (2005) 56 Ala. L. Rev. 741.; SPARQ,
Principled Policing: Training to Build Police-Community Relations (2016).
164 SPARQ, Principled Policing: Training to Build Police-Community Relations (2016).
165 U. S. v. Alamance County SherifJTerryJohnson (2016) 2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.; U.S. v. The City of Ferguson
(2016) 4:16-cv-000180-CP.; Fridell, A Comprehensive Program to Produce Fair and Impartial Policing (2017).
166 U.S. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) l: l 7-cv-00099-JKB.; SP ARQ, Principled Policing:
Training to Build Police-Community Relations (2016).
167 U.S. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) 1: l 7-cv-00099-JKB.; U.S. v. City ofN ewark (2016) 2:
16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.; SP ARQ, Principled Policing: Training to Build Police-Community Relations (2016).
168 U.S. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) 1 :17-cv-00099-JKB.; Fridell, A Comprehensive Program
to Produce Fair and Impartial Policing (2017).
169 U.S. v. City ofN ewark (2016) 2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.; SP ARQ, Principled Policing: Training to Build Police
Community Relations (2016).
170 U.S. v. Police Department ofB altimore City, et. al. (2017) l: l 7-cv-00099-JKB.; Fridell, A Comprehensive Program
to Produce Fair and Impartial Policing (2017).; U.S. v. City ofN ewark (2016) 2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.
171 Fridell, A Comprehensive Program to Produce Fair and Impartial Policing (2017).; U.S. v. City ofN ewark (2016) 2:
16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.
49
• Include experiential learning techniques to apply the training to real-life scenarios. 172
Ill. VISION FOR FUTURE REPORTS
In the coming years, the Board hopes to more comprehensively analyze POST's trainings
relating to bias and racial and identity profiling and continue to work with the organization on
ensuring that its trainings feature the above evidence-based best practices as much as possible.
Given that effective policing requires not only appropriate training but also suitable recruitment,
performance assessment, and promotion practices, the Board also plans to cover these topics in
next year's report. Specific areas that may be covered by the Board include:
• Methods and techniques to attract, retain, and reward diverse, representative, and highly
qualified officers capable of carrying out the complicated policing mission
successfully.173
• How to incorporate requirements regarding bias-free policing and equal protection into
an agency's hiring, promotion, and performance assessment processes.
• The potential detrimental impact on police work, culture and policy-community
relationships if an agency fails in its responsibility to hire qualified personnel.
• How to better design hiring and promotion policies to ensure high officer morale, which
will foster positive interactions with the community, especially in the area of procedural
justice and identifying bias.
172 US. v. Alamance County Sheriff Terry Johnson (2016) 2: 16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH.; U.S. v. The City ofF erguson
(2016) 4:16-cv-000180-CP.; SP ARQ, Principled Policing: Training to Build Police-Community Relations (2016).
173 Pettigrew and Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test oflntergroup Contact Theory (2006) 90 J. Personality & Soc. Psycho].
751 ; Pettigrew and Tropp, How Does Intergroup Contact Reduce Prejudice? Meta-Analytic Tests of Three Mediators (2008) 38
Eur. J. of Soc. Psycho I. 922.; Schmader et al., A Metacognitive Perspective on the Cognitive Deficits Experienced in
Intellectually Threatening Environments (2009) 35 Personality & Soc. Psycho!. Bull. 584, 585-95.
50
CALLS FOR SERVICE AND BIAS BY PROXY
In June of 2018, the Board formed a new subcommittee focused on calls for service, the creation
of which was sparked by a letter sent to the Board by two state senators expressing their concern
regarding racially biased calls for service and what is sometimes called "bias by proxy." Bias by
proxy can be defined as "when an individual calls the police and makes false or ill-informed
claims of misconduct about persons they dislike or are biased against." 174 Specifically, the
senators posed the following questions for the Board to consider:
• How can our public safety systems, from dispatchers to patrol officers, better identify
calls for service based on racial bias?
• How can police respond to protect the rights and dignity of innocent black people
targeted in these incidents?
• How can training and policies help officers identify and resolve such a situation quickly
and respectfully?
• What role do police play in following up with a caller to address possible racism that
prompted an unnecessary and unjust call, and how much departmental and public
resources are expended in responding to calls motivated by racial bias?
In 2017, approximately 28.1 million Californians made a call to the emergency telephone service
911.175 These calls are generally initiated by the pub lie, relayed through 911, and divulged to the
public safety personnel via a dispatcher. Once an officer is assigned a call by the dispatcher, they
must respond and typically issue some type of resolution back to the dispatcher indicating the
action taken to address the call. An officer never knows what type of call they will receive from
the dispatcher and must be prepared to react appropriately and fairly in all situations with very
little notice. Calls for service are the most common way in which law enforcement officers
initiate contact with the public; analyzing these interactions can thus be useful in understanding
the law enforcement-community relationship.
In this report, the Board has focused on calls for service through the lens of bias by proxy. The
Board will continue to analyze this important topic in future reports. The Board reviewed the
varied ways in which these calls can be examined and leveraged in pursuit of the ultimate goal of
addressing and eliminating racial and identity profiling in policing.
While it is a crime to make a false 911 report, 176 it is the unfortunate truth that some calls made
by the public are motivated by racial or identity bias, whether implicit or explicit. Given
procedural requirements, dispatchers and officers usually must respond to these calls, causing
what is often known as bias or profiling by proxy. When the police act on a request for service
rooted in racial bias or stereotyping, they risk perpetuating the caller's bias and damaging the
relationship between the community and the police and, in some instances, posing particular
harms to all parties involved.
Concerns about the detrimental impact of biased calls for service are not new. Nonetheless, an
increasing number of high-profile instances of profiling by proxy in recent years caught on
174 Fridell, A Comprehensive Program to Produce Fair and Impartial Policing (2017) p. 90.
175 Cal. Gov. Office of Emergency Services, CA 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Branch
<http://www.caloes.ca.gov/cal-oes-d ivisions/publ ic-safety-communications/ca-9-1-1-emergency-communications-branch> [a s of
Dec. 17, 2018].
176 Pen. Code§ 148.5.
51
camera and widely viewed have brought into the national spotlight questions regarding basic
fairness and racial and identity discrimination when it comes to calls for service. Some of the
many incidents that garnered national attention include when two black men were arrested after
an employee of Starbucks in Philadelphia called 911 and reported that the men had not ordered
anything; when a black graduate student was interrogated by the police after her dorm neighbor
called because she was napping in the common area; and when members of a black sorority were
questioned by a state trooper while performing community service picking up litter on a
Pennsylvania highway.177
Similar high-profile incidents have occurred in California. This includes one incident that
occurred in Rialto, California, where a neighbor called the police on three black filmmakers
renting an Airbnb. 178 The neighbor justified her reaction by stating that the filmmakers were
suspicious-looking because they did not wave to her. Another incident occurred in Oakland,
California, where a white woman called the police on black men barbecuing in the park's
designated barbecue area because they were using charcoal grill in a non-charcoal grilling spot.
179 An additional incident occurred in San Francisco, California where a woman called the police
on an eight-year old black girl for selling water without a permit. 180 While these incidents,
among others, have shed necessary light on the persisting issues and, in some cases, incited the
re-evaluation of businesses' policies and the need for additional employee training, they have
also highlighted how easily a system designed to ensure the public's safety can become a proxy
for discrimination and bias when misused.
I. BIAS BY PROXY
The Vera Institute ofJustice warns that bias by proxy, defined above, may arise when "officers
rely on the emergency dispatcher's recitation of what a biased caller claims to have happened
instead of making an independent and professional assessment of the caller's claims." 181 Racially
motivated calls for service may stem from explicit racial profiling or implicit bias. Conflict
theories assert that "when members of one community (usually the majority) feel their interests
are being infringed, they will wield power to exercise control over the 'other."' 182
The Board does not want to discourage anyone from calling 911 in an emergency, but rather
raises this issue because biased or misleading information provided to 911 can lead to fatal
consequences. In conducting a literature review on the issue of bias and calls for service, the
Board found relatively little empirical evidence on this topic. The Board has noted this gap in the
literature and plans to dive deeper into the various manners in which this data can be accurately
collected and analyzed, particularly assessing ways in which the data collected by RIP A can be
leveraged toward this goal.
177 Wootson, You Know Why the Lady Called the Police: Black People Face 911 Calls for Innocuous Acts, Washington
Post (May 30, 2018) p. 1.
178 Taylor, Even in Oakland, Calling the Cops on Black People Just Living Their Lives, S.F. Chronicle (May 17, 2018)
p. 1.
179 Guzman, Video Shows Woman Calling Police Over Barbecue at Lake Merritt, S.F. Gate (May 10, 2018) p. 1.
180 Ting, New Viral Video Shows SF Woman Dubbed "Permit Betty " Calling Authorities on Street Vendor, S.F.
Chronicle (Jul. 14, 2018) p. 1.
181 Thurau and Stewart, Avoiding 'Profiling by Proxy' (2015) Vera Institute ofJustice.
182 Lum, Does the "Race of Places" Influence Police Officer Decision Making? (2009) p. 4-5.
52
While data specifically on bias by proxy is not currently collected, agencies can begin to address
this issue through recruitment, hiring, and training. 183 For ex amp le, as part of its hiring process,
the Kalamazoo Police Department interview has included a hypothetical scenario that requires an
applicant to discuss bias. 184 The hypothetical is a white woman calls about a suspicious black
man in a car. 185 The applicant is asked to explain how they would respond to such a call. 186 The
Chief does not have a "right answer" but rather wants to see the applicant's thought process.187
Posing a hypothetical that focuses on profiling by proxy is crucial in all parts of the hiring
process, including dispatchers.
Non-profit organizations, Fair and Impartial Policing 188, Vera Institute of Justice, 189 and
ACLU 190 offer the following suggestions for how to best address the issue:
• Train officers and dispatchers to be aware of the potential for biased-based motivations
behind calls for service. 191
o Officers should exhibit critical decision making, drawing on their training to
assess whether there is criminal conduct.
• Police officers and dispatchers should undergo anti-bias training.192
• Dispatchers should be trained on how to relay information without including biased
assumptions and to collect enough information necessary to verify criminal activity. 193
• For bias-motivated calls, dispatchers should be allowed to use discretion to inform caller
that an officer will not respond to call without legitimate basis of criminal conduct. 194
o If dispatchers must assign an officer, they should be allowed to inform officers of
their concerns with the call for service.
o Agencies should develop policies and other materials that assist dispatchers in
identifying biased calls and establish operating procedures for how biased calls
should be forwarded to police. 195
PERF suggests that nationwide changes to emergency communications technology will assist in
identifying implicit bias by proxy. 196 New technology will allow callers to include videos,
photographs, live video feed, and other relevant media to dispatchers, and dispatchers will be
able to forward this information to responding officers. PERF is hopeful that allowing officers
the opportunity to review relevant information before arriving on the scene will better inform
their response to any given call for service and, by extension, reduce bias by proxy incidents.
However, readers should be cautioned that the perceived benefits of such an updated system is
183 Ibid n. 1 at 50.
184 Supra.
185 Supra.
186 Supra.
187 Supra.
188 Fridell, A Comprehensive Program to Produce Fair and Impartial Policing (2017).
189 Thurau and Stewart, Avoiding 'Profiling by Proxy' (2015) Vera Institute of Justice.
190 Takei, How Police Can Stop Being Weaponized by Bias-Motivated 911 Calls, (2018) American Civil Liberties
Union.
191 Thurau and Stewart, Avoiding 'Profiling by Proxy' (2015) Vera Institute of Justice.
192 Ibid.
193 Fridell, A Comprehensive Program to Produce Fair and Impartial Policing (2017).
194 Pen. Code§ 148.5.
195 Fridell, A Comprehensive Program to Produce Fair and Impartial Policing (2017).
196 PERF, Critical Issues in Policing Series: The Revolution in Emergency Communications (2017).
53
speculative at this point and would require updated agency policies and empirical research to
evaluate outcomes.
II. VISION FOR FUTURE REPORTS
For future reports, the Board plans to evaluate how to address the gap in data and empirical
evidence on bias by proxy. Further, the Board plans to address what kind of training, policies,
and procedures may exist for dispatchers with respect to racially motivated calls for service. The
Board also hopes to review what kind of training, policies, and procedures may exist for
responding officers with respect to racially motivated calls for service. Additionally, the Board
plans to review how officers are trained to handle emergencies that may require the assistance of
a Critical Intervention Team, such as mental health issues, when responding to calls for service.
54
USE OF FORCE
Use of force incidents occur during or after stops or attempted stops and are among the
information officers are required to include in RIP A stop data reports. Because of its inherent
relationship to police stop and search practices, the Board decided to include a review and
discussion of use of force issues in this year's report.
Assembly Bill 71 (AB 71), effective January 1, 2016, requires law enforcement agencies in
California to report use of force interactions between an officer and a civilian that involve a
shooting or that results in death or serious bodily injury, as defined by Government Code section
12525.2.197 This groundbreaking legislation is the first of its kind, making California the only
state to have mandated the reporting of these types of officer uses of force. This section of the
Report analyzes the data collected in 2017 and reported to the Department in 2018. Due to the
fact that the scope of the incidents that are reported in accordance with AB 71 is narrowly
defined, these results should not be used to generalize other types of uses of force employed by
law enforcement.
I. URSUS USE OF FORCE DATA
A. Overview of Use of Force Data Reported to the Department
The Department consulted with law enforcement agencies and stakeholders to determine what
information to collect regarding use of force incidents, and issued a law enforcement bulletin in
December 2015 to assist LEAs with this reporting requirement. I98
Agencies began collecting data on January 1, 2016.
Incidents must be reported to the
Department under AB 71 only when: Law enforcement agencies enter and submit the
required use of force data to the Department through
1. There is a discharge ofa firearm the use of an online reporting platform named
by a peace officer; or URSUS. All agencies employing peace officers are
2. There is a discharge ofa firearm required to submit these data on an annual basis. The
Department publishes a report and two datasets to its
by a civilian; or
OpenJustice public data portal each year; one dataset
3. There is a use of force by peace
contains incident-level information on all cases
officer against civilian that results
reported to the Department, and the other contains
in serious bodily injury or death;
person-level information on individuals involved in
or
these use of force incidents.
4. There is a use of force by civilian
against peace officer that results Readers can find both datasets, as well as supporting
in serious bodily injury or death. documentation that outlines the information
contained within the datasets, at
https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/data under the "URSUS
197 Gov. Code§ 12525.2.
198 See Division of Law Enforcement Information Bulletin No. 16-12-CJIS, "Use of Force Incident Reporting,"
published December 2015, available at https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/law enforcement/16-12-cjis-use-force
incident-reporting-ursus.pdf.
55
- Use of Force" section. The Department also publishes a yearly report on this data that can be
found at
https ://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/resources/publications Key Terms
under the "URSUS - Use of Force Incident Reporting"
Serious Bodily Injury: a bodily injury
section. Number of calls for service, which the Board
that involves a substantial risk of
collected in a survey for its 2018 report, are not
death, unconsciousness, protracted
available199 for this year's report since the Board did not
and obvious disfigurement, or
issue another survey. For the previous statistical year,
2016, Wave 1-3 agencies reported receiving between protracted loss or impairment of the
310,000 to 2,400,000 calls for service. function of a bodily member or organ
Discharge of a firearm: Includes any
Known Limitations of Use ofF orce Data
discharge of a firearm during an
interaction between a civilian and an
It is important to understand that although all incidents
officer, regardless of whether any
in the URS US datasets involve use of force, not all uses
person was injured. A firearm is
of force are represented in the data. Only use of force
defined as a weapon that fires a shot
incidents between an officer and civilian that involve
by the force of an explosion, e.g., a
the discharge of a firearm or result in serious bodily
injury or death are reportable under AB 71.200 Incidents handgun, rifle, shotgun, and other
are reportable if either party of an incident, law such device commonly referred to as
enforcement or civilian, sustains a serious bodily injury a firearm. Not included in this
or dies from a use of force, or if either party discharges definition are electronic control
a firearm. Use of force incidents that do not meet either devices; stun guns; BB, pellet, air, or
of these criteria will thus not be captured in the data set. gas-powered guns; or weapons that
Therefore, the sample of cases presented in the section
discharge rubber bullets or bean bags.
below is not representative of all use of force incidents,
or law enforcement-civilian encounters, that occur in California. Additionally, not every
reporting agency submitted its use of force data for the 2017 calendar year to the Department by
the reporting deadline.
Another limitation in analyzing use of force data submitted to the Department in the context of
RIP A is that the information collected for each use of force incident differs from the information
collected for each stop under RIP A. Groups from the RIP A data and the URS US data cannot
directly compared because the information is collected and categorized in different ways. Each
dataset provides useful information, but they are not comparable. URSUS data analysis is more
limited in the number of identity groups that may be examined than the stop data analysis will be
in the coming years. Only race, gender, age, and observed behavior indicating a civilian may
have a mental disability are available in the URS US data. RIP A, however, requires that an
officer report the perceived race or ethnicity, gender, LGBT status, and age of the stopped
person, as well as whether the person has limited or no English fluency and whether they have a
perceived or known disability. Officers are not permitted to ask the person stopped or refer to a
driver's license to obtain this information.
199 As reported to the Department, California Highway Patrol officers made 3,800,000 "public contacts" in 2017.
However, this information was not requested from, nor provided by, any other department for context. "Public contacts" is also a
different and more expansive metric than "calls for service", which was provided in the 2018 report.
200 Gov. Code§ 12525.2.
56
While RIPA data regarding the subject of a stop is based on officers' perceptions, with the
exception of perceived mental disabilities, URS US data regarding subjects is not limited to
officer perception regarding the subject. For URSUS reporting, officers are permitted to
reference identification documents, search databases, and obtain self-report or third-party
information in identifying a civilian's race and ethnicity, gender, and age range.
Descriptive Observations
B. Incident information
From January 1 to December 31 , 2017, law enforcement agencies that employ peace officers
throughout the state reported a total of 707 use of force incidents that met AB 71 criteria (i.e.,
they involved either the discharge of a firearm or incidents that resulted in serious bodily injury
or death). Of these reported incidents, 344 (48.7%) occurred when law enforcement received a
call for service, 138 (19.5%) occurred while either a crime was in progress or while officers were
investigating suspicious persons or circumstances, and 102 (14.4%) resulted from a vehicle or
pedestrian stop. The least common reason for contact, with six (0.8%) incidents, was an ambush
without warning. Most of the incidents (n = 505, 71.4%) resulted in the arrest of a civilian.
Figure 4 visually displays this information.
Figure 4: Reason for Initial Contact
Public Contact, 2.0% In-Custody, 5.5%
Ambush, 0.8%
Vehicle/bike/ pedestrian
stop, 14.4%
Pre-Planned Activity, 7.8%
Call for Service, 48.7%
Crime in Progress, 19.5%
In 2017, thirty-nine incidents (5.5%), occurred after the civilian had been placed in a custodial
setting. The most common stage in the custodial process for use of force incidents to occur was
while the civilian had been booked and was awaiting trial, representing 38.5 percent of the cases
57
that occurred in a custodial setting. The remaining cases that took place in a custody setting
occurred during the following stages: 1) awaiting booking (17.9%); 2) booked- no charges filed
(5.1% ); 3) other (12.8%); 4) out to court (12.8%) and; 5) sentenced (12.8%).
In most instances (n = 674, 95.3%), one civilian was involved in the use of force incident; the
highest number of civilians in a single use of force incident was three. The number of law
enforcement officers involved in these incidents ranged from one (n = 288, 40.7%), which was
the most common number of officers to be involved, to seventeen (n = 1, 0.1 %). Roughly ninety
five percent (94.8%) of use of force incidents involved between one and five law enforcement
officers, with an average of 2.31 officers (SD= 1.85).
C. Civilian Information
A total of741 civilians were involved in the 707 reportable use of force incidents in 2017. Of
these civilians, most (n = 390, 52.6%) were seriously injured during the incident, with 172
(23.2%) having died (see Table 2 of Appendix E for breakdown by civilian race or ethnicity), 51
(6.9%) receiving a less serious injury or injuries, 120 (16.2%) not having sustained any injury,
and 8 (1. 1% ) having an unknown injury status due to the civilians having fled from law
enforcement (see Table 10 of Appendix E). Of the 741 civilians, 516 (69.6%) were reported to
have assaulted an involved officer or officers (see Table 12 of Appendix E). Most civilians (n =
487, 65.7%) were taken into custody after the use of force incident (see Table 11 of Appendix
E). Of those arrested, 15 (3 .1% ) were taken for an involuntary psychiatric hold under Welfare
and Institutions Code 5150.
Civilian Race or Ethnicity Key Terms
Lethal Force: Discharge of firearm
The race or ethnicity of all civilians, except for those who fled
(hit); discharge of firearm (miss);
and evaded law enforcement ( n = 8, 1.1% ), is captured in the
knife, blade, or stabbing instrument
URS US use of force data. It should be noted that the URS US
Less Lethal Force: Blunt or
data collection system allows for law enforcement agencies to
impact weapon; chemical spray
classify individuals as belonging to more than one racial or
ethnic group, but that these individuals (n = 3, 0.4%) have ( e.g. OC/CS); electronic control
been coded into one group for civilians that are multiple races device; impact projectile; other
or ethnicities for all the analyses presented in this report. In dangerous weapon; civilian vehicle
2017, civilians who were Hispanic (n = 325, 43.9%), white (n contact; officer vehicle contact;
= 224, 30.2%) and black (n = 143, 19.3%) collectively animal; K-9 contact
accounted for more than ninety percent (93.4%) of the cases in Physical Force: Carotid restraint
the dataset (see Table 1 of Appendix E). This being said, Asian
control hold; other control
hold/takedown; other physical
contact (use of hands, fists, feet,
etc.)
Threat of Firearm: Threat of
using a firearm against another
person
58
civilians had lethal force201 used on a higher proportion of their members (6 out of 8 individuals)
than other racial and ethnic groups. Less lethal force was used on 100 percent of Asian Indian
civilians, although there were only two members of this ethnicity group in the 2017 data.
Readers are cautioned that, because the total number of Asian and Asian Indian civilians in the
data set is very low, it is difficult to draw inferences or conclusions about use of force and these
groups. For this reason, we also report on groups with larger numbers in the data set. Of the three
racial groups that compose most of the civilians in the dataset, white civilians had the highest
proportion oflethal force (n = 107, 49.3%) used on them, Hispanic civilians had the highest less
lethal force (n = 114, 36.8%), and black civilians had the highest proportion of physical force (n
= 66, 4 7 .1 % ). All races and ethnicities had a low number of their members have a threat of a
firearm reported to have be used on them (see Table 6 of Appendix E). Figure 5 displays the
number of civilians from each race/ethnicity group that had lethal force used on them and also
how many civilians from each group had force of any type (including lethal force) used on
them.202
Figure 5: Civilians Receiving Lethal Force and All Force Types by Civilian Race or Ethnicity
310
Hispanic
152
217
White 107
140
Black
57
Other • 1 1 0 4
Asian
American Indian or Alaskan Native
Multiple Race/Ethicity
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander/Samoan
2
Asian Indian
1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
■ Civilians that Received any Force ■ Civilians that Received Lethal Force
201 The Key Terms box on this page displays how the use of force types in URSUS were grouped into the categories
discussed in this chapter.
202 Civilians in the dataset that had no force used on them are not represented in Figure 5.
59
Civilian Gender
More than ninety percent (n = 679, 91.6%) of civilians in the URSUS data were male, while the
remaining 53 civilians (7.2%) were female (see Table 4 of Appendix E). Female and male
civilians were within two percent of each other in the proportion of cases that had less lethal
force used on them and were within one percent of each other in the proportion of cases where
the threat of a firearm was employed on them. Larger differences in the distribution of force type
are observed between these two groups when lethal and physical force are used (see Table 7 of
Appendix E). The proportion of male civilians (n = 327) that had lethal force used on them was
more than 1. 5 times the proportion of female civilians ( n = 15) that had this force type used on
them, 49.9 and 30.6 percent respectively. Meanwhile, the proportion of female civilians that
received physical force (n = 30, 61.2%) was more than 1.5 times the proportion of male civilians
receiving the same type of force (n = 251 , 38.3%).
Gender was not reported for the eight (1.1 %) civilians that fled and evaded capture. In 2017,
there was only one AB 71-reportable incident involving a transgender person. This person had
physical and less lethal force used on them. However, the force types from a single case are not
likely to generalize to the population as a whole.
Civilian Age
URS US captures civilian age as a range, rather than as a distinct number. The age of civilians
involved in the URSUS use of force incidents ranged from people aged 10-17 at the lower end,
to a person aged 76-80 at the higher end (see Table 3 of Appendix E). Nearly ninety percent
(89.2%) of the civilians were fifty years old or below. The age group with the highest number of
civilians that were involved in use of force incidents was the twenty-one to thirty years old group
(n = 262, 35.4%). Twenty civilians (2.7%) were minors aged 10-17 at the time of their respective
incidents.
The civilian age groups that had the highest proportion of their members receive each type of
force was as follows: 10-17 (n = 12, 66.7%) for lethal force, 51-60 (n = 29, 50%) for less lethal
force, above 60 (n = 7, 53.8%) for physical force, and 18-20 (n = 2, 3.8%) for threats of a firearm
(see Table 9 of Appendix E). However, each of these groups only accounts for a small portion,
less than three percent, of the civilians involved in the use of force incidents. Of the age groups
that accounted for at least ten percent of the civilians in the 2017 data, 41-50, received the
highest proportion oflethal (n = 58, 50.9%) and less lethal (n = 42, 36.8%) force, civilians aged
31-40 the highest proportion of physical force (n = 85, 42.7%), and civilians between 21-30
received the highest proportion of threats of a firearm (n = 3, 1.2%).
Perceived Mental Disability Status
Due to important distinctions from other identity groups in the way this data element is captured,
the Board recommends that readers reference the Known Limitations section of this chapter in
order to understand the way that civilians were classified for the perceived mental disability
status variable. In 2017, law enforcement perceived eighty-four (11.3%) civilians involved in the
reported use of force incidents to exhibit signs indicating that they had a mental disability (see
60
Table 5 of Appendix E). A higher proportion of civilians perceived to have a mental disability
received force across all categories than other civilians (see Table 8 of Appendix E).
II. REVIEW OF RESEARCH ON THE EFFICACY OF USE OF FORCE POLICIES IN
DECREASING DEADLY AND LESS LETHAL INCIDENTS
Research evaluating the relationship between administrative policy and use of force incidents in
various police departments suggests that contemporary use of force policies that contain concrete
instructions and limits on when certain types of force should be used correspond with a decrease
in deadly and less lethal force incidents. While these studies cannot prove that the change in
policy solely caused any fluctuation in rates of deadly and less lethal use of force incidents,
several did find that the two changes were correlated.
An early study on this topic analyzed data from the New York City Police Department in 1979
found that police shootings steadily decreased after the department implemented a policy
regulating shooting discretion in 1972. 203 Importantly, the study did not observe an increase in
officer injury or death in conjunction with new policy changes.204 Similar analysis of the
Philadelphia Police Department's administrative policy on the use of deadly force completed in
2000 found that on-duty police shootings decreased after the department implemented
restrictions that limited an officer's discretion to use deadly force in 1980. 205 This new policy re
introduced deadly force restrictions that were in place within the department from June 1973 to
December 1974. Specifically, the policy implemented in 1980 directed officers to use deadly
force only in circumstances where necessary to protect human life, when no other alternative
exists, to detain fleeing felons known to be in possession of a deadly weapon that they either
threatened to use or have used, or to detain fleeing felons who have committed forcible
felonies. 206
Another recent analysis of the relationship between police agency policies and rates of officer
involved gun deaths found that agencies that require officers to report when an officer drew a
firearm had, on average, lower rates of officer involved shooting deaths when compared to
agencies that did not have this requirement. 207
Sam Sinyangwe, a data scientist who focuses his analysis on police best practices, presented, at
the June 2018 RIPA Board meeting, his findings on the relationship between use of force
policies and observed lethal use of force. force. 208 In his review of91 of the largest municipal
police departments in the country, he relayed the following:
203 Fyfe, Administrative Interventions on Police Shooting Discretion: An Empirical Examination (1979) 7 J. Brim. Just.
309, reprinted in Readings on Police Use of Deadly Force, p. 277-279.
204 Id. , p. 279.
205 White, Assessing the Impact ofA dministrative Policy on Use ofD eadly Force By On-and Off-Duty Police (2000)
Evaluation Review 24, 3, p. 307-314.
206 Id., p. 307-314.
207 Jennings and Rubado, Preventing the Use of Deadly Force: The Relationship between Police Agency Policies and
Rates of Officer-Involved Gun Deaths (2017), pp. 217-226.
208 Sam Sinyangwe presented to the Board in June of 2018. For additional information on this presentation, please see
https://oag.ca.gov/ab953/ Board
61
• Restrictive use of force policies were associated with fewer officer involved deaths
• Police departments with more restrictive use of force policies had fewer officer involved
deaths per population209
• Police departments with more restrictive use of force policies had fewer officer involved
deaths per 100,000 arrests.210
• Officers in departments with more restrictive use of force policies were less likely to die
in the line of duty
• Officers in departments with more restrictive use of force policies were less likely to be
assaulted in the line of duty
• Officers in departments with more restrictive use of force policies were approximately
as likely to sustain an injury during an assault.
A more recent 2017 assessment of the Seattle Police Department by the Seattle Police Monitor
revealed a nearly 11 percent decrease in use of force incidents after the department implemented
a policy with clear directives and prohibitions on certain types of force used.211 For example,
updated policy directs officers to use force that is proportional to the level of resistance provided
by the citizen and to de-escalate situations whenever safe to do so. 212 This study, however, did
not observe an increase in officer injury after their agency implemented new use of force
policies.213
Studies regarding the efficacy of these more contemporary and limited use of force policies, such
as the ones identified above, are an important yardstick to measure whether these contemporary
policies have their intended outcome-to reduce the number of force incidents without an
increase to civilian and officer injury or death. For example, the Seattle Police Monitor regularly
releases reports that include longitudinal quantitative and qualitative data analysis of police
practices to evaluate the effectiveness of policy changes.
Accordingly, it is essential for law enforcement agencies to continue to self-evaluate and
measure the effectiveness of their use of force policies. To accomplish this, agencies may
consider partnering with research organizations or academic institutions to evaluate outcomes if
and when agencies implement more restrictive use of force policies. This continued analysis may
result in ongoing revisions to policies, more training, improvements to organizational culture, or
other important interventions.
In future reports, as the Board begins to evaluate stop data reports, the Board may offer best
practices recommendations related to police stops and use of force.
209 Relevant for departments that had four or more of the eight restrictive use of force policies.
210 Relevant for departments that had six of the eight use of force policies under review.
211 Seattle Police Monitor, Ninth Systemic Assessment: Use of Force (2017), p. 30.
212 Id. p. 13-16
213 Id. p. 55-56.
62
CONCLUSION
The Board has come a long way since its inception over the past two and a half years, but there is
still a great deal of work that lays ahead. As you can see from this report, the Board members are
dedicated to identifying and addressing racial and identity profiling in California. The Board will
continue to work on creating actionable solutions to mitigate the harmful ramifications that racial
and identity profiling has upon our communities including law enforcement. The Board is
hopeful that through persistent collaboration, open and respectful dialogue, and continued
engagement with law enforcement and the community, strides will be made toward the
identification and elimination of racial and identity profiling in California. The Board will
continue to use the responsibilities bestowed upon it by the California Legislature to continually
build improved relationships and mutual trust and respect between law enforcement agencies and
the communities they serve.
63
APPENDIX A: RELEVANT LEGISLATION ENACTED IN 2018
In 2018, the State of California proposed and enacted several landmark pieces of legislation
related to police accountability. Below is a summary of several relevant bills, which were
enacted in 2018, and which are effective January 1, 2019.
SB 978214
This legislation requires law enforcement agencies to post their policies and procedures
online.
SB 1421215
This legislation modifies California's police confidentiality laws to allow public access to
records relating to firearms discharges or other serious uses of force and sustained on the job
sexual assault and dishonesty by officers. Records that must be released include investigative
reports; photographic, audio, and video evidence; transcripts or recordings of interviews;
autopsy reports; materials compiled and presented for review to the district attorney or to any
entity charged with determining whether to file criminal charges against an officer in
connection with an incident, or whether the officer's action was consistent with law and
agency policy for purposes of discipline or administrative action, or what discipline to
impose or corrective action to take; documents setting forth findings or recommended
findings; and copies of disciplinary records relating to the. Released records must be redacted
to remove personal data and to preserve the anonymity of complainants and witnesses.
Agencies may withhold records that are the subject of an active criminal or administrative
investigation.
AB 748216
This legislation establishes a standard for the release of body-worn camera footage of officer
involved shootings and other critical incidents by balancing privacy interests with the
public's interest in the footage. With exceptions for protecting privacy and the integrity of
pending investigations, the bill requires agencies to release footage within 45 days of an
officer-involved shooting or use of force that results in death or great bodily injury.
SB 923217
This legislation requires all law enforcement agencies and prosecutorial entities to adopt
regulations for conducting photo lineups and live lineups with eyewitnesses to ensure reliable
and accurate suspect identifications. The bill establishes minimum required standards for
conducting lineups, including recording the identification procedures.
214 Sen. Bill No. 978 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) § l-2.
215 Sen. Bill No. 1421 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) § l-5.
216 Assem. Bill No. 748 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) § l-2.
217 Sen. Bill No. 923 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) § 1-3.
64
AB 1584218
This legislation, which adds Section 625.4 to the Welfare and Institutions Code, places limits
on the collection and use of voluntary DNA reference samples from minors. Among other
things, the law requires written consent by the minor and approval by the minor's parent or
legal guardian. In addition, any agency that obtains a voluntary DNA reference sample
directly from a minor shall determine within two years whether the minor remains a suspect
in a criminal investigation. If the sample collected does not implicate the minor within two
years, the agency is required to expunge the sample from any databases or data banks in
which they have been entered. An agency shall make reasonable efforts to expunge such
samples if requested by the minor, unless the sample has implicated the minor in a criminal
investigation. A voluntary DNA reference sample taken from a minor shall not be searched,
analyzed, or compared to other DNA samples or profiles to investigate crimes other than the
investigation for which the sample was taken, unless permitted by a court order. The law
provides for penalties, including attorney's fees and costs, if an agency is found by clear and
convincing evidence to have maintained a practice of collecting voluntary DNA reference
samples directly from a minor in violation of this section. This law is limited to the voluntary
collection of DNA samples from a minor, and does not affect other laws that permit the
collection or use of DNA other circumstances.
218 Assem. Bill No. 1584 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) § 1.
65
APPENDIX B: COMPILED BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS
Racial and Identity Profiling Policies
1. Agencies Should Have a Clear Policy Devoted to the Prevention of Racial and Identity Profiling
Foundational to any bias-free policing policy should be the inclusion of a clear written policy
and procedure regarding an agency's commitment to identifying and eliminating racial and
identity profiling if and where it exists. Agencies should consider partnering with various
stakeholders and representatives of the community in developing this policy. Some of the
principles that agencies may wish to include in the policy are below.
• Agencies should create a separate policy dedicated to bias-free policing that expressly
prohibits racial and identity profiling. The policy should explicitly and strongly express
the agency's core values and expectations when it comes to bias-free policing.
• Sworn and non-sworn personnel should be directed to interact with all members of the
public in a professional, impartial, fair, respectful, and nondiscriminatory manner.
• All persons (i.e., both members of the public and agency personnel) should be treated
equally without regard to protected characteristics. California state civil rights laws should
be used as a guide for the characteristics that should be included within the policy. These
characteristics include, but are not limited to, race, color, ancestry, ethnicity, national
origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, mental disability,
and physical disability.
• Officers should be prohibited from using proxies for protected characteristics, including
language ability, geographic location, mode of transportation or manner of dress, among
others.
• The policy should clearly articulate when the consideration of race/ ethnicity, disability
and other protected characteristics is inappropriate in carrying out duties and when it is
legitimate policing to consider them, e.g., when a specific suspect description includes
race or other protected characteristics.
2. Policies Covering the Prevention of Racial and Identity Profiling Should Be Easily Accessible and
Well-Integrated into the Agency's Culture
• The policy should be accessible in many formats such as online, in person at the agency,
at other governmental and non-governmental locations, and from an officer or employee,
if requested.
• Agencies should develop and use a language assistance plan and policy that includes
protocols for interpretation (including Braille and American Sign Language) that is
tailored to particular settings ( e.g., interviews in jails or where person is otherwise in
custody, interactions at police stations, interactions with officers at stops, etc.).
• Bias-free policing principles should be integrated into management, policies and
procedures, job descriptions, recruitment, training, personnel evaluations, resource
deployment, tactics, and accountability systems.
66
• The policy should include cross references to other relevant policies from the agency
(such as civilian complaints, stops, use of force, training, etc.) and, where possible,
provide links to the text of those policies.
3. Policies Covering the Prevention of Racial and Identity Profiling Should Have Concrete Definitions to
Ensure Its Principles Are Consistently Applied
• The policy should include a robust list of definitions of key terms, protected classes and
characteristics, including but not limited to:
o racial or identity profiling o age
o bias-free policing o religion
o race o gender identity or expression
o color o sexual orientation
o ethnicity o mental disability
o national origin o physical disability
o ancestry
• "Racial or identity profiling" should be defined in accordance with California Penal Code
13519.4, subdivision (e), as follows:
o "the consideration of, or reliance on, to any degree, actual or perceived race,
color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression,
sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability in deciding which persons to
subject to a stop or in deciding upon the scope or substance of law enforcement
activities following a stop, except that an officer may consider or rely on
characteristics listed in a specific suspect description. The activities include, but
are not limited to, traffic or pedestrian stops, or actions during a stop, such as
asking questions, frisks, consensual and non-consensual searches ofa person or
any property, seizing any property, removing vehicle occupants during a traffic
stop, issuing a citation, and making an arrest. "
4. Policies Covering the Prevention of Racial and Identity Profiling Should Include a Component on the
Limited Circumstances in Which Characteristics of an Individual may be Considered
The policy should state that:
• Officers may take into account protected characteristics of an individual in establishing
reasonable suspicion or probable cause, only when the characteristic is part of a specific
suspect description based on trustworthy and relevant information that links a specific
person to a particular unlawful incident.
• Officers must be able to articulate specific facts that support their use of personal
characteristics in establishing reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
• Officers may consider relevant personal characteristics of an individual when
determining whether to identify services designed for individuals with those
characteristics (e.g., behavioral crisis, homelessness, drug use, etc.).
5. Policies Covering the Prevention of Racial and Identity Profiling Should Include a Component on
Communication with the Community
67
The policy should state that:
• All employees should treat all members of the public with courtesy, professionalism, and
respect. Employees should not use harassing, intimidating, derogatory, or prejudiced
language particularly when related to an individual's actual or perceived protected
characteristics.
• Officers should listen to the member of the public's questions or concerns without
interruption and then directly address the questions the person may have regarding the
stop, including an explanation of options for traffic citation disposition if relevant.
• When conducting stops, officers should introduce themselves to the person being stopped
and provide an explanation for the stop as soon as soon as reasonable and practicable
(ideally before asking the driver for his or her license and registration).
6. Policies Covering the Prevention of Racial and Identity Profiling Should Include a Component on
Training
• All agency personnel, including dispatchers and non-sworn personnel, should be
educated on biases, both implicit and overt, and expected to manage them.
• All officers should be provided with training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope,
and type on investigatory stops, searches, and arrests.
• The training should be created in consultation with law enforcement experts and
stakeholders, provided on a regular basis, and consistently evaluated and updated.
7. Policies Covering the Prevention of Racial and Identity Profiling Should Include a Component on
Data Collection and Analysis
• Agencies should consider analyzing the data they have collected, including data collected
and reported to the Department regarding stops and civilian complaints.
• Data should be reviewed to identify exceptional and deficient conduct, trends,
unexplained disparities, compliance with policy, and training needs and opportunities.
• Data should be reviewed when relevant for investigating complaints of bias.
8. Policies Covering the Prevention of Racial and Identity Profiling Should Include a Component That
Requires Accountability and Adherence to the Policy
• All agency personnel, including dispatchers and non-sworn personnel, are responsible for
knowing and complying with the policy. Employees who engage in, ignore, or condone
bias-based policing should be subject to discipline.
• The policy should include information on the procedure for making a complaint and
handling a bias-based policing allegation.
• Officers must report instances of biased policing that they witness or are otherwise aware
of. The policy should emphasize that all employees share the responsibility of preventing
bias-based policing in the agency.
• The policy should prohibit retaliation against any person, law enforcement or civilian,
who alleges biased policing.
Supervisory Review
68
Supervising, directing, overseeing, and reviewing the daily activities of police officers, is
essential in ensuring that the tenets of bias-free policing are integrated fully into the law
enforcement agency and its culture. Below are some recommended best practices for inclusion in
policies regarding supervisory review, as well as some systems and technologies that can serve
as necessary tools in the supervision and accountability process:
Supervisors should:
• Establish and enforce the expectation that officers will police in a manner that is
consistent with the U.S. and California Constitutions and federal and state laws, as well
as internal policies.
• Provide leadership, counseling, direction, and support to officers as needed.
• Lead efforts to engage individuals and groups and ensure that officers are working
actively to engage the community and increase public trust.
• Review documentation, including video from body-worn cameras as appropriate, of
investigatory stops, detentions, searches, and arrests for completeness, accuracy, and
adherence to law and department policy.
• Take corrective action, require training, or refer for discipline where appropriate.
• Identify training and professional development needs and opportunities.
• Highlight areas where officers are engaging appropriately and effectively and use those
examples during roll call and other training opportunities.
Consider the use of early identification, warning, or risk management systems to contribute to
effective and efficient supervisory review.
Civilian Complaint Policies and Procedures
1. Agencies Should Have Civilian Complaint Policies and Procedures That Contain Basic Principles
• Agencies should have an accessible, fair, and transparent complaint process. The process
should be set forth in writing and made widely and permanently available within the
agency and to the public. All complaints should be accepted, whether in person, in
writing, over the telephone, anonymously, or on behalf of another individual.
• Agencies should develop an easily understandable and usable complaint form that
individuals may use when filing a complaint regarding alleged personnel misconduct.
This form should be available online as well as in writing at a variety of governmental
and community-centered locations and should be made available in multiple languages.
The form should not contain any language that could reasonably be construed as
discouraging the filing of a complaint.
• Agencies should document and investigate all complaints of alleged personnel
misconduct, in a thorough, unbiased, timely manner, and as practicable. The standards for
review should be clearly delineated in policies, trainings, and procedures featuring
detailed examples to ensure proper application.
• All complainants, subject personnel, and witnesses should be treated objectively and
fairly.
• The complaint policy should encourage individuals to come forward rather than
discourage or intimidate complainants. Retaliation against any person who reports
alleged misconduct or cooperates with an investigation should be expressly prohibited.
69
• All sworn and non-sworn law enforcement employees should be sufficiently trained on
the complaint policy, procedure, and requirements.
2. Policies on Civilian Complaints Should Be Easily Accessible and Well Communicated to the
Community
• Complaint procedures and forms should be made available in multiple languages and at a
location within the agency's office that is easily accessible to the public. In addition, the
procedures and complaint forms should be available online and in writing at a variety of
governmental and community-centered public locations.
• Agency personnel should have complaint forms in their patrol vehicles so that complaints
can be addressed immediately in the field. Agencies may consider distributing business
cards with the personnel's name, rank, and contact information to assist the public in
lodging complaints. They may also consider requiring supervisors to respond to the field
to take complaints.
• The agency should contact the complainant as soon as possible with a verification that the
complaint has been received and that it is being reviewed.
• Reports of complaint statistics should be made available to the public on a regular basis.
3. Any Policy on Civilian Complaints Should Contain Details on the Intake, Filing, and Tracking Process
• Agencies should establish written policies and procedures for accepting, processing and
investigating complaints, ensuring fairness to the subject personnel and complainants.
• All complaints and their dispositions should be appropriately documented and tracked,
preferably electronically.
• All agency personnel, including dispatcher and non-sworn personnel, should be trained to
properly handle complaint intake, including how to provide complaint material and
information, the consequences for failing to properly take complaints, and strategies for
turning the complaint process into positive police-civilian interaction.
• An agency's complaint procedures should be explained to the complainant and the
complainant should be advised where and with whom the complaint may be filed.
• All complaints should be given a unique number for tracking purposes.
4. Policies on Civilian Complaints Should Contain Details on the Investigation Process
• Agencies should clearly detail the investigation procedure for complaints to ensure all
complaints are appropriately and objectively reviewed.
• Any investigation should be completed by someone of higher rank than the person who is
the subject of the investigation.
• All investigations should adhere to written timelines from the date the complaint was
filed.
• Agencies should promptly identify, collect, and consider all relevant evidence, including
audio or video recordings. Agencies should not seek personal information that is not
necessary to process the complaint, and which may discourage submission ( e.g., social
security number, driver's license information, etc.).
70
• Agencies should take all reasonable steps to locate and interview all witnesses, including
civilian witnesses. Interviews should be conducted in a timely, respectful, and unbiased
manner. All agent and witness statements should be objectively evaluated.
• If the complainant cannot identify the subject officer's name, all reasonable efforts to
identify the officer should be made.
• Agencies should accept all complaints regardless of when the alleged incident occurred.
Depending upon the age and severity of the allegations, the agency may or may not need
to take action, but should at minimum accept the complaint and conduct an initial review.
• Agencies should adhere to a stated time limit on how quickly the investigation process is
commenced after receiving a complaint and deadlines to ensure timely resolution.
• Agencies should clearly define investigation disposition categories and make this
information available to the public.
• The agency should regularly assess the effectiveness of the complaint process and
determine ifthere is a need for a re-evaluation of existing policies, procedures, or
trainings.
• Agencies should consider the appropriateness of independent oversight models such as a
civilian review Board or independent auditor.
• Agencies should document all investigation findings and keep all complaints available
for internal analysis and audits for at least five years.
• Agencies should consider conducting regular, targeted, and random integrity audits.
71
Racial and Identity Profiling Training
1. Trainings on Racial and Identity Profiling Should Incorporate Basic Principles
The training should:
• Begin with providing all trainees with relevant definitions and scientific research,
including a sufficient understanding and definitions of implicit and explicit bias and
stereotyping. The training should also emphasize that a great deal of human behavior and
brain processing occurs without conscious perception and that all members of society
frequently act on their biases. The training should present scientific peer-reviewed
research on bias and how it can influence on behavior.
• Be developed in partnership with academic institutions or consultants with the requisite
expertise to assist in developing and implementing trainings. These institutions or
consultants should have documented experience conducting such racial and identity
profiling trainings for institutional actors (and, ideally, helping design successful
interventions).
• Provide all agency employees with the knowledge and skills to identify bias and
minimize its impact upon law enforcement activities and interactions with members of
the public.
• Reflect the agency's commitment to procedural justice, bias-free policing, and
community policing.
• Instill in all officers the expectation they will police diligently and have an understanding
of and commitment to the rights of all individuals they encounter. This includes
reinforcing that protecting civil rights is a central part of the police mission and is
essential to effective policing. All employees should be made aware of the requirements
of the United States and California Constitutions and relevant federal, state, and local
laws related to equal protection and unlawful discrimination.
• Provide all trainees with a sufficient understanding and definition of implicit and explicit
bias and stereotyping emphasizing that all members of society frequently act on their
biases. The training should present scientific peer-reviewed research on bias and its
influence on behavior.
• Provide officers with information regarding the existence of and how to access all health
and wellness programs, physical fitness programs, stress management tools, confidential
crisis counseling, or other support services available to address the heavy burdens placed
on today's police officers. Research suggests that stress and having to make quick
decisions under pressure can often lead to people relying on stereotypes. In addition,
training should discuss methods, strategies, and techniques to reduce a reliance on
unguided discretion in making stops.
• Utilize adult learning approaches, including experimental learning and realistic scenario
based training to provide officers with opportunities to develop skills in realistic settings;
this includes learning by doing, and refining their understanding of policies, expectations,
or concepts by applying them to the types of situations they may come across in their
day-to-day work.
• Include an assessment of whether officers comprehend the material taught.
72
• Complete and consistent training records for all trainings should be maintained for all
agency employees. Agency-wide training analysis should be regularly completed and
trainings should be consistently reviewed and updated.
• Agencies should consider integrating a feedback loop or "check-ins" among trainees in
between trainings to allow officers to reflect on and apply what they learned in the
trainings to their daily lives.
2. Training on Racial and Identity Profiling Should Be Well Organized and Delivered Regularly
• Training should be relatively short and frequently provided (for example, agencies should
consider offering a series of two-hour trainings several times a year rather than an eight
hour training every four or five years).
• Training should include members of the community who are knowledgeable about
various communities and local issues, including representatives knowledgeable on issues
of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, gender
identity, and disability.
• Consider expanding training options to include courses on topics such as power
imbalance, statistics, and methods for effective supervision.
• Trainings should be evaluated for their impact on police-community relations.
3. Training on Racial and Identity Profiling Should Address Communication and Community
Relationships
The training should:
• Address the benefits of and means to achieve effective community engagement, including
how to establish formal partnerships and actively engage community organizations and
diverse groups within the community to form positive relationships. This could include
examples of successful partnerships and engagement.
• Cover cultural competency, cultural awareness, and sensitivity, including the impact of
historical trauma on police-community interactions and locally relevant incidents and
history.
• Include effective communications skills, including how to recognize and overcome
communication obstacles.
4. Training on Racial and Identity Profiling Should Include the Tenets of Procedural Justice
The training should:
• Emphasize the core tenets of procedural justice ( an approach to policing that emphasizes
the importance of treating everyone equally and with respect).
o Community members should be given a voice and be allowed to tell their story
and respectfully interact.
o The law must be applied equally to all members of the community.
o Officers must show respect and demonstrate trustworthiness.
• Emphasize the importance of how people are treated during the course of an interaction
as well as the outcome of that interaction.
73
• Cover various threats to procedural justice, including officer stress, time pressure, and
poor health, as well as poor historical relations between police and communities.
• Cover various procedural, behavioral, and psychological strategies to reduce threats to
procedural justice and improve police-community relations.
• Feature police and community perspectives.
5. Training on Racial and Identity Profiling Should Cover Implicit Bias
The training should:
• Define implicit bias as "thoughts or feelings about people that we are unaware of and can
influence our own and others' actions."
• Define stereotyping.
• Discuss how bias manifests in everyone, even well-intentioned people.
• Discuss varied sources of implicit bias.
• Present a series of empirical studies on bias in an easily understandable manner.
• Discuss how bias might manifest in work and decision-making.
• Highlight positive strategies for mitigating bias and improving police-community
relations.
• Include experiential learning techniques to apply the training to real-life scenarios.
• Discuss how to identify officers who may be manifesting bias and how to respond.
Include self-evaluation strategies for identifying bias in oneself.
• Discuss how to talk openly about bias with individuals and groups.
74
APPENDIX C: RIPA TEMPLATE BASED ON THE FINAL REGULATIONS
Additional data values for the stop of a student in a K-12 public school are listed in red.
1. Originating Agency Identifier (prepopulated field)
2. Date, Time, and Duration of Stop
Date: (e.g., 01/01/19)
Start Time (approx.): (e.g. 1530)
Duration of Stop (approx.): (e.g. 30 min.)
3. Location
• Report one (listed in order of preference): block number and street name; closest
intersection; highway and closest highway exit. If none of these are available, the
officer may report a road marker, landmark, or other description, except cannot report
street address if location is a residence.
• City:_ ______
• Check here to indicate stop is of a student at K-12 public school: ____
o Name of-12 Public School ______
4. Perceived Race or Ethnicity of Person Stopped (select all that apply)
• Asian
• Black/A frican American
• Hispanic/Latino(a)
• Middle Eastern or South Asian
• Native American
• Pacific Islander
• White
5. Perceived Gender of Person Stopped (may select one from options 1-4 AND option 5, if
applicable, or just option 5)
I. Male
2. Female
3. Transgender man/boy
4. Transgender woman/girl
5. Gender nonconforming
6. Person Stopped Perceived to be LGBT (Yes/No) ("Yes" must be selected if"Transgender"
was selected for "Perceived Gender")
7. Perceived Age of Person Stopped (input the perceived, approximate age)
8. Person Stopped Has Limited or No English Fluency (check here if Yes_)
9. Perceived or Known Disability of Person Stopped (select all that apply)
o Deafness or difficulty hearing
o Speech impairment or limited use oflanguage
o Blind or limited vision
o Mental health condition
o Intellectual or developmental disability, including dementia
o Disability related to hyperactivity or impulsive behavior
o Other disability
o None
75
10. Reason for Stop (select one -the primary reason for the stop only)
o Traffic violation
• Specific code (CJIS offense table; select drop down) and
• Type of violation (select one)
• Moving violation
• Equipment violation
• Non-moving violation, including registration violation
o Reasonable suspicion that person was engaged in criminal activity
• Specific Code (drop down; select primary if known) and
• Basis (select all applicable)
• Officer witnessed commission of a crime
• Matched suspect description
• Witness or victim identification of suspect at the scene
• Carrying suspicious object
• Actions indicative of casing a victim or location
• Suspected of acting as a lookout
• Actions indicative of a drug transaction
• Actions indicative of engaging in a violent crime
• Other reasonable suspicion of a crime
o Known to be on parole/probation/PRCS/mandatory supervision
o Knowledge of outstanding arrest warrant/wanted person
o Investigation to determine whether person was truant
o Consensual encounter resulting in search
o Possible conduct warranting discipline under Education Code sections 48900,
48900.2, 48900.3, 48900.4, and 48900.7 (select specific Educ. Code section &
subdivision)
o Determine whether student violated school policy
A brief explanation is required regarding the reason for the stop and must provide additional
detail beyond the general data values selected (250-character maximum).
11. Stop Made in Response to a Call for Service (Yes/No) (Select "Yes" only if stop was made
in response to call for service, radio call, or dispatch)
12A. Actions Taken by Officer(s) During Stop (select all that apply)
o Person removed from vehicle by order
o Person removed from vehicle by physical contact
o Field sobriety test conducted
o Curbside detention
o Handcuffed or flex cuffed
o Patrol car detention
o Canine removed from vehicle or used to search
o Firearm pointed at person
o Firearm discharged or used
o Electronic control device used
o Impact projectile discharged or used (e.g. blunt impact projectile, rubber bullets or bean
bags)
o Canine bit or held person
o Baton or other impact weapon used
o Chemical spray used (e.g. pepper spray, mace, tear gas, or other chemical irritants)
o Other physical or vehicle contact
76
o Person photographed
o Asked for consent to search person
• Consent given
• Consent not given
o Search of person was conducted
o Asked for consent to search property
• Consent given
• Consent not given
o Search of property was conducted
o Property was seized
o Vehicle impound
o Admission or written statement obtained from student
o None
12B. Basis for Search (if search of person/property/both was conducted; select all that apply)
o Consent given
o Officer safety/safety of others
o Search warrant
o Condition of parole/probation/PRCS/mandatory supervision
o Suspected weapons
o Visible contraband
o Odor of contraband
o Canine detection
o Evidence of crime
o Incident to arrest
o Exigent circumstances/emergency
o Vehicle inventory (for search of property only)
o Suspected violation of school policy
A brief explanation is required regarding the basis for the search and must provide additional detail
beyond the general data values selected (250-character maximum). This field is not required if basis
for search is "condition of parole/probation/PRCS/mandatory supervision."
12C. Contraband or Evidence Discovered, if any ( during search/in plain view; select all that apply)
o None
o Firearm(s)
o Ammunition
o Weapon( s) other than a firearm
o Drugs/narcotics
o Alcohol
o Money
o Drug paraphernalia
o Suspected stolen property
o Cell phone(s) or electronic device(s)
o Other contraband or evidence
12D. Basis for Property Seizure (if property was seized; select all that apply)
o Safekeeping as allowed by law/statute
o Contraband
o Evidence
o Impound of vehicle
o Abandoned property
77
o Suspected violation of school policy
Type of Property Seized (select all that apply)
o Firearm(s)
o Ammunition
o Weapon( s) other than a firearm
o Drugs/narcotics
o Alcohol
o Money
o Drug paraphernalia
o Suspected stolen property
o Cell phone(s) or electronic device(s)
o Vehicle
o Other contraband or evidence
13. Result of Stop (select all that apply)
o No action
o Warning (verbal or written): Code/ordinance cited (drop down)
o Citation for infraction: Code/ ordinance cited ( drop down)
o In-field cite and release: Code/ordinance cited ( drop down)
o Custodial arrest pursuant to outstanding warrant
o Custodial arrest without warrant: Code/ordinance cited (drop down)
o Field Interview Card completed
o Noncriminal transport or caretaking transport (including transport by officer,
transport by ambulance, or transport by another agency)
o Contacted parent/legal guardian or other person responsible for the minor
o Psychiatric hold (Welfare & Inst. Code,§§ 5150, 5585.20.)
o Referred to U.S. Department of Homeland Security ( e.g., ICE, CBP)
o Referral to school administrator
o Referral to school counselor or other support staff
14. Officer's Identification (1.D.) Number (prepopulatedfield)
15. Officer's Years of Experience (total number of years worked as a peace officer)
16. Type of Assignment of Officer (select one)
o Patrol, traffic enforcement, field operations
o Gang enforcement
o Compliance check ( e.g. parole/PRCS/probation/mandatory supervision)
o Special events ( e.g. sports, concerts, protests)
o Roadblock or DUI sobriety checkpoint
o Narcotics/vice
o Task force
o K-12 public school, including school resource officer or school police officer
o Investigative/detective
o Other (manually specify type of assignment)
78
APPENDIX D: METHODS OF SUBMITTING STOP DATA TO THE
DEPARTMENT
1. The Department's Web-Based Application
The Department developed a web-based application that agencies can use to collect and submit
stop data using a computer, smart phone, tablet, or mobile data terminals (MDTs) in patrol cars.
The Department developed this web-based application, in part, to ensure that smaller agencies
without adequate resources would not be unduly burdened by the new stop data requirements and
would be able to fully comply. With this application, officers can either input information about
a stop immediately after the stop takes place or once they return to the station.
Of the Wave 1 agencies, as of November 1, 2018, the San Francisco Police Department is using
the Department-hosted web application. The Fresno Police Department and the San Jose Police
Department, which will begin collecting stop data on January 1, 2019 as part of Wave 2, also
plan to use the Department-hosted web application.
The Department-hosted web application has several features that ensure the quality of the data,
while making it efficient to use. To support the varying work environments and constant
demands on officers, the system will save data as it is entered on the officer's device. For
example, if an officer must respond to an urgent call for service and is interrupted, the record
will be stored with a status of "in-progress" and can be completed later during their shift. An
on line Dashboard summarizes the status of each officer's stop data records, and will flag any that
are incomplete so that officers are prompted to complete them.
To ensure the uniformity of the data being collected, as information about a stop is being entered,
any blank or invalid data fields will return immediate errors for the officer to correct. This
mechanism prevents an officer from submitting incomplete or invalid entries. An officer will
thus not be able to advance to the next page until he or she submits valid data, i.e., has selected
one or more of the choices provided to respond to each data element and has not either left that
element blank or submitted the wrong code for the element.
Agencies that use the Department's web-based application will select one of two workflows to
submit their records:
• Option 1: Officer enters data, and submits the record immediately and directly to the
Department by selecting "submit" on the application.
• Option 2: After the stop is entered by an officer, it is routed to a supervisor for review
prior to submission to the Department.
79
OPTION 1: Officer Submits Records Directly to the DOJ
>
8
111 11 OPTION 1
Officer collects stop data Record submitted to
theDOJ
OPTION 2: Records are Sent to a Reviewer, and Then Routed to the DOJ
Prior to submission to the
8 > DOJ, the record is sent for >
secondary review
OPTIONZ ~II I OPTIONZ
Officer collects stop data Record submitted to
theDOJ
Please note - In the DOJ-hosted web application, the Reviewer has limited access to the record. For example, perception
data fields can not be edited. The main purpose of this feature is for the agency to ensure no personally identifying
information of the person stopped or others is included in the text fields for Location, Reason for Stop and/or Basis for
Search.
When an agency elects to use the review process (Option 2 shown above), designated
administrators from the agency will review the record prior to submitting it to the Department.
This helps ensure reported data is accurate, complete and does not contain any personally
identifiable information of the person stopped, or other information exempt from disclosure
pursuant to Government Code section 12525.5, subdivision (d). However, some fields remain
locked and are not editable, even during this administrative review. Specifically, the locked
fields are:
Agency ORI Number
Officer's Identification Number
Date of Stop
Time of Stop
Perceived Race or Ethnicity of Person Stopped
Perceived Gender of Person Stopped
Perceived Age of Person Stopped
Person Stopped Perceived to be LGBT
Perceived or Known Disability of Person Stopped
Person Stopped Has Limited or No English Fluency
80
The initial data fields describing the stop (Agency ORI Number, Officer's Identification
Number, Date of Stop and Time of Stop) are locked because subsequent edits could circumvent
the validation that protects against duplicate records. All of the fields related to an officer's
perception of the person stopped are also locked since those perceptions would be specific to the
reporting officer and not something that a second party could later verify or correct.
The Department's web-based application stores all records indefinitely. If the reporting agency
would like to access their records, reports are available on-line, and copies of the records can be
downloaded.
2. Web Services
Another option for data collection and submission involves a "system-to-system web service."219
Agencies that use this method will collect their data in a local system and then submit the data to
the Department. The records will be stored locally, with a copy of records transmitted to the
Department.
As of November 1, 2018, the following first wave agencies are using Web Services: California
Highway Patrol, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, San Bernardino County Sheriffs
Department, San Diego County Sheriff's Department, and San Diego Police Department.
3. Secured File Transfer Protocol {SFTP)
SFTP is similar to Web Services in that agencies collect the data in a local repository and then
submit that data to the Department. Agencies that select SFTP are permitted to submit batch
uploads of stop data, in a number of file formats, including Excel. 220
As ofNovember 1, 2018, the following first wave agencies are using SFTP: Los Angeles Police
Department and Riverside County Sheriffs Department.
219Cal. Code Regs., tit. 11, div. 1, ch. 19 § 999.228, subd. (b).
220Cal. Code Regs., tit. 11, div. 1, ch. 19 § 999.228, subd. (b).
81
APPENDIX E: URSUS USE OF FORCE TABLES
Table 1
Civilian Race/Ethnicity Distribution
Race/Ethnicity n Percent
American Indian or 9 1.2
Alaskan Native
Asian 8 I.I
Asian Indian 2 0.3
Black 143 19.3
Hawaiian/Pacific 3 0.4
Is lander/Samoan
Hispanic 325 43 .9
Other 16 2.2
White 224 30.2
Multiple Race/Ethnicity 3 0.4
Unknown 8 1.1
Total 741 100.0
Table 2
Deceased Civilians by Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity Deceased Civilians
American Indian or Alaskan Native 2 (1.2%)
Asian 3 (1.7%)
Asian Indian 1 (0.6%)
Black 26 (15.1%)
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander/Samoan 1 (0.6%)
Hispanic 81 (47.1 %)
Other 2 (1.2%)
White 55 (32.0%)
Multiple Race/Ethnicity 1 (0.6%)
Total 172 (100.0%)
82
Table 3
Civilian Age Distribution
Age Group n Percent
10-17 20 2.7
18-20 55 7.4
21-30 262 35.4
31-40 205 27.7
41-50 119 16.1
51 -60 58 7.8
61 and over 14 1.9
Unknown 8 1.1
Total 741 100.0
Table 4
Civilian Gender Distribution
Gender n Percent
Female 53 7.2
Male 679 91.6
Transgender 1 0.1
Unknown 8 1.1
Total 741 100.0
Table 5
Civilian Perceived Mental Disability Distribution
Disability n Percent
No 649 87.6
Yes 85 11.5
Unknown 7 0.9
Total 741 100.0
83
Table 6
Type ofF orce Received by Civilian Race/Ethnicity
Race or Lethal Less Physical Threat of Group Total
Ethnicity Lethal Firearm
American Indian 4 2 3 0 8
or Alaskan (50.0%) (25.0%) (37.5%) (0.0%)
Native
Asian 6 0 3 0 8
(75.0%) (0.0%) (37.5%) (0.0%)
Asian Indian 1 2 0 0 2
(50.0%) (100.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%)
Black 57 45 66 3 140
(40.7%) (32.1%) (47.1%) (2.1%)
Hawaiian/Pacific 2 1 1 0 3
Islander/Samoan (66.7%) (33.3%) (33.3%) (0.0%)
Hispanic 152 114 122 4 310
(49.0%) (36.8%) (39.4%) (1.3%)
Other 10 3 4 0 14
(71.4%) (21.4%) (28.6%) (0.0%)
White 107 74 83 2 217
(49.3%) (34.1%) (38.2%) (0.9%)
Force Category 339 241 282 9 702
Total
Percentages in parentheses refer to how many individuals received that use of force. A single individual can
receive multiple uses of force. This table does not include cases where a civilian's race or ethnicity is unknown.
Table 7
Type ofF orce Received by Civilian Gender
Gender Lethal Less Lethal Physical Threat of Group
Firearm Total
Female 15 16 30 1 49
(30.6%) (32.7%) (61.2%) (2.0%)
Male 327 225 251 8 655
(49.9%) (34.4%) (38.3%) (1.2%)
Transgender 0 1 1 0 1
(0.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (0.0%)
Force 342 242 282 9 705
Category
Total
Percentages in parentheses refer to how many individuals received that use of force. A single individual can
receive multiple uses of force. This table does not include cases where a civilian's gender is unknown.
84
Table 8
Type ofF orce Received by Whether Civilian was Perceived to have a Mental Disability
Has Lethal Less Lethal Physical Threat of Group Total
Disability Firearm
No 301 207 248 7 623
(48.3%) (33.2%) (39.8%) (1.1%)
Yes 42 35 34 2 83
(50.6%) (42.2%) (41.0%) (2.4%)
Force 343 242 282 9 706
Category
Total
Percentages in parentheses refer to how many individuals received that use of force. A single individual can
receive multiple uses of force. This table does not include cases where the officer perception ofa civilian's
mental disability status is unknown.
Table 9
Type ofF orce Received by Civilian Age
Age Lethal Less Lethal Physical Threat of Group
Group Firearm Total
10-17 12 1 7 0 18
66.7% 5.6% 38.9% 0.0%
18-20 28 16 21 2 53
52.8% 30.2% 39.6% 3.8%
21-30 123 79 96 3 250
49.2% 31.6% 38.4% 1.2%
31-40 89 71 85 2 199
44.7% 35.7% 42.7% 1.0%
41-50 58 42 47 1 114
50.9% 36.8% 41.2% 0.9%
51-60 27 29 19 1 58
46.6% 50.0% 32.8% 1.7%
61 and 5 4 7 0 13
over 38.5% 30.8% 53.8% 0.0%
Force 342 242 282 9 705
Category
Total
Percentages in parentheses refer to how many individuals received that use of force. A single individual can
receive multiple uses of force. This table does not include cases where a civilian's age range is unknown.
85
Table 10
Civilian Injury Level Distribution
Injury Level n Percent
Injury 51 6.9
Serious bodily injury 390 52.6
Death 172 23.2
Uninjured 120 16.2
Unknown 8 1.1
Total 741 100.0
Table 11
Civilian Custody Outcome Distribution
Custody Outcome n Percent
Cited and released 21 2.8
Deceased 163 22.0
Fled 8 1.1
In custody ( other) 472 63.7
In custody (W&I section 5150) 15 2.0
Suicide 6 0.8
None of these 56 7.6
Total 741 100.0
Table 12
Civilians who Assaulted Officers
Assaulted Officer n Percent
No 225 30.4
Yes 516 69.6
Total 741 100.0
86